ジェフリー・M・スミス 症例に基づくGMOによる健康への危険
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
2 j'aime•4,765 vues
2016年2月、福岡、京都、東京で行われたジェフリー・M・スミス氏の講演で使われた講演資料（現在はまだ注釈が英語のまま、現在翻訳中）。 食のシステムを取り戻すために、利用可能。 Safe eating!
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Dernier
Dernier (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
ジェフリー・M・スミス 症例に基づくGMOによる健康への危険
- 1. 症例に基づくGMOによる健康への危険 ジェフリー・M・スミス MBA Institute for Responsible Technology創立者・代表 『偽りの種子』『Genetic Roulette』 著者 『遺伝子組み換えルーレット』監督
- 2. 米国でのGM作物 大豆 94% トウモロコシ 90% コットン 96% ナタネ 95% （カナダ） 砂糖大根 95% アルファルファ 30+%
- 6. FDA（米国食品医薬品局）は GMOは何も変わりがないと宣言 「当局は新しい技術による食品が他の 食品に対して意味のある形あるいは 一様に違いがあるといういかなる情報 も認知しない」 Food and Drug Administration 「政策要綱」 “Statement of Policy” 1992年5月29日
- 8. マイケル・テイラー • 米国食品医薬品局政策担当 • 元モンサント社弁護士 • 後にモンサントの副社長に • 現在は米国食品安全の独裁者 誰が科学者たちの 主張を覆した？
- 16. 動物飼育研究 ガン: 腫瘍、増殖細胞の成長、コーヒー酸と フェルラ酸 の顕著な減少 血糖: インスリン調整
- 21. 精神面/感情面: 暴力的な振る舞い、反社会的行動 エネルギー: 疲労 皮膚: 皮膚の異常 家畜
- 23. 改善された例 （人の場合） 胃腸: 過敏性大腸、クローン病、胃酸逆流、潰瘍 、腸の痛み、膨張 免疫: アレルギー、喘息、風邪、インフルエンザ
- 24. 改善された例 （人の場合） 生殖: 不妊症、勃起障害、月経問題 器官の損傷: 腎臓病、脂肪肝
- 25. 改善された例 （人の場合） 精神面/情緒面: 鬱、暴力的行動、注意持続 時間、記憶喪失、頭にかかったもや, 不安神経 症、自閉的兆候
- 26. 改善された例 （人の場合） 皮膚: 発疹、湿疹、皮疹、にきび、乾癬 エネルギー: 疲労 ガン: 腫瘍、ガン
- 28. 改善された例 （人の場合） ホルモン: ホルモンの問題、月経問題 加えて: 体重減少、高血圧、不眠症、関節炎、グル テン過敏症、 むずむず脚症候群、自閉症症状
- 29. （すべての）炎症性腸疾患の退院診断 （クローン結腸炎と潰瘍性結腸炎 ICD 555 & 556) トウモロコシと大豆にかけられるグリホサート 単位1000トン 1000人に対する診断数 年 トウモロコシと大豆に使われるグリホサートの量 1000人当たりの 退院者 グリホサート
- 57. •突然変異（DNAの2-4%） •遺伝子の削除 •永久にオンあるいはオフ •改変された遺伝子発現 （5%まで） Transgen Res 5 ‘96, Plant Cell Rep 20 ’01, Mol Med. 5 ’99, J. Biomedicine and Biotechnology ‘06, Biotech. and Genetic Eng. Rev ‘06
- 58. Mon 810（モンサントの遺伝子 組み換えトウモロコシ）の中の変化 以下を含む43の遺伝子が変更さ れる。 “アレルギー・タンパクとしてよ く知られるガンマ・ゼイン（ Gamma zein）が検出される” J. Proteome Res ‘08
- 59. 改変された栄養素 増加: 反栄養素 (大豆レクチン) アレルゲン (トリプシン阻害剤) リグニン （病気に関連？） 減少: 蛋白 脂肪酸 必須アミノ酸 植物性エストロゲン
- 60. 腸壁 Non-GM GM Lancet, ‘99
- 61. 胃の内壁 Non-GM GM Lancet, ‘99
- 69. 水牛 (ワランガル) • Btコットンの畑で放牧 (1 日) • 病気になり、２〜3日意識不明 • 13 頭死ぬ
- 72. そして26の羊とヤギが死ぬ
- 74. Btコーン トウモロコシのBt毒素 は人間の細胞にも穴を あけ、漏出させる。 (Mesnage, J. Applied Toxicology, 2012)
- 75. pore formation like in insect cells 昆虫の細胞のような穴を形成する Here we documented that modified Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, but can exert toxicity… 改変Bt毒素は人間の細胞において不活性ではなく、有害性を発揮できる
