. |
Seeds for Change Wellness
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Genetic Roulette: Health Risks of GMO's - Interview with Jeffrey Smith
GENETIC ROULETTE:
The Documented Health Risks Of Genetically Engineered Foods
Crusador Interviews Jeffrey Smith Listen to 1 Hour Lecture: Don't Put That In Your Mouth
September 28, 2008 Source
CRUSADOR Interviews Best-Selling Author Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith is a leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). His globally respected research captured public attention in 2003 with his first book on the
serious yet unknown side effects of genetically engineered foods, Seeds of Deception.
Recently, Smith introduced his latest book on the subject titled Genetic Roulette. According to
Smith, when you eat genetically modified food you are gambling with every bite. In his power-packed
new book, the biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered.
Smith documents 65 health risks with GM foods that Americans eat every day. What you will discover
will shock you, anger you, and hopefully, prompt you to take action as a consumer to put a stop to
this reckless science that treats humans as guinea pigs.
Smith has counseled world leaders from every continent, influenced the first state laws regulating
GMOs, and is now uniting leaders for The Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, a revolutionary
industry and consumer movement to remove all GMOs from the natural food industry.
CRUSADOR editor Greg Ciola recently met with Jeffrey Smith in person at the conference of the
American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine in Orlando, Florida to discuss his new book and some of
the dangers with genetically modified foods.
Crusador: Jeffrey, it’s good to be with you. Why did you write your new book Genetic
Roulette and what’s the difference between this one and your previous book, Seeds of
Deception?
Well, Seeds of Deception is laid out in story format, and it relies on experiences of scientists who
were threatened, fired, stripped of responsibilities, forced out, or bribed, research that was rigged,
reporters who were muzzled or threatened, and regulatory agencies that were hijacked by the
biotech industry. Woven into the stories was the science of genetically engineered foods and the
health risks. The combination was a success. It became the world’s best-selling book on GMOs,
translated into ten languages. But it was very hard to extract information from it as a reference
because it was all imbedded in stories. That’s what led me to write Genetic Roulette.
I realized that what I wanted to do was to provide a book that easily and irrefutably won the argument
that genetically engineered foods are not safe. My challenge was to design a book that could be
read quickly by a busy politician, policy-maker, superintendent of schools, or CEO, and yet also have
the in-depth information about the science so that their staffers or scientists can read it. Thus, it’s
laid out so that you can scan it very quickly and get the whole picture at once or go in-depth and
read the details.
There are 65 two-page spreads, each devoted to a different risk of genetically engineered foods.
The left side is an executive summary with a conclusion, bullet points, and a quote from a scientist.
The right side is detailed, referenced text. People can simply flip through and read just the left side
and be overwhelmed at the thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals, thousands of people linking
toxic and allergic responses to genetically engineered products, and discover the reasons why
genetically engineered foods are so unsafe. Or, they can dig deeper into the science and the faulty
claims by the biotech companies presented on the right side.
Crusador: It’s interesting that your book came out when it did. I received an email
several months ago from a supplier of genetically engineered seeds. He read one of the
stories you wrote that was posted on our website. He was furious and basically said there’
s no evidence of any harm with this technology, so quit trying to scare people or stop a
proven technology. In your new book you cover some of the serious side effects that are
occurring with this technology that shows clear evidence of harm in humans and animals.
Can you discuss some of these problems?
There are two main types of genetically engineered crops. One produces its own pesticide and one
is engineered not to die when sprayed with herbicide. If we look at the pesticide-producing crops,
there’s overwhelming evidence that the pesticide that’s in every cell of the plant, in every bite that we
eat – in Bt corn, for example – has an allergic and toxic response. It’s been traced to death in
animals, sterility problems, mysterious illnesses in humans when they breathe in the Bt pollen, and
allergic reactions in workers who handle Bt cotton. Even Monsanto’s own study showed dramatic
indications of toxicity in rats that were fed their genetically engineered corn.
