Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines - re-toxification - efficient way to kill gut bacteria - !!!

[Guest guest]

*Here is another example of pro-investor pseudo-regulatory agencies

approving products even as early studies demontrate the products'

dangers. Shall we chant the mantra, No one knows what's causing the

various epidemics? If so, Delusions'R Us.

ps: This post may be forwarded hither and yon.

* * * * * * * *

Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines*

* * By M.

Spilling the Beans/Institute for Responsible Technology

Straight to the Source

<http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/EducationalMaterials/SignUpforNewsletter\

/index.cfm>*

http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_637.cfm

Pioneer Hi-Bred's website boasts that their genetically modified (GM)

Liberty Link corn survives doses of Liberty herbicide, which would

normally kill corn. The reason, they say, is that the herbicide becomes

" inactive in the corn plant. " They fail to reveal, however, that after

you eat the GM corn, some inactive herbicide may become reactivated

inside your gut and cause a toxic reaction. In addition, a gene that was

inserted into the corn might transfer into the DNA of your gut bacteria,

producing long-term effects. These are just a couple of the many

potential side-effects of GM crops that critics say put the public at risk.

Herbicide tolerance (HT) is one of two basic traits common to nearly all

GM crops. About 71% of the crops are engineered to resist herbicide,

including Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) and Roundup (glyphosate).

About 18% produce their own pesticide. And 11% do both. The four major

GM crops are soy, corn, cotton and canola, all of which have approved

Liberty- and Roundup-tolerant varieties. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops

are a particularly big money-maker for biotech companies, because when

farmers buy HT seeds, they are required to purchase the companies' brand

of herbicide as well. In addition, HT crops dramatically increase the

use of herbicide, which further contributes to the companies' bottom line.

There are no required safety tests for HT crops in the US-if the biotech

companies declare them fit for human consumption, the FDA has no further

questions. But many scientists and consumers remain concerned, and the

Liberty Link varieties pose unique risks.

Liberty herbicide (also marketed as Basta, Ignite, Rely, Finale and

Challenge) can kill a wide variety of plants. It can also kill bacteria,

fungi and insects, and has toxic effects on humans and animals. The

herbicide is derived from a natural antibiotic, which is produced by two

strains of a soil bacterium. In order that the bacteria are not killed

by the antibiotic that they themselves create, the strains also produce

specialized enzymes which transform the antibiotic to a non-toxic form

called NAG (N-acetyl-L-glufosinate). The specialized enzymes are called

the pat protein and the bar protein, which are produced by the pat gene

and the bar gene, respectively. The two genes are inserted into the DNA

of GM crops, where they produce the enzymes in every cell. When the

plant is sprayed, Liberty's solvents and surfactants transport

glufosinate ammonium throughout the plant, where the enzymes convert it

primarily into NAG. Thus, the GM plant detoxifies the herbicide and

lives, while the surrounding weeds die.

The problem is that the NAG, which is not naturally present in plants,

remains there and accumulates with every subsequent spray. Thus, when we

eat these GM crops, we consume NAG. Once the NAG is inside our digestive

system, some of it may be re-transformed back into the toxic herbicide.

In rats fed NAG, for example, 10% of it was converted back to

glufosinate by the time it was excreted in the feces. Another rat study

found a 1% conversion. And with goats, more than one-third of what was

excreted had turned into glufosinate.

It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or

rectum, are responsible for this re-toxification. Although these parts

of the gut do not absorb as many nutrients as other sections, rats fed

NAG did show toxic effects. This indicates that the herbicide had been

regenerated, was biologically active, and had been assimilated by the

rats. A goat study also confirmed that some of the herbicide regenerated

from NAG ended up in the kidneys, liver, muscle, fat and milk.