- 76. Btコーン カナダの女性93％の、 胎児の80％の血液から Bt毒素が (Sherbrooke University Hospital, Reproductive Toxicology, 2011)
- 77. Bt遺伝子組み換えを食べたネズミ 赤血球に損傷 • “ネズミの骨髄に血液毒性と細胞毒性” • “ネズミに小球性低色素性貧血を誘発” • “より高い炎症性反応” Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases
- 81. GM作物は除草剤の使用を16年で5億2700万ポンド（2億3904 万3178キロ）の増加をもたらした（1996年〜2011年） 1エーカー当たりのグリホサート の使用: RR 大豆最大 227% (16年) RRトウモロコシ 最大 54% (15 年)
- 82. • 微量ミネラルをキレートする（包み込む） • 植物の防御の仕組みを取り壊す • 有益な微生物を破壊する • 病原体を増加させる 除草剤としてのラウンドアップ
- 83. グリホサート: 生物学的効果 • 重要なミネラルを激減させる • 抗生物質として、腸内の善玉菌を殺して しまう • シキミ酸経路をブロックし、セロトニン 、メラトニン、ドーパミンを抑制する
- 84. グリホサート: 生物学的効果 • 微絨毛を損傷し、消化酵素を 抑制する • ミトコンドリアに有毒 • シトクロムP450 (CYP) 酵素を阻害 する
- 85. グリホサート: 生物学的効果 • 「おそらく人に発ガン性」 (世界保健 機関WHO) • 内分泌撹乱物質 • 出生障害を促進 • ホルムアルデヒドを生成
- 87. ラットの肝臓 C, D – GM大豆グループА, B – 対照群ラット A B C D Dr. Irina Ermakova, Russian Academy of Sciences
- 88. 対照群 GM大豆で餌付け GM大豆対照群 ラットの睾丸 Dr. Irina Ermakova, Russian Academy of Sciences
- 89. GM大豆で餌付けしたネズミ 精巣の細胞が構造や機能を変えられた Eur. J. of Histochemistry, ’04 子宮や卵巣に変化 GM大豆で餌付けされたラット Anatomical Record ‘09
- 91. ラットの赤ん坊の死亡率 対照群 GM大豆 Non-GM soy Ecosinform, ’06 & others >50% 10% Non−ＧＭ大豆
- 94. 2012: RRコーンとラウンドアップ RRコーンだけ、ラウンドアップだ け、両方、をラットに2年間与えた “対照群のラットよりも２〜3倍、 死ぬ率が高く、しかも速く死んだ。 (Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014)
- 95. 器官の損傷 “とても顕著な慢性腎臓症” メス：下垂体は2番目にもっとも損傷を受けた 器官…性ホルモンのバランスも変えられた。 オス: “肝充血と壊死が2.5〜5.5倍高かった” (Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014)
- 97. 科学的研究
- 99. 飼料の胃壁の色への影響 Non-GMO GMOGMO Carmen et al, 2010
- 105. 牛成長ホルモンへの ティッピング・ポイント 2006年9月, Boston Globe紙 “酪農会社は人口的な牛成長ホルモンを 取り除くのに必死だ。…これはティ ッピング・ポイントになるかもしれ ない” 2006年10月, New York Times紙 “産業の中で爆発的な動きだ。”
- 107. 自然食品産業でもティッピング・ポイント
- 110. Post Grape Nutsは 2014年1月に オリジ ナル風味の製品でNon-GMO Project認証 資格を得たと発表した。
- 111. • Target home ブランド • Ben & Jerry's のアイスクリーム • Smart Balance buttery の製品 • I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butterというマーガリン • ハーシーズ のチョコレート (もうすぐ) • Chipotle’s （レストラン）
- 113. GMO Corn Non-GMO Corn そしてネズミの好みは…… Photos: Gilbert Hostetler
- 116. www.ResponsibleTechnology.org 無料のニュースレターを講読してください！ Sign up for free Newsletter: www.ResponsibleTechnology.org
Notes de l'éditeur
- This presentation is based on information contained in the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods and Seeds of Deception, both by Jeffrey Smith. Full citations for the studies presented are found in Genetic Roulette.