With the Roundup Ready soybeans, which are engineered not to die when sprayed with Roundup
herbicide by Monsanto, there’s evidence of both allergenic and toxic reactions as well. Soon after
GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. We know from one study that
there’s an allergenic protein that was found to be unique in the GM soy and not in non-GM soy, and
at least one subject showed a skin prick response to the GM and not the non-GM soy. We also
know a naturally-occurring allergen in soy was as much as sevenfold higher in cooked soy, in
Monsanto’s own study, compared to non-GM soy.
We also see reproductive problems. Mice fed GM soy had changes in their testicles, which suggests
possible problems in the sperm cells. The young embryo offspring of mice that were fed GM soy had
changes in DNA expression compared to those whose parents were fed natural soy. With rats
whose mothers were fed GM soy, 56% of the offspring died within three weeks compared to 9% of
those whose mothers ate non-GM soy. After the study was completed, the rat food used by that
laboratory began incorporating GM soy. Within two months of all the rats in the facility eating a GM
soy diet, infant mortality skyrocketed to above 50%. This is the same GM soy that’s planted in 89%
of the soy fields in the U.S.
Crusador: How is it that these products are allowed to be on the market with all of this
evidence of harm?
Well, there are a couple of things. First of all, the biotech companies have hijacked the regulatory
agencies. This was clear when thousands of documents were made public from a lawsuit in the
1990s showing that the scientists at the FDA had warned their superiors that GM foods might create
allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems; and urged them to require long-term safety
studies. But the person who was hired to be in charge of policy was Monsanto’s former attorney and
later Monsanto’s vice president, and he overruled the warnings of the scientists. He created a policy
in which the industry completely self-regulates and the FDA requires no safety studies whatsoever.
This was because the White House had instructed the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry.
The second reason is that there is a very in-depth and effective public relations mechanism which
spouts misinformation and disinformation constantly throughout the world. You hear complete
distortions that GMOs are safe -- and they're not; that they're appropriate to feed the world – and
they’re not; that they improve yields – and on average they don’t; that they’re safe for the
environment – which they’re not. You hear this over and over again and it’s not only among the
general public, but also among politicians.
For example, Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under Clinton said, “what I saw
generically from the pro biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was
almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good because it was going to solve the problems of the human
race.”
Crusador: Let’s pick up his statement. It’s easy to prove that this technology is not going
to solve the problems of the human race. This is a dangerous technology; they’re doing
something with science that would never happen in nature on its own. You’re dealing
with corporations that are really interested more, it appears to me, in hijacking the food
supply and patenting all these products that people use on a daily basis in order to
control the seeds, the food, and the farmers. It’s all about control, and they use this
jargon about feeding the world and helping the environment as a tool of deception. Isn’t
that true?
When Arthur Andersen Consulting Group asked Monsanto’s executives, years ago, to describe their
ideal future, Monsanto described – in 15 to 20 years – a world in which 100% of all commercial
seeds were genetically engineered and patented. Andersen Consulting created a plan to try and
achieve that. Other companies have the same goal. The biotech industry bought up a huge
percentage of the world’s seed supply. So the concept of control as you mentioned is accurate.
In addition, there are 1.4 billion farmers that save seeds each year and Monsanto and others want to
create a terminator technology which causes the harvest to be sterile and un-plantable, forcing
these farmers to have to go back to the biotech seed dealers for their seeds each year. So it’s an
enormous control issue. There are also patent issues where a seed blows onto your field and grows
in your field. If you happen to inadvertently replant it with your other seeds, you can get sued and
pay fines and lose the rights to your own plants.
Crusador: That’s happening on a big scale, from what I understand. There are hundreds
of lawsuits against farmers for that very issue; aren’t there?
As of a couple of years ago, there was about 190 lawsuits already filed and many more settlements,
and Monsanto already gained $15 million from farmers that they had threatened, many of which say
they had never done the things that Monsanto claimed that they had done.
