Are Americans willing to jeopardize their health with GMO foods?

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You Are Eating (2003), is convinced that they are not, so he started the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which calls for the elimination of GMO foods altogether.

He spoke recently at the annual Michigan Organic Farm and Food Association conference held at Michigan State University and provided participants with resources and inspiration for joining the movement to eliminate genetically-engineered (GM) foods.

Smith figures that it will take only 15 million Americans or 5 percent of the population, to pressure food companies not to use GMO ingredients or products and thus establish a tipping point for change.

Potential target audiences receptive to his message include food co-ops, health-conscious shoppers, schools, parents of young children, medical practitioners, green groups, chefs, food service executives.  Meanwhile, physicians are already telling their patients to avoid GMOs and religious organizations are looking into the ethical and spiritual aspects of food production, he said.

“When people see what is going on, they realize that it’s bad,” said Smith.  “We want to take that energy and turn it into effective action instead of feeling like victims.  We want people to say to themselves:  ‘I determine what food I eat.’”

Genetic engineering or the genetic modification (GM) of food involves the laboratory process of artificially inserting both genes and genetic control mechanisms into the DNA of food crops or animals.  The result is a genetically modified organism.  GMOs can be engineered with genes from bacteria, viruses, insects or animals-including humans.  GMO-derived foods are pervasive and, due to current laws and regulations, difficult to distinguish between foods that are GMO and those that are not.

Twenty-two European countries have solved that problem by demanding that their governments require labels to identify all GMO foods.  Then consumers had the option to choose whether to buy what they called “frankenfoods” or not.  However, the pressure was so strong against GMO foods that American companies took them off the market and reverted back to selling their original, non-GMO products.

Smith said that 53 percent of Americans would do the same if given the choice, but GMO foods are not labeled in the United States except in Minnesota, California, Vermont and Maine and a few cities.

One significant problem with GM seeds is that through the GE process mutations are generated throughout a plant’s DNA, such as deleting or permanently shutting on or off natural genes, changing the complex interactive behavior of hundreds of genes or changing or rearranging either natural or inserted genes that may create unique proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease,

In his second book, Genetic Roulette (2007), Smith presents irrefutable evidence of 65 health dangers linked to GMOs including allergens, carcinogens, new diseases, antibiotic resistant diseases and nutritional problems.

For example, soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent, said Smith.  In March 2001, the Center for Disease Control reported that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the United States compared to estimates just seven years earlier.  This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans began eating GM food.

“Without follow-up tests, which neither the industry or government is doing,” said Smith, “we can’t be absolutely sure if genetic engineering was the cause.”

Children with young, fast-developing bodies face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods for the same reasons that they face the greatest risk from other hazards like pesticides and radiation:  they are susceptible to allergies and have problems with milk, nutrition and antibiotic resistant diseases.

Smith pointed out that in the past when consumers found a product to be a health risk-as with bovine growth hormones in milk by 2009 (a product of Monsanto) and Alar in apples in 1989 (a product of Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., now integrated into the Chemtura Corporation)-they voted with their wallets.  Likewise, in India when there was talk of concocting GMO eggplant, a staple in that country, 100,000 people put on a fasting demonstration and 8,000 others showed up at a government hearing and stopped it.

There are other efforts afoot to fight GMOs.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit collaboration of manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed companies and consumers who believe that everyone deserves an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified products.  The group’s common mission is to ensure the sustained availability of non-GMO choices so it lists participating food companies and state-by-state retailers.  It also has created an independent verification system that offers transparency and a consistency of standards consumers can trust.  Its core requirements are traceability, segregation, and testing at critical control points.

The Center for Food Safety has published the pocket-sized Non-GMO Shopping Guide that lists products and companies that produce GMO and non-GMO foods-as well as the “hidden GM ingredients” that are found in many processed foods.

Smith’s website also provides a summary of the crops, foods and food ingredients that have been genetically modified as of July 2007.

“We actually have the power to eliminate GMOs ourselves instead of waiting for government or for labels,” said Smith. “We must move through our networks and let others know that GMOs are unhealthy.  That what will allow us to make change.”

Originally published on Common Dreams

8 Steps Obama Could Take to Save Food:

1. Evenly distribute government moneys to all farmers. The current system allocates the lion share of our tax dollars (approximately $60 billion) to farmers growing crops whose seeds have been engineered to produce their own insecticides and tolerate increasing doses of weed killing herbicides. As a result, these crops, with a large chemical footprint, are cheaper to produce, while farmers growing organic produce are charged fees to prove that their crops are safe and then charged additional fees to label these crops as free of synthetic chemicals and “organic”. If organic farmers received an equal distribution of taxpayer funded handouts from the government, the cost of producing crops free from synthetic chemicals would be cheaper, making these crops more affordable to more people, in turn increasing demand for these products which would further drive down costs.  If we were to reallocate our national budget and evenly distribute our tax dollars to all farmers, clean food would be affordable to everyone and not just those in certain zip codes.