- What is genetically engineered in the US? Right now soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar from sugar beets are the main sources. Soy and Corn derivatives are in most processed foods. If it comes in a box from the supermarket, it is probably genetically engineered. The first four are used in vegetable oil. The US sugar beet growers introduced GM sugar at the end of 2009. Unless an ingredient says pure cane sugar, it is a mixture of cane and sugar beet. GM alfalfa is used as hay for animals.
- There are two primary traits engineered into GM soy, corn, cotton, and canola. They are herbicide tolerance and pesticide production. With herbicide tolerance, the GM crops are inserted with a gene that allows them to survive applications of a particular herbicide. This is a great marketing opportunity for the manufacturers who sell the seeds and the herbicide as a package deal. For example, Monsanto sells Roundup Ready crops, which are engineered to survive applications of the company’s Roundup herbicide. Buyers even sign a contract with Monsanto saying they will only use Monsanto’s brand of herbicide with their GM crop. The other major trait is pesticide production—in which every cell of the plant produces an insect-killing toxin.
- Most Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and so is a small amount of zucchini and crookneck squash.
- “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.” This sentence in the 1992 FDA policy, which still stands today, is the reason why GM crops are on the market. On the basis of this statement, the FDA said no safety testing was necessary. If Monsanto or the other biotech food companies say their foods are safe, the FDA has no further questions.
- The overwhelming consensus among the agency’s own scientists was that GM foods could lead to unexpected, hard to detect side effects, including allergens, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. The scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies.
- Who overruled the scientists? The man in charge of FDA policy, Michael Taylor. He was Monsanto’s former attorney, and later their vice-president. The White House under George H. W. Bush had instructed the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry, and so the FDA created a new position for Michael Taylor. As a result of the policy that he oversaw, if Monsanto and others want to put a GM crop on the market, they don’t even have to tell the FDA. GM companies do participate in a voluntary and highly superficial consultation process with the FDA, in which they offer just summary data and their own conclusions of safety. The Obama administration has re-installed Taylor at the FDA, as the US Food Safety Czar.
- In May 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine released a policy paper urging all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for everyone, stating that animal studies show that GM food is linked to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and gastrointestinal problems. They called for a moratorium on GMOs, and mandatory labeling.
- Here is a quote from their document: “Animal studies indicate serious health risks … including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”
- Many healthcare professionals are becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. Allergist Dr. John Boyles says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.” The Campaign will distribute patient education material through practitioners.
- Many healthcare professionals are becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. Allergist Dr. John Boyles says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.” The Campaign will distribute patient education material through practitioners.
- Many healthcare professionals are becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. Allergist Dr. John Boyles says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.” The Campaign will distribute patient education material through practitioners.
- Many healthcare professionals are becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. Allergist Dr. John Boyles says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.” The Campaign will distribute patient education material through practitioners.
- After the Bt cotton is harvested, shepherds take their flocks into the area to graze on the Bt plants. Within 5 to 7 days, one out of four sheep died. Thousands died in total. Medical investigators found black patches in the intestine, liver, and bile ducts. The shepherds reported that there was nasal discharge, sense of dullness, depression, diarrhea, and coughing among the sheep. Animals continue to die in subsequent years after grazing in Bt cotton fields. Some regions also report allergic type itching reactions among livestock. [“Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494]
- After the Bt cotton is harvested, shepherds take their flocks into the area to graze on the Bt plants. Within 5 to 7 days, one out of four sheep died. Thousands died in total. Medical investigators found black patches in the intestine, liver, and bile ducts. The shepherds reported that there was nasal discharge, sense of dullness, depression, diarrhea, and coughing among the sheep. Animals continue to die in subsequent years after grazing in Bt cotton fields. Some regions also report allergic type itching reactions among livestock. [“Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494]
- After the Bt cotton is harvested, shepherds take their flocks into the area to graze on the Bt plants. Within 5 to 7 days, one out of four sheep died. Thousands died in total. Medical investigators found black patches in the intestine, liver, and bile ducts. The shepherds reported that there was nasal discharge, sense of dullness, depression, diarrhea, and coughing among the sheep. Animals continue to die in subsequent years after grazing in Bt cotton fields. Some regions also report allergic type itching reactions among livestock. [“Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494]
- After the Bt cotton is harvested, shepherds take their flocks into the area to graze on the Bt plants. Within 5 to 7 days, one out of four sheep died. Thousands died in total. Medical investigators found black patches in the intestine, liver, and bile ducts. The shepherds reported that there was nasal discharge, sense of dullness, depression, diarrhea, and coughing among the sheep. Animals continue to die in subsequent years after grazing in Bt cotton fields. Some regions also report allergic type itching reactions among livestock. [“Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494]
- Many healthcare professionals are becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. Allergist Dr. John Boyles says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.” The Campaign will distribute patient education material through practitioners.
