GM foods and School Kids

[Guest guest]

> http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm> Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008> By M. - from Institute for Responsible Technology,>> SPILLING THE BEANS - NEWSLETTER ON GM FOODS>> 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. Eye-> witness 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> 12°©fold 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.>> by M. , author of Seeds of Deception>> >>>>