2. Reinstitute the USDA pesticide reporting standard that was waived under the Bush administration. In 2008, the USDA waived pesticide reporting requirements (a procedure that has been in place since the early 1990s) so that farmers and consumers would know the level of chemicals being applied to food crops. Given a report just released that reveals a 383 million pound increase in the use of weed killing herbicides since the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops in 1996 and the potential impact that this glyphosate containing compound is having on both the environment and on our health, perhaps the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy assumed under the previous administration should be reversed.

3. Reinstate the pre-Bush administration dollar value that the EPA places on the life of every American. in May 2008, the Bush administration lowered the value placed on the life of every American by almost $1 million, benefiting corporations who use this figure in their cost benefit analyses, marking down our lives from $7.8 million to $6.9 million the same way a car dealer might markdown a “96 Camaro with bad brakes. The EPA figure is used to assess corporate liability when a company’s actions put a life at risk. While this figure benefits the corporations conducting the cost benefit analysis when assessing the health impact of their chemicals, the costs of these chemicals are being externalized onto the public in the form of health care costs.

4. Allow public debate over the nomination of pesticide lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. As addressed in a letter sent to Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee, Islam Siddiqui, nominated for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative, was formerly employed by CropLife America, whose firm challenged Michelle Obama’s organic garden, has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins, and blocked international attempts to help regulate pesticides that increasingly linked to chronic skin and respiratory problems, birth defects and cancer in our community. Given that a growing body of scientific evidence supports the theory that chemicals in our food are contributing to the rise in health problems, particularly in children, the appointment of an industry lobbyist to export our challenged food system to the rest of the world may be in the best interest of agrichemical corporations but consideration should also be given to the health implications that these novel chemicals, proteins and allergens may have.

5. Encourage climate change advocates like Al Gore to discuss Pesticide Use by Big Ag and its Chemical Footprint. While speaking openly about the petroleum industry’s impact on global warming, leading environmental advocates like Al Gore have been quiet about the chemical contribution that the recent introduction of crops genetically engineered with pesticidal toxins play on global warming despite scientific evidence from the Royal Society of Chemistry highlighting their impact. Since the Clinton Administration’s introduction of biotech crops designed and engineered to both withstand increasing doses of weed killing chemicals and produce their own insecticides, new reports based on USDA data, show a 383 million pound increase in the chemicals being applied to these crops since their introduction in 1996. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, “growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse” given that glyphosate, being applied in increasing doses to these crops, breaks down into nitrogen.

6. Update the Consumer Protection and Food Allergen Labeling Act to inform consumers of these newly engineered corn allergens. The recent engineering of novel food proteins and toxins into the US food supply has enhanced profitability for the food industry by allowing commodities like corn to produce their own insecticides. As a result, corn is now considered an insecticide and regulated by the EPA .  For this same reason, this corn has been either banned or labeled in products in other developed countries because the new toxins and novel allergens that it contains have not yet been proven safe. Despite the lack of evidence, this corn is in the American food supply. The increase in the rate of food allergies as demonstrated in the December issue of Pediatrics and the growing number of people with this condition- whose bodies recognize food as “foreign” and launch inflammatory reaction in an effort to drive out these “foreign” food invaders, speaks to the need to update and amend the food allergen labeling act to label these newly engineered genetically enhanced proteins and allergens as governments around the world do.

7. Ask the SEC to join the Department of Justice in its investigation into trade practices in agrichemical industry. As the Department of Justice begins its investigation into the impact that Monsanto’s monopoly is having on farmers, their financial situation and the food supply, research out of the USDA highlights that the biotech industry is not delivering on what some are calling their “hype-to-reality ratio”. As farmers are charged premiums for seeds that have been engineered to produce greater yields, research out of the USDA, Kansas State University shows that these products are not delivering as promised, directly impacting the cost structures of farmers in a razor to razorblade scenario. As farmers purchase genetically modified seeds in the hopes that they will increase yields and drive down cost structure and their dependency on weed killers, studies now suggest that since the introduction of the “razor”, these biotech crops introduced 13 years ago, farmers are actually spending more on the “razorblade”, the herbicides and weed killers required to manage them, driving farmers debt to asset ratios to record levels. Given that Monsanto’s CFO, Treasurer, Controller are all leaving the company by year end, the Securities and Exchange Commission could interview these three exiting executives and learn more about the financial predicaments of Big Ag’s customers, the farmers, and the greater ramifications that this monopoly will have on food prices.