- Many healthcare professionals are becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs and are prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. Allergist Dr. John Boyles says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.” The Campaign will distribute patient education material through practitioners.
- We will look at five possible causes for health problems related to GM foods. The first is that process of creating a GM crop may create unpredicted changes.
- The process of inserting a transgene causes mutations, or changes in the sequence of the genetic code, near the insertion site and elsewhere. Inserting the transgene can delete natural native genes. In one study, 13 genes were deleted by a single insertion. Sometimes, the transgene will be imbedded in the middle of a native gene, changing its function. Native genes can be switched off permanently, or even turned on permanently. The biotech industry claimed the promoter they insert would only turn on the transgene. That is not true. The promoter can actually turn on other genes downstream from the transgene--permanently. This many cause it to overproduce its protein in high volume, which might be an allergen, toxin, carcinogen, or anti-nutrient. The process of cloning a cell into a plant can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations up and down the DNA. According to two studies, the GM DNA is 2-4% different than the DNA of its parent. Most of the changes are unpredicted mutations. In addition, inserting a single gene can change how much protein is being produced in hundreds or thousands of genes. Scientists tested the process of inserting a single gene into a human cell and found that up to 5 percent of the genes changed their levels of expression. Taken together, genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage in the DNA. Biotech industry scientists and regulators, on the other hand, operate as if genes were like Legos that cleanly snap in place, and operate independently of the other genes in the DNA. [Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, “Genome Scrambling—Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report—October 2004, http://www.econexus.info; see also J. R. Latham, et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,” The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1–7.]
- The process of making the GM soy appears to have created some unpredicted changes in the composition of the soybean. GM soy has reduced proteins, reduced fatty acid, and a reduced essential amino acid. Also, reduced phytoestrogens that are believed to be good for fighting cancer and heart disease. It has significantly higher levels of an anti-nutrient called soy lectin, which can block absorption of nutrients. There is an increase in a known soy allergen called trypsin inhibitor. In Monsanto’s own study of cooked GM soy, there was as much as seven times more trypsin inhibitor compared to non-GMO soy. A seven fold increase of a known allergen! They left that information out of their study, but it was discovered later and made public. Lignin, the woody substance in many plants, was increased in GM soy. They found this because the stems of soybean plants were cracking in the heat. [See for example: Stephen R. Padgette et al, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.]
- The picture on the left is the intestinal wall of a rat who was fed non-GMO potato. Picture on right is from a rat who was fed GM-potato.
- The picture on the left is the stomach wall of a rat who was fed non-GMO potato. On the right is the stomach wall of a rat who was fed the GM-potato. With permission from his institute director, Dr. Arpad Pusztai was interviewed on national TV and expressed concerns about GM food safety. He was a hero for about 2 days at his prestigious institute. Then, two phone calls were allegedly placed from the UK Prime Minister’s office, forwarded through the receptionist, to the director. The next day, Dr. Pusztai was fired from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His 20 member research team was disbanded, and the data was kept hidden. The institute put out a number of statements designed to damage the reputation of Dr. Pusztai and to support GMOs. The safety testing protocols his team was working on were never implemented. Eventually he was invited to speak before parliament about his work, which lifted the gag order and allowed him to access his data. The study was eventually published in The Lancet. It is arguably the most in-depth animal feeding study ever published on GM foods. It shows that the process itself might be inherently dangerous. It is noteworthy that the same process used to create Dr. Pusztai’s potatoes were used to create the GM crops on the market. But we don’t know if those products cause the same damage in our guts as they do in rats, since no studies have been conducted on the commercialized GM foods that adequately tests for the problems that Dr. Pusztai found.
- The second cause of problems is the intended protein, produced by the inserted gene, may be harmful.