More information about the impact of this conversion is presumably found

in " Toxicology and Metabolism Studies " on NAG, submitted to European

regulators by AgrEvo (now Bayer CropScience). These unpublished studies

were part of the application seeking approval of herbicide-tolerant

canola. When the UK government's Pesticide Safety Directorate attempted

to provide some of this information to an independent researcher, they

were blocked by the company's threats of legal action. The studies

remained private.

Toxicity of the herbicide

Glufosinate ammonium is structurally similar to a natural amino acid

called glutamic acid, which can stimulate the central nervous system

and, in excess levels, cause the death of nerve cells in the brain. The

common reactions to glufosinate poisoning in humans include

unconsciousness, respiratory distress and convulsions. One study also

linked the herbicide with a kidney disorder. These reactions typically

involve large amounts of the herbicide. It is unclear if the amount

converted from GM crops would accumulate to promote such responses or if

there are low dose chronic effects.

Perhaps a more critical question may be whether infants or fetuses are

impacted with smaller doses. A January 2006 report issued by the

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Inspector General said

that studies demonstrate that certain pesticides easily enter the brain

of young children and fetuses, and can destroy cells. That same report,

however, stated that the EPA lacks standard evaluation protocols for

measuring the toxicity of pesticides on developing nervous systems.

Scientists at the agency also charged that " risk assessments cannot

state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus,

infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their

neurological development. " Furthermore, three trade unions representing

9,000 EPA workers claimed that the evaluation techniques used at the

agency were highly politicized. According to a May 24, 2006 letter to

the EPA's administrator, the unions cited " political pressure exerted by

Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide

industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and

agricultural community. "

Although the EPA may be hampered in its evaluations, research has

nonetheless accumulated which suggests that glufosinate carries

significant risks for the next generation. According to Yoichiro Kuroda,

the principal investigator in the Japanese project entitled " Effects of

Endocrine Disrupters on the Developing Brain, " glufosinate is like a

" mock neurotransmitter. " Exposure of a baby or embryo can affect

behavior, because the chemical disturbs gene functions that regulate

brain development.

When mouse embryos were exposed to glufosinate, it resulted in growth

retardation, increased death rates, incomplete development of the

forebrain and cleft lips, as well as cell death in part of the brain.

After pregnant rats were injected with glufosinate, the number of

glutamate receptors in the brains of the offspring appeared to be

reduced. When infant rats were exposed to low doses of glufosinate, some

of their brain receptors appeared to change as well.

Glufosinate herbicide might also influence behavior. According to

Kuroda, " female rats born from mothers that were given high doses of

glufosinate became aggressive and started to bite each other-in some

cases until one died. " He added, " That report sent a chill through me. "

Disturbing gut bacteria

If the herbicide is regenerated inside our gut, since it is an

antibiotic, it will likely kill gut bacteria. Gut microorganisms are

crucial for health. They not only provide essential metabolites like

certain vitamins and short fatty acids, but also help the break down and

absorption of food and protect against pathogens. Disrupting the balance

of gut bacteria can cause a wide range of problems. According to

molecular geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher, " the data obtained strongly

suggest that the balance of gut bacteria will be affected " by the

conversion of NAG to glufosinate.

When eating Liberty Link corn, we not only consume NAG, but also the pat

and bar genes with their pat and bar proteins. It is possible that when

NAG is converted to herbicide in our gut, the pat protein, for example,

might reconvert some of the herbicide back to NAG. This might lower

concentrations of glufosinate inside of our gut. On the other hand, some

microorganisms may be able to convert in both directions, from

glufosinate to NAG and also back again. If the pat protein can do this,

that is, if it can transform NAG to herbicide, than the presence of the

pat protein inside our gut might regenerate more herbicide from the

ingested NAG. Since there are no public studies on this, we do not know

if consuming the pat gene or bar genes will make the situation better or

worse.

But one study on the pat gene raises all sorts of red flags. German

scientist Hans-Heinrich Kaatz demonstrated that the pat gene can

transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. He found his evidence in young

bees that had been fed pollen from glufosinate-tolerant canola plants.