Crusador: You stated that the FDA essentially turned over the regulation of this
technology to the biotech companies themselves. What kind of safety studies have they
done to validate, or prove to the world, that this technology is entirely safe for humans to
ingest?
There have been very few safety studies, and the ones conducted by industry are clearly rigged to
avoid finding problems. They use small sample sizes, short duration; mature animals instead of the
young, sensitive ones. They use bogus control groups. They use insensitive or obsolete detection
methods, poor statistical analysis, and poor reporting. They have got bad science down to a
science.
In Part 3 of my book Genetic Roulette, I go into detail about how industry-funded research is rigged.
It shows clearly that they’re not interested in proper science. They’re interested in producing a pre-
determined conclusion of safety. However, when they get something approved, they don’t use peer-
reviewed studies – they use their lousy science and typically keep it secret, hidden from the public,
claiming that disclosure would be confidential business information.
Well, two industry studies have been made public from lawsuits. One, for the Flavr Savr tomato,
which is no longer on the market, showed that 7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions. Another 7 of
40 died within two weeks of eating the tomato. Another study revealed that rats fed Monsanto’s
pestidice creating “Bt” corn showed toxic and other reactions.
There are only about two dozen peer-reviewed, published animal feeding safety studies on GMOs.
There are GM foods introduced to the market without ever being tested properly on animals or even
fed to humans before—they don’t actually do clinical feeding trials. The only human feeding study
ever conducted and published showed that the genes that were inserted into soybeans to cause
them to be herbicide tolerant transferred into human gut bacteria and was integrated stably into the
DNA. This means that long after you stop eating a genetically engineered food, your own gut
bacteria may be producing these foreign proteins, including the possibility of producing the Bt toxin –
a pesticide. This means that eating a GM corn chip could theoretically turn your intestinal flora into
living pesticide factories, possibly for the long-term.
In general, the FDA allowed the products to be on the market without this type of testing because it
was declared that it was “generally recognized as safe.” According to many attorneys, this
declaration was illegal, nonetheless, the U.S. set the precedent for the world, creating a myth that
the foods were equivalent and did not need to be substantially tested. What we see now from
mounting evidence is that they’re quite dangerous, that there is an enormous number of ways that
unpredicted side effects can and do occur, and that they may be responsible for many of the
worsening health statistics in the United States over the last ten years.
Crusador: Section 5 of your new book dovetails into what you just mentioned about GM
genes transferring to gut bacteria and internal organs. That’s quite concerning. Can you
explain how that happens, how they know that that happens, how many humans they
tested to determine that they have traits of these genes in their guts, and expound a little
bit more on what’s really happening inside the human body when these foods are
consumed?
In one study conducted on pregnant mice fed non-genetically engineered DNA, they discovered
fragments of the DNA in the offspring, including in their brains. It went through the placenta and
through the blood/brain barrier.
While this type of horizontal gene transfer may be relatively rare from normal food, the process of
genetically engineering a crop optimizes this transfer into human gut bacteria. For example, inserted
genes are from a bacterial source. Bacterial genes are more likely to swap transfer into bacteria.
The inserted genes also have their own “on” switch or promoter, which can keep them functioning
once they do the transfer. This might give them a selective advantage, causing them to spread and
prosper inside of us.
In the only human feeding study that looked at this, three of the seven volunteers showed that at
least part of the gene from GM soybeans was stably integrated into the DNA of gut bacteria. They
were British subjects and they tend to eat less GM soy than in the U.S. The incidence here may be
much higher.
A scientist in Germany discovered that GM genes had transferred to the micro-organism inside the
gut of bees. In the laboratory, genes from genetically engineered beets also transferred into soil
bacteria, demonstrating potential for widespread environmental problems as well.