8. Appoint a Children’s Health Advisor to serve on the USDA’s National School Lunch Program. The landscape of children’s health has changed. No longer are the American children guaranteed a healthy childhood, not in the face of the current rates of obesity, diabetes and allergies. Perhaps it is time that we follow the lead of governments in other developed countries and create a Chief Advisor for Child and Youth Health whose responsibilities might include, but not be limited to, serving in an advisory capacity to the USDA on the National School Lunch Program. Under the USDA’s current budget for the National School Lunch Program of approximately $8.5 billion (in comparison the Pentagon’s 2009 budget $600 billion), less than a dollar is available per meal for the purchase of healthy food once overhead costs are taken out. Given that 1 in 3 American children now has allergies, ADHD, autism of asthma and according to an October 2008 study from the Centers for Disease Control, 1 in 3 Fourth graders is expected to be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood. As a result, dietary concerns are becoming increasingly prevalent for the estimated 30.9 million children and approximately 102,000 schools and child care institutions that participate in the National School Lunch Program. Given that increasing scientific evidence points to the roles that environmental insults like synthetic growth hormones in milk and trans fats in processed foods are having on our health, investing in a children’s health advisor may provide long term benefits to the future of our health care system .

It’s our food system on the line.  And if our children are any indicator, our health and the economic burden that it presents are on the line, too.

1. There are 26,000 food poisoning cases per 100,000 Americans, every year (an eye-popping 26% of the population)

2. Compare that to only 3,400 cases in the UK, and just 1,200 in France. Stunning.

3. 76 million Americans become ill with food poisoning. That’s as if every child in America were to get sick. All 75 million of them. And then some.

4. Insufficient food safety is costing the US $35 Billion a year (as a benchmark, the entire 2009 budget for the FDA was only $2.4 Billion).

According to the article, “the wave of food scares that has swept America over the past few years has caused a crisis in the country’s $1 trillion food industry” and is resulting in a food fight of epic proportions.

With Michael Pollan on the frontline, we’ve also got Bill Gates touring the globe, espousing the benefits of “technofood” as Chief Technology Advocate of food’s operating system (Monsanto’s genetically engineered, patented and licensed, biotechnology food proteins).

While the recent introduction of “technofood” and the insertion of foreign proteins into our food supply (which began in 1994) has benefited agrichemical shareholders, 300 million stakeholders in the American food supply are seeing inflammatory reactions to food at record rates and the landscape of children’s health has changed.

So, perhaps as we listen to these men, we should also listen to the voices of our children as the EPA calls for grant solicitations to study these genetically engineered plant-induced food allergies, and pause and observe the unforeseen consequences that these foreign proteins appear to be presenting in the 1 in 3 American children with autism, allergies, ADHD or asthma.

Before proceeding further with “technofood” and its licensed-for-profit and novel operating system, perhaps we should stop and listen to our ‘canaries in the coalmine’ who may be trying to sound food’s “Dange-ometer“.

Over the weekend, headlines rocked the food allergy world that a cure for the peanut allergy was in the pipeline.

The Centers for Disease Control recently reported a 265% increase in the number of hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions, highlighting the urgent need to address the health risks and health spending associated with this life threatening condition, and today Dr. Wesley Burks of Duke University was ushered onto the media stage with a hero’s welcome as he promised the “possibility of a cure” within the next few years.

In a study paid for in part by the Gerber Foundation and the Robins Family Foundation (founded by A.H. Robins whose drug and medical device company filed for bankruptcy in the 1908s due to mass litigation over the Dalkon Shield, a faulty IUD product, distributed by Robins who “in a rush to beat competitors purchased the Dalkon Shield without conducting any meaningful independent research on the new IUD, which was marketed by investors as the best contraceptive device on the market”), 33 children were given daily doses of a synthetically derived peanut powder.

According to Dr. Burks’ press release from Duke University, four children tolerated the treatment so well that they are now able to consume peanuts. However, according to an insightful piece by Tara Parker Pope in the New York Times, four children had such severe reactions to the treatment that they had to drop out of the study.

In the $17 million study, a peanut powder synthetically derived, engineered in a laboratory and patented by Wesley A. Burks and a handful of doctors is fed to children under strict medical supervision.