- The Bt in crops is probably far more dangerous than the spray. The spray biodegrades or can be washed off. In the GM crops, it is produced inside every cell and cannot be washed off or degraded. In fact it is produced in concentrations that can be three to five thousand times more than in spray form. Also, the natural BT pesticide molecule has a safety catch on it, keeping it inactive. Once it gets inside an alkaline stomach of an insect, the safety catch is removed and it then the Bt destroys the stomach lining of the pest and kills it. When scientists prepare the Bt gene for plants, however, they change it so the molecule no longer has the safety catch. It is immediately active. This is also a form that is likely to be more toxic to humans. Further, the amino structure of the Bt toxin has a section that is identical to a known allergen. (It fails the allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization.) [See for example: Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.]
- Just as mice fed natural Bt-toxin developed immune responses, so too do mice fed Monsanto’s Mon 810 corn show immune responses.
- In a study by Monsanto made public because of a lawsuit, rats fed Bt corn developed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. These included kidney inflammation and kidney lesions, and decreased kidney weight. The latter symptom is typically related to blood pressure problems. They also developed increased basophiles which are related to allergies. Increased lymphocytes or white blood cells which are part of the immune system indicating a reaction to infection or possibly disease. A 10% increase in blood sugar, and decreased immature red blood cells by 50%. This might indicate anemia. Two other rat studies by Monsanto also showed signs of toxicity as well. One was a Bt corn, and the other Roundup Ready. [John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf; and Seralini G.E., Cellier D., Spiroux de Vendomois J., “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity” by (2007) Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52, 596-602.]
- In India, hundreds of laborers picking cotton and working in cotton ginning factories developed allergic reactions when handling the BT cotton. This didn’t happen with the non-Bt varieties. There are many laborers who don’t go to work unless they’ve first taken an antihistamine. [Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005; plus numerous press reports]
- The most commonly reported symptoms are itching and rashes.
- After the Bt cotton is harvested, shepherds take their flocks into the area to graze on the Bt plants. Within 5 to 7 days, one out of four sheep died. Thousands died in total. Medical investigators found black patches in the intestine, liver, and bile ducts. The shepherds reported that there was nasal discharge, sense of dullness, depression, diarrhea, and coughing among the sheep. Animals continue to die in subsequent years after grazing in Bt cotton fields. Some regions also report allergic type itching reactions among livestock. [“Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494]
- In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, villagers allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants for about 8 years without incident. On January 3, 2008, their 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. Within about three days, all had died.
- They also reported the deaths of 26 of their sheep and goats, after they grazed on Bt cotton plants.
- When those same villagers were asked, How many of you personally suffered itching from working in Bt cotton fields, most raised their hands.
- Although in vitro studies suggest degradation in human gastric secretions, digestion is never a complete process and insecticide toxins cannot be fully degraded in vivo (Paul et al., 2010). This is known to be the case for Cry1Ab (Chowdhury et al., 2003). It must be underlined that the insecticidal proteins produced by the GM plants are in soluble forms, and thus already biochemi- cally activated, unlike those produced by the microorganism Bt, secreted as inactive precursors or protoxins (Hilbeck and Schmidt, 2006). The importance of Bt toxin activation has been demonstrated in relation to in vitro membrane damages of hu- man erythrocytes, by solubilized Bt toxins, but not by the intact form (Rani and Balaraman, 1996). Cellular response to Bt toxins does not elicit apoptosis; it induces necrotic effects via a plasma membrane disruption for Cry1Ab within only 24 h. This may be due to pore formation like in insect cells owing to binding to specific receptors or membrane lipid rafts (Then, 2010; Soberón et al., 2009).
- When mice were fed GM corn that was a combination of Bt and Roundup Ready, the more corn they ate, the less babies they had and the smaller the babies were.
- The only human feeding study ever conducted on GM foods verified that a portion of the Roundup Ready soy transgene transferred into bacteria living inside our intestines, and continued to function.
- What if the Bt gene transfers? It could theoretically turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, possibly for the long term. It is a good excuse to avoid eating GM corn chips, made from pesticide producing Bt corn.
- The fourth possible problem is that more herbicide residues will be present on herbicide tolerant crops. The two primary herbicides used on these crops are Roundup and Liberty, with the active ingredients glyphosate and glophosinate. There is plenty of evidence showing that these are toxic to human beings and animals. Roundup, for example, has endocrine disrupting effects that may inhibit fertility or lead to birth defects.
- The emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds is a primary reason why the use of herbicides, particularly Roundup—with it’s active ingredient glyphosate—has increased dramatically in the US. GM crops have resulted in more than a half a billion pounds more toxic herbicide used over 16 years.