In fact, when the FDA scientists were asked about the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes in GM
crops, they were appalled. A memo from a department of anti-infective drugs wrote in all capital
letters, “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR
ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”
They were concerned specifically about gene transfer, which might result in super diseases
accidentally equipped with genes giving them the ability to survive, even when treated with
medicines. The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on GM crops citing this as one of
the main reasons.
The concern about gene transfer has been prevalent, but very few studies have been done; if they
are done, and they find that we are developing super diseases or that our intestinal bacteria are
turned into living pesticide factories, it would destroy a multibillion dollar industry. There are very few
sources of funds for independent research. In fact, many scientists who discover adverse reactions
no longer have access to genetically engineered seeds for their study or to money to follow-up the
study. Sometimes they’re fired, sometimes they’re denied tenure, sometimes they lose status in their
departments or censured. Thus, we have very little research on the safety of GM foods.
Crusador: Biotech companies claim that any protein or bacterial genes that could be in a
genetically engineered food would be destroyed in the gut by the hydrochloric acid and it
would never make it past your stomach. You’re saying that this is actually going past the
stomach acid and into your deep intestinal system where your flora resides.
There has been a myth propagated by the biotech industry that it was all destroyed in the stomach.
The results of a feeding study on seven colostomy patients was a great surprise to the researchers
who found a significant percentage of transgenic DNA had survived passage through the stomach
and small intestines. But bacteria are also in the mouth. Even before GM food gets to the stomach,
it’s possible that it might transform our mouth bacteria. There’s evidence that the saliva actually can
promote gene transfer as well. This is an example of one of many unscientific assumptions that were
used as a basis for safety claims, which have been overturned. I have a four-page chart in my book
Genetic Roulette, showing key safety assumptions that were part of the argument why GM foods
would not be a problem – each one has been proven wrong.
Crusador: If something is happening negatively in the digestive system with your flora, the
next in line is your immune system. When you talk about the gut bacteria getting
colonized, is this something that can be reversed?
I know of no curative procedure. In fact, there’s not even a diagnostic procedure to see if we have
been colonized, as you say. We do know that several animal studies have shown the possibility of
potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract due to GM crops. For example, with the Bt
crops they found that when the Bt was fed to mice, they had damage in the lower part of the small
intestine along the intestinal wall. This could be a double threat, where you colonize the gut bacteria
and also harm the cells in the digestive tract that are normally associated with assimilation.
Crusador: Digestive problems in the United States are the most common complaint to
doctors. There’s a list of different ailments that occur in the digestive system. Do you
think that GM foods have anything to do with some of these problems?
Well, one of the world’s leading researchers in GM foods, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, says that the
gastrointestinal tract is the first point of contact with GM foods and should be the most affected; and
he’s found that in many cases. It’s very likely that GM foods may contribute to these types of
problems. Another scientist I spoke with is concerned with the cancers associated with the
esophagus, colon, and stomach because of genetically engineered foods. He believes that they
may create a growth-promoting effect in the gut.
There is an increase in the number of digestive problems that overlap with the introduction of
genetically engineered crops. I can’t say with confidence that a particular disease is based on a
particular crop because we don’t have the studies. In fact, we don’t even have labeling in this
country, so it’s difficult to do epidemiological surveys or post-marketing surveillance.
The Canadian version of the FDA, Health Canada, promised in 2002 that they would monitor the
population in Canada to see if GM foods were causing problems, but within a year they gave up,
saying it was too difficult. So we are being used as guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment with
no clear benefits for this technology and enormous risks associated with our health and the
environment.
The environmental issue may be even worse than the health problems, because genetically
engineered crops create self-propagating genetic pollution that could outlast the effects of global
warming and outlast nuclear waste. As long as species exist on the planet, they may be continuing
to hand off to their offspring genes that were created in the laboratory.
Crusador: That’s alarming. When you say antibiotic marker genes or antibiotic resistant
marker genes, my understanding is that they’re using these antibiotic marker genes to
somehow detect whether the new genetic traits have been transferred to the plant. Can
you explain that process a little bit?