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Burks et al. (Hugh Sampson, Monsanto’s Gary Bannon and others) are listed as inventors on US Patent 6486311 – Peanut allergens and methods issued in November 2002. Burks’ patented invention is being tested on children after approval for this study was obtained from the Human Use Advisory Committee at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

According to filings with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the “peanuts” being used on the children are derived in the laboratory using the following method:

“Three commercial lots of Southeastern Runners peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), medium grade, from the 1979 crop (North Carolina State University) were used in this study. The peanuts were stored in the freezer at -18° C. until they were roasted. The three lots were combined in equal proportions and blended before defatting. The defatting process (defatted with hexane after roasting for 13 to 16 minutes at 163° C. to 177° C.) was done in the laboratory of Dr. Clyde Young (North Carolina State University). The powdered crude peanut was extracted in 1 mol/L NaCl, 20 mmol/L sodium phosphate (pH 7.0)1 and 8 mol/L urea for 4 hours at 4° C. The extract was clarified by centrifugation at 20,000 g for 60 minutes at 4° C. The total protein determination was done by the bicinchoninic acid method (Pierce Laboratories, Rockville, Ill.).”

Since these “peanuts” hardly resemble the peanuts that we have in our kitchens, blood samples of those being tested were “prepared” to receive the “peanut” in the following way:

The serum pool and patient serum samples were diluted (1:20 vol/vol) and dispensed into individual wells in the lower portion of the plate. After incubation for 1 hour at 37° C. and washing, biotinylated, affinity-purified goat anti-human IgE (KPL, Gaithersburg, Md.) (1:1000 vol/vol bovine serum albumin) was added to all wells. Plates were incubated for 1 hour at 37° C. and washed, and 100 μl horseradish peroxidase-avidin conjugate (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, Calif.) was added for 5 minutes. After washing, the plates were developed by the addition of a citrate buffer containing O-phenylenediamine (Sigma Chemical Co.). The reaction was stopped by the addition of 100 μl 2N hydrochloric acid to each well, and absorbance was read at 490 nm (Bio-Rad Microplate reader model 450; Bio-Rad Laboratories Diagnostic Group, Hercules, Calif.).

In the current headlines, it is unclear if the Burks’ studies refer to this patented invention (assigned to the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the University of Arkansas) or to a more recent invention by Burks et al., US Patent 6835824 – Peanut allergens and methods, issued in December of 2004 that does not disclose the assignee of the invention to whom the financial rewards and royalties would accrue which is interesting should the patent prove lucrative as a vaccine or for the invention’s intended uses in the market place as outlined by Burks et al. below:

“The principle object of the present invention is the provision of a monoclonal antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for peanut allergen. Another object of the present invention is the isolation and purification of peanut allergens. A still further object of the present invention is the provision of peanut allergen antigens and monoclonal antibodies having specificity for a selected peanut allergen antigen. Yet another object of the present invention is the provision of hybridomas which produce monoclonal antibodies specific for peanut allergen.

Still yet another object of the present invention is the provision of a two-site monoclonal antibody based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay that can be used to detect and determine the concentration of a specific peanut allergen such as Ara h I in a food product or food processing and producing equipment or materials.

Another object of the present invention is the provision of a process for producing monoclonal antibodies specific to a selected peanut allergen, hybridoma cell lines which produce such monoclonal antibodies, and an immunoassay which utilizes the monoclonal antibodies for detecting the presence and concentration of a selected peanut allergen. And, still yet another object of the present invention is the provision of a monoclonal antibody based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay which does not contain human blood derivatives or radioactively labeled antibodies.”

Given that the Centers for Disease Control recently reported a 265% increase in the number of hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions, there is an urgent need to address the health risks and health spending associated with this life threatening condition and Burks’ patented invention deserves the accolades that it is receiving.

However, as these doctors, industry funded scientists and researchers engage 33 of our children in a study in which four children successfully built up immunity while four children had to drop out due to extreme allergic reactions to these synthetically derived “peanuts” (while this was not disclosed in Dr. Burks’ press release out of Duke University , it was responsibly revealed in the New York Times), it would be beneficial to learn what the long term consequences might be of exposing our children to these synthetic proteins in the form of food products or a vaccine and if any consideration or analysis has been given to these consequences?

Just as the novel milk protein, rBGH, introduced into our milk supply as a vaccine back in 1994 before being fully evaluated for long term health consequences (elevated IGF-1 levels that have been linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers) has resulted in a revision to the rBGH position statement by the American Cancer Society, perhaps, as these doctors bring their inventions to market, we should consider the health implications, liabilities and costs associated with exposing our children to yet another novel protein and synthetic substance before the long term health consequences have been evaluated.

And as beneficial as this patented “cure” may initially seem to children, their families, the food industry and vaccine manufacturers, it would be interesting to see the cost-benefit analysis and the evaluation that Burks et al. conducted on the liabilities associated with his invention.

Photo: Isadore Berg