Fw: Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy

[Guest guest]

I know I've sent this before. I wanted the newbies to get the info. now. It's

not just inorganic soy. See the previous post from me also...Jenn & Kali 9

months SCD

Subject: Fw: Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy

Subject: Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy

Most Offspring Died

When Mother Rats

Ate GM Soy

By M.

Author of Seeds of Deception

GMWatch.com

10-31-5

The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating

genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however,

was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.

Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous

Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM

soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM

soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats

conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.

Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving

birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks,

36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other

groups (see photo below).

(Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the

larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days

old, is from the " GM soy " group.)

But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks,

25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33

(9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.

Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and

offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to

repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The

$70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was

invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National

Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote " PRELIMINARY STUDIES " on the

top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to

the risks of GM food.

Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in

controversy.

GM Soy's Divisive Past

The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA

has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of

Monsanto's " Roundup " brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is

Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are

found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat

ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.

The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods.

If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has

no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in

the FDA's 1992 policy that states, " The agency is not aware of any information

showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any

meaningful or uniform way. " [1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive.

Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA's own

experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect

allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their

superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in

charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later

their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as

" just a political document " without scientific basis, and warned that industry

would " not do the tests that they would normally do " since the FDA didn't

require any.[2] He was correct.

There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding

safety studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact that millions

of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests

on " biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and

kidney function, " [3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test

for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes

Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its kind.

Past Studies Show Significant Effects

Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions.

Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that rats fed GM soy

developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates

increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that

organ. Rats also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the

production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion.

Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also

block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less

isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]

An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent

problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as

rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of

young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much

protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights.

The study's nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant

differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein,

a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the

most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made

public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known

allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or

7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies

in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.

The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two

sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the

increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted

confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the

intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your

own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein

inside your digestive tract.

The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists

found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their

newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood,

spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear

if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate

that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact

offspring.

The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or

anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to

unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete

one or more of the DNA's own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or

permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds

of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process

called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations

throughout the DNA.

Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup

Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are

found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did discover

a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments

of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's detection.

Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by

their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating

evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired,

threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do

arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed

potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles,

damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in

the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with

their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the

death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately

followed-up or accounted for.

Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's because

her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality

rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable

option.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study

I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the annual

conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on

October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US

National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent

follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said,

" Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed

daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous,

independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population

at risk. "

Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even

follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted

genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case,

the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the

biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's

unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels

lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally

listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by

the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can

change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins-ones

that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the

Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans

used in follow-up studies.

Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may

explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly

25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their

pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water.

A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his

cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield

developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn

was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also

during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune

response to the Bt toxin-created by the GM corn.

These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result

from a GM crop that has " gone bad " due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants

with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of Bt

toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied

considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]

With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has

yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US. It may take some

dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova's

findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food

industry.

I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an immediate,

independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute

for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to

wait. There is too much at stake.

Click here for press release on Russian rat study.

Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of Environmental

Medicine.

Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.

M. is working with a team of international scientists to

catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of

Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the

video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.

_____

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at

www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article

or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing

column@.... Individuals may read the column each month by

subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.

_____

[1] " Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, "

Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992

[2]Louis J. Pribyl, " Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92, " March 6,

1992, www.biointegrity.org

[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal

Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.

[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi

C, Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical

analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.

[5]a Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic

acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy,

Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002

[6] R. Padgette and others, " The Composition of

Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional

Soybeans, " The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was

taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published

study.)

[7]Lappe, M.A., , E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999)

Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified,

herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.

[8] R. Padgette and others, " The Composition of

Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional

Soybeans, " The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996

[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, " In Vivo Studies on

Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-with

Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant

Materials, " Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003

[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, " Uptake of foreign DNA from the

environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry, "

Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994

[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, " Assessing the Transfer of Genetically

Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues, " Transgenic Research, October 2005,

Volume 14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784

[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M.

DeLoose, " Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert, " European Food

Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112

[13] M. , Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003

[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani

N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO

inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented

at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona,

23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles- Seralini, Président du

Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also " Transgenic lines

proven unstable " by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk

[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php

[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36

© Copyright 2005 by M. .

Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=297

The E.CH.O. Foundation

Educating on Children's Health Options

You have been sent this message due to an interest you have shown on the many

subjects we share with the public. If you no longer wish to receive emails

please hit reply and type " remove " in the subject line.

For more information please visit www.TheEchoFoundation.com