When scientists create genetically engineered crops, they typically identify a gene from bacteria,
make changes in it, multiply it millions of times and put it in a gene gun and blast it like a shot gun
into millions of cells, hoping that some of those genes make it into the DNA of some of those cells.
But you can’t tell with a microscope which cells have picked up the genes. So they also put into their
transgene this antibiotic resistant marker gene, which, once it’s integrated into the DNA, produces a
protein that renders the cell invincible to a particular antibiotic. They douse these millions of cells
with this antibiotic, killing almost all of them; the few that survive do so because the transgene is now
integrated into their DNA. They clone the surviving cells into GM plants. But the antibiotic resistant
marker gene that was used only once just to see if the gene made it in stays and becomes cloned
and is found now in millions and millions of acres of the food that we eat.
The scientists at the FDA, as I mentioned, were appalled at this. One particular scientist wrote in a
memo which became public due to a lawsuit that the risks did not justify using this method of
antibiotic resistant markers. There are other methods that can be used but this method is less
expensive. So in order to save the biotech industry a few bucks, they’re putting our population at
risk. The FDA website clearly says that antibiotic resistant diseases can give rise to amputations,
prolonged sickness, and death. It’s a huge problem because of the overuse of antibiotics in
cleaners, food and in animals. GM crops are not creating this problem, but could potentially worsen it
and make it a disaster for people who gain infectious diseases.
Some of the excuses that have been used by the biotech industry are that most of the crops use a
gene resistant to an antibiotic called Kanamycin that is not so important a drug. I show in my book
how their assumptions are not true, that it could lead to multiple resistances to a whole family of
popular antibiotics and that they really are risking our health.
Crusador: It’s like a one-two punch between the gut colonization and the antibiotic
resistance. With all the ongoing terrorist threats, flu outbreaks, bird flu scares, and
eradicated diseases that are resurfacing, we could potentially be looking at a serious
problem if these antibiotics won’t work in a time of crisis. It’s hard for me not to believe
that a sinister plan is at work. I know you’re talking about a lot of things that may just be
happening randomly, but it almost seems like some upper echelon has knowledge of how
all this is effecting the population and they’re connecting the dots for an evil agenda.
What do you know about any of this?
I’ve never come across documents that spell out intentional destruction of immune systems. The
documents that I see are more in terms of control and profit. However, the results may be a disaster
because of the unpredicted side effects and the huge reach of these dangerous products that are
fed to millions of people. In particular, one of the most dangerous at risk groups is children. Toxic
reactions can potentially be much more dangerous to fetuses and young children. Kids are three to
four times more likely to develop allergies. Nutritional problems will show up more pronounced in a
fast growing body rather than an adult. And if GM crops create antibiotic resistance, it could hurt
kids with frequent ear infections, etc.
Another population at risk is recipients of U.S. food aid. The United States used food aid to dump
surplus grain, including genetically engineered soybeans and corn. Zambia, for example, after doing
an analysis of the potential risks, decided to reject U.S. corn that was genetically engineered and go
for food from a different source. The U.S. pounced on Zambia, claiming that they were willing to
starve their people for no particular reason. But if you look at these food aid recipients, they would
have been ingesting 90% of their caloric intake as corn, the majority of which was genetically
engineered to produce Bt toxin. These people were already immune compromised and digestively
compromised. U.S. food aid would pour this toxin into them, possibly colonizing their gut bacteria
and creating the recipe for a huge disaster. We are in a situation where we’re risking the whole
population.
Crusador: Let me pick up on another section of your book and bridge that into everything
we’re talking about here with human health. Section 2 says gene insertion disrupts the
DNA. We talked about the gut flora and the antibiotics. Now let’s look at the cell. Every
single cell in the human body has to replicate. DNA is the mechanism that sends the
message or code to the cells to do that. What’s happening at the cellular level or to our
DNA when we eat GM foods or drink milk that’s been genetically engineered?