- hydroxylation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) into 25-hydroxycholecalciferol.
- hydroxylation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) into 25-hydroxycholecalciferol.
- hydroxylation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) into 25-hydroxycholecalciferol.
- Rats fed GM soy also showed changes in their livers, as seen in the photos on the right. [Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007]
- Rats fed GM soy showed changed color in their testicles, as well as changes in the cell structures. [Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007]
- The testicles of mice fed GM soy had altered structures and function which influenced sperm development. This might influence fertility or offspring health [L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.]
- This appears to be the case in a study conducted by a senior scientist from the Russian National Academy of Sciences. She fed female rats GM soy, starting two weeks before they conceived, and continuing through pregnancy and lactation.
- More than 50% of the offspring died within 3 weeks. Of the offspring whose mothers who ate non-GM soy, only 1 in 10 died within the same time period. [I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th – September 1st, 2006: 168–172; and Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.]
- Among the differences was a dramatic reduction in average weight. Here’s an example: The mother of the smaller rat ate GM soy.
- Five years after the rat study, other Russian Scientists with the Russian Academy os Sciences reported that when they fed hamsters GM soy over 2 years, by the third generation, most lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate and some had hair growing in their mouths, which is a rare condition.
- A French team tested the effects of Roundup Ready corn on rats, using protocols that were far more advanced than Monsanto or other biotech companies use. Normally, Monsanto will test GMO feed for maximum 90 days. In the French study, they fed the rats for two years. In addition, they not only fed the rats Roundup ready corn had been treated with Roundup, they fed another group of rats Roundup ready corn that had not been sprayed with Roundup. And a third group was fed Roundup without the Roundup Ready corn. In all cases, the death rate among the rats fed the Roundup Ready corn, or Roundup, or both, was 2 to 3 times higher than controls.
- Experimental groups also suffered from organ problems including kidney, liver, and pituitary damage.
- More dramatically, they suffered from massive multiple tumors. Some reached 25% of body weight. Up to 80% of the females had mammary tumors. And the males had four times the amount of large tumors than controls.
- The carcasses of cows fed GMOs showed a yellowish discoloration. Butchers have reported also that GMO fed animals have a significant stench. Changes in bacteria may contribute to these results.
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553431/
- The number of people needed in the US to create a European-style tipping point is probably very low. if even 5 percent of the U.S. population rejected GM brands, it should be more than enough to reach this Tipping Point, since that represents an enormous loss in revenue for food companies. Whatever the magic percentage is, there are certainly far more people in the US who would buy non-GMO products if given a choice. In fact, a 2008 survey by CBS and the New York Times showed that 53 percent of Americans would avoid GMOs if they were labeled.
- We are already seeing a tipping point against genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, called rBGH or rBST. In 2006, newspapers called it a tipping point or explosion in the industry. Since then, Wal-Mart, Kroger, Starbucks, and about 58 of the top 100 dairies so far have removed it from their milk or dairy products. We see the same thing happening soon with GM ingredients across the board.
- Farmers, students, reporters and scientists report that when given a choice, a large variety of animals avoid eating GM foods. These include cows, pigs, geese, squirrels, elk, deer, raccoons, buffalo, mice and rats. One farmer read about squirrels avoiding GMOs in the book Seeds of Deception, so he wanted to try the experiment himself. He purchased GM and non-GM ears of corn, and left them in a wood shop waiting to do the experiment in winter. But he forgot about it. When he later came across the bags of corn,
- A farmer heard that squirrels will avoid the GM corn but eat non-GMO. He bought a bag of each and left it in his workshop, in order to do a test. But the mice beat into it. They broke into the bag of non-GMO corn and a all the kernels, but left the GMO corn untouched.
- The book Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith is the most complete compilation of the health risks of GMOs. It presents 65 risks, each in two-page spreads, with an executive summary on the left page, and detailed referenced text on the right. That way, it can be scanned quickly or studies carefully. It is for those who like to see details when making decisions about GMOs. Part 2 shows how government assessments are incompetent to even identify most of the 65 risks in part 1. And Part 3 exposes how industry-funded studies are designed to avoid finding problems. Part 4 illustrates why GMOs are not needed to feed the world, and in fact work against this goal. When loaning or giving this book to someone, be sure to open it up to the two page spread format, and flip through a few pages. That way the person realized they can get through the whole thing very quickly, and are much more likely to investigate.
- Add logo