Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias: nutrition & violent behavior

[Guest guest]

Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

M.

Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm

Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's

processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was

described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student

disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school

meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more

weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug

violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven

years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with

similar results.

Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet

by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed

them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The

mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three

mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they

were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during

the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted

very mouse-like.

The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube,

were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often,

and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three

month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food

mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came

around.

Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second

grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days.

Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior " changes

drastically. " They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still

takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return

to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again

a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused

to eat the junk food.

Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically

modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM

mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts

of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their

well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear

and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead

at the end of the experiment.

It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the

Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients.

And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically

attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods

such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in

processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed

alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken

out automatically.

Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or

animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a

single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other

hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.

We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A

study in Science in December 2002 concluded that " food molecules act

like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division.

The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit

and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness. " The problem is we

do not know which food molecules have what effect.

The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change

radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes

inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap

into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In

one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a

single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's

genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is

that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex

interactions down the line.

In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM

foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known

nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed

compounds, at this point we wouldn't know which might be responsible for

the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning

to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example,

that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain's neural

communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight

cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds

we don't know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?

Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market,

independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14

percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that

we don't know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which

concluded that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry

out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the

laboratory that conducted Monsanto's experiment had been instructed to

use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]

In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that

concluded in the title, " The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean

seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. " The study only

compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts

revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate

content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin

inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable

methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in

identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be

ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily

missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying

climates and geography.

Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM

and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper

altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the

archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the

scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels

of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid.

Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin

that may block the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients.

Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the

amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive

cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump

in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)

We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but

certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports

from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when

given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,

deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student

mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one

preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the

engineered variety.

Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on

children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies.

Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered

nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this

reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young,

developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and

often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals

instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be

detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.

They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12­fold before

feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them

under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding

study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to

avoid finding problems.

Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we

are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the

impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children.

Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have

decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned

GM foods.

The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of

several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be

far worse.

See http://www.seedsofdeception.com

With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in

Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that

diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods

should be a priority.

<?>