Well, the gene insertion process can cause mutations around the insertion site. It can delete genes,
change their functioning, or even turn genes on permanently. These are the natural genes. The
process of cloning the genes can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations up and
down the DNA. The DNA is typically 2 to 4% different than it was before the mutations produced by
cloning. The insertion process also creates massive changes in the amount of protein that other
natural genes produce. One study showed that a single gene insertion changed the level of
expression of up to 5% of the genes that were functioning in the DNA. We’re talking about huge
collateral damage that occurs within a plant’s genome as a result of gene insertion. These are not
Legos; you can’t snap them into place.
When the DNA changes that way, it can create toxins, carcinogens, allergens, anti-nutrients, positive
nutrients. It’s a genetic roulette. There are also thousands of natural products in plants which are
synthesized using these primary proteins and enzymes, etc., so they too can be changed. The
number of things that can go wrong is massive, but the amount of study that’s done on these
products before they’re put into the market is minimal and superficial.
One study in particular demonstrated that changes to the DNA were largely responsible for damage
to nearly all the systems in rats that were studied. Potatoes that were engineered to produce an
insecticide and fed to rats caused them to develop potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller
brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems. Rats that
were just fed the insecticide did not have that problem, so it wasn’t the insecticide itself that caused
the problem. Rather it was the unpredicted changes in the DNA and physiology of the plant that
somehow caused these drastic changes in the rats within ten days of feeding on GM potatoes.
Crusador: You also report on some farmers whose pigs and cows became sterile from GM
corn. Tell us about that and why there are concerns with humans as well?
There’s about two dozen farmers that claim that certain varieties of Bt corn caused their pigs and
cows to become sterile. In some cases with pigs, they developed pseudo pregnancies or gave birth
to bags of water. When they took these animals off of the genetically engineered corn, the problem
went away. When they put them back on the corn, the problem came back. Some people didn’t
notice this until it had happened a few times, and they noticed whenever the GM corn was fed, the
animals would no longer breed or the level of breeding was reduced dramatically.
There was one study that I highlight in Genetic Roulette that shows two endocrine disrupters in corn
that are enormously powerful and might also promote cancer growth according to laboratory tests.
Their levels in corn may differ based on the process of genetic engineering.
Crusador: Tell us about the use of the promoter, which comes from a virus, and is used to
switch on the foreign gene.
This is an interesting point. One of the genetic constructs that is put into GM crops is the promoter.
It is designed to turn on the foreign transgene after it has been inserted. It turns it on at high volume
24/7 around the clock.
The assumption that was used by the biotech industry was that the promoter would only turn on the
gene to which it was attached. However, we know that this particular promoter that’s used commonly
can turn on other genes in the plant genome at random, full time, high volume, 24/7, causing them to
overproduce whatever. It could be a toxin, carcinogen, or anti-nutrient.
Now, let’s say the promoter transfers to our gut bacteria, or worse, perhaps to our own DNA inside
our organs. It’s possible that it could turn on a gene at random. This is a type of genetic roulette,
like throwing darts at our genome to permanently turn on a gene and see what happens.
One thing that is of concern to some scientists is that embedded within our genes and the genes of
plants are ancient viruses from previous species that have worked themselves into the DNA. They
may be intact but simply not turned on. If the promoter transfers from genetically engineered crops
into the DNA of humans, or even within the crops themselves, it might awaken a dormant virus which
could have catastrophic implications.
Crusador: Wow. That sounds like something from an X-files episode. When you talk about
a promoter gene, what about cell division? How do we know that something couldn’t turn
on cells to divide faster and by somehow doing that, it could trigger an epidemic of
cancer?
Well, one thing that comes to mind immediately is recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. This is a
genetically engineered drug injected into cows to increase milk supply. What it does (in addition to
the fact that it increases the incidence of infection in the cows, which increases the pus in the milk,
which also tends to increase the use of antibiotics in the cows, which ends up in the milk) is increase
a hormone in the milk called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is associated with cell
multiplication.