The pat gene transferred into the bacteria and yeast inside the bees'

intestines. Kaatz said, " This happened rarely, but it did happen. "

Although no studies have looked at whether pat genes end up in human gut

bacteria, the only human GM-feeding study ever conducted did show that

genetic material can transfer to our gut bacteria. This study, published

in 2004, confirmed that portions of the Roundup-tolerant gene in

soybeans transferred to microorganisms within the human digestive tract.

Since the pat gene can transfer to gut bacteria in bees, and since

genetic material from another GM crop can transfer to human gut

bacteria, it is likely that the pat gene can also transfer from Liberty

Link corn or soybeans to our intestinal flora. If so, a key question is

whether the presence of the pat gene confers some sort of survival

advantage to the bacteria. If so, " selection pressure " would favor its

long term proliferation in the gut.

Because the pat protein can protect bacteria from being killed by

glufosinate, gut bacteria that take up the gene appears to have a

significant survival advantage. Thus, the gene may spread from bacteria

to bacteria, and might stick around inside us for the long-term. With

more pat genes, more and more pat protein is created. The effects of

long-term exposure to this protein have not been evaluated.

Now suppose that the pat protein can also re-toxify NAG back into active

herbicide, as discussed above. A dangerous feedback loop may be created:

We eat Liberty Link corn or soy. Our gut bacteria, plus the pat protein,

turns NAG into herbicide. With more herbicide, more bacteria are killed.

This increases the survival advantage for bacteria that contain the pat

gene. As a consequence, more bacteria end up with the gene. Then, more

pat protein is produced, which converts more NAG into herbicide, which

threatens more bacteria, which creates more selection pressure, and so

on. Since studies have not been done to see if such a cycle is

occurring, we can only speculate.

Endocrine disruption at extremely low doses

Another potential danger from the glufosinate-tolerant crops is the

potential for endocrine disruption. Recent studies reveal that

endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can have significant hormonal

effects at doses far below those previously thought to be significant.

The disruptive effects are often found only at minute levels, which are

measured in parts per trillion or in the low parts per billion. This is

seen, for example, in the way estrogen works in women. When the brain

encounters a mere 3 parts per trillion, it shuts down production of key

hormones. When estrogen concentration reaches 10 parts per trillion,

however, there is a hormone surge, followed by ovulation.

Unfortunately, the regulation and testing of agricultural chemicals,

including herbicides, has lagged behind these findings of extremely low

dose effects. The determination of legally acceptable levels of

herbicide residues on food was based on a linear model, where the effect

of toxic chemicals was thought to be consistent and proportional with

its dosage. But as the paper 'Large Effects from Small Exposures' shows,

this model underestimates biological effects of EDCs by as much as

10,000 fold.

In anticipation of their (not-yet-commercialized) Liberty Link rice,

Bayer CropScience successfully petitioned the EPA in 2003 to approve

maximum threshold levels of glufosinate ammonium on rice. During the

comment period preceding approval, a Sierra Club submittal stated the

following.

" We find EPA's statements on the potential of glufosinate to function as

an endocrine-disrupting substance in humans and animals as not founded

on logical information or peer-reviewed studies. In fact EPA states that

no special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of

glufosinate ammonium to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects. .

.. . We feel it's totally premature for EPA at this time to dismiss all

concerns about glufosinate as an endocrine-disrupting substance. . . .

Due to the millions of Americans and their children exposed to

glufosinate and its metabolites, EPA needs to conclusively determine if

this herbicide has endocrine-disrupting potential. "

The EPA's response was that " glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to

additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects

related to endocrine disruption " but this will only take place after

these protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved

glufosinate ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.

Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting properties,

even small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry significant health

risks for ourselves and our children.

The EPA's response was that " glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to

additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects

related to endocrine disruption " but this will only take place after

these protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved

glufosinate ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.

Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting properties,

even small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry significant health

risks for ourselves and our children.

Inadequate animal feeding studies

If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn

creates health effects, we encounter what independent observers have

expressed for years-frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies,

which are rarely published and often kept secret, are often described as

designed to avoid finding problems.

If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn

creates health effects, we encounter what independent observers have

expressed for years- frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies,

which are rarely published and often kept secret, are often described as

designed to avoid finding problems.

In a 42-day feeding study on chickens, for example, 10 chickens (7%) fed

Liberty Link corn died compared to 5 chickens eating natural corn. Even

with the death rate doubled, " because the experimental design was so

flawed, " said bio-physicist Mae-Wan Ho, " statistical analysis failed to

detect a significant difference between the two groups. " Similarly,

although the GM-fed group gained less weight, the study failed to

recognize that as significant. According to testimony by two experts in

chicken feeding studies, the Liberty Link corn study wouldn't identify

something as significant unless there had been " huge " changes. The

experts said, " It may be worth noting, in passing, that if one were

seeking to show no effect, one of the best methods to do this is would

be to use insufficient replication, a small n, " which is exactly the

case in the chicken study.

Without adequate tests and with a rubber stamp approval process, GM

crops like Liberty Link corn may already be creating significant

hard-to-detect health problems. In Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, China,

India, Brazil and elsewhere, shoppers have the benefit of laws that

require foods with GM ingredients to be labeled. In the US, however,

consumers wishing to avoid them are forced to eliminate all products

containing soy and corn, as well as canola and cottonseed oils. Or they

can buy products that are organic or say " non-GMO " on the package.

Changing one's diet is a hassle, but with the hidden surprises inside GM

foods, it may be a prudent option for health-conscious people,

especially young children and pregnant women.

is the author of the international bestseller, 'Seeds of

Deception.' The information in this article presents some of the

numerous health risks of GM foods that will be presented in his

forthcoming book, 'Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of

genetically engineered foods,' due out in the fall.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at

http://www.responsibletechnology.org.

/Spilling the Beans/

/Spilling the Beans/ is the free, monthly electronic newsletter of the

Institute for Responsible Technology, featuring a series of articles and

updates on GM foods. This newsletter also appears as a column in a

number of publications, reaching approximately 100,000 people worldwide.

Click here

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree\

,4990> to

subscribe to the e-newsletter.

*Archived Newsletters*

March 2006, A Review of the GMO Trilogy, by Tokar

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=338>

February 2006, 2005, a Scary Year for Genetically Engineered Crops

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=320>

January 2006, Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered

Food

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree\

,5039>

November/December 2005, GM Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=308>

Attachment: Open Letter to TJ Higgins, GM Pea Developer

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=309>

October 2005, Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically

Engineered Soy

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=299>

September 2005, Rammed down our throats

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=287>

August 2005, A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to

Genetic Engineering

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=284>

July 2005, Scrambling and Gambling With the Genome

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=279>

June 2005, Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and

Cover-up

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=221>

May 2005, Video Urges Parents and Schools to Remove Genetically

Engineered Foods from Kids' Meals; Biotech Food Debate Makes

International Headlines

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=215>

April 2005, US Government and Biotech Firm Deceive Public on GM Corn

Mix-up

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=187>

March 2005, Genetically Engineered Crops Damage Wildlife

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=189>

February 2005, Iowa Bills Fight GM Free Zones and Farmer Choice

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=190>

January 2005, US Proposal Puts Food Supply at Risk

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=191>

December 2004, Got Hormones -- The Controversial Milk Drug that Refuses

to Die

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=193>

November 2004, Are You Critical of Genetically Engineered Foods?

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=194>

October 2004, The Myth and Necessity of GM Free Zones

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=195>

September 2004, Another Reason for Schools to Ban Genetically Engineered

Foods

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=196>

August 2004, Genetically Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk

<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle?objectID=197>

*

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email

for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain

permission from the copyright owner.