More than 30 studies present overwhelming evidence linking high levels of circulating IGF-1 in
humans with major cancers. Pre-menopausal women below the age of 50 with high levels of IGF-1
are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men with high levels are four times more likely
to develop prostate cancer. It’s implicated in lung and colon cancer. The IGF-1 levels in milk from
cows treated with rBGH are in much higher levels. In my mind, it’s a huge potential danger to
increase the levels of IGF-1 in the milk. There was also a study that came out last year suggesting
that the high levels of fraternal twin rates in the U.S. compared to the UK was due to the use of rBGH
in the dairy. The drug is banned in Europe.
Crusador: Let’s talk about Terminator technology or Terminator seeds. Biotech
companies want to control the technology to the point where farmers won’t even be able
to take second generation seeds and replant them in the ground because, as you said,
those genetic traits are going to remain indefinitely in that crop. Monsanto has to
basically run a police operation on farmers to make sure that they’re not saving seeds and
replanting them in the ground. So they took the technology to the next level and
developed seeds that won’t reproduce; you’ll just be able to use them one time, second
generation seeds won’t germinate. That’s been a big area where the biotech companies
have been trying to go; they’ve hit some roadblocks though. Can you explain where they’
re at with Terminator technology and do you see that as something that’s going to
eventually happen? If so, do you have any evidence of what that might do in the human
body?
There was such concern and resistance raised by world bodies over the Terminator technology that
Monsanto agreed years ago not to commercialize it. The Canadian government is acting on behalf of
the biotech industry now and trying to get Terminator accepted in international circles. So far, the
non-governmental organizations and other countries have been successful in blocking Canada’s
attempt to revive commercialization of the Terminator. The biotech industry is hoping to have the
Terminator technology active within a couple of years.
The impact can be enormous. They originally admitted that the purpose of the Terminator was to
focus in developing countries where most farmers save seeds. Terminator would force farmers to go
to Monsanto and other biotech companies year after year to get new seeds. This not only makes
farmers dependent, it will reduce the biodiversity. When the biotech industry takes over the seed
supply, it reduces the number of seeds available for farmers. Instead of having the enormous
diversity of genetics from seeds that have been saved generation after generation and cultured to
work properly in a particular climate and geography, there will be a fraction of that available through
seed catalogs. By eliminating the biodiversity, we would be risking the entire food supply on earth to
potential famine or blight.
We are also risking the farmers’ lives on unproven technologies which is fraught with unpredicted
side effects. For example, in India they convinced thousands and thousands of farmers to try their
unproven genetically engineered Bt cotton varieties. These varieties had erratic performances. In
the first year in one area there was about a 52% reduction in yield. It worked terribly in areas that
didn’t have irrigation, for example. Thousands of farmers ended up in debt, having borrowed money
for the seeds and for the chemicals. As a result, thousands of farmers have committed suicide in
India because of Bt cotton. It has not stopped Monsanto from aggressively marketing and using
Hollywood actors, even religious leaders, and all sorts of ways to convince farmers to give up their
traditional seeds and switch over to these more dangerous varieties.
Crusador: Most of Europe was opposed to biotechnology. They’ve put a lot of barriers in
place to stop it, however, recently a lot of the roadblocks have been coming down and GM
foods seem to be poised to make their way into the European marketplace and on
European farms. What’s happening on that front?
Well, the European rejection of GMOs was driven by consumers. There was such consumer push-
back that in April of 1999, Unilever, Britain’s largest food manufacturer, committed to remove GM
ingredients from their European brands. Within a week, nearly every major food manufacturer did
the same, and this tipping point of consumer concern has been the reason why GMOs are not sold
in the European marketplace. GM animal feed continues to be used because the meat and dairy
products from GM fed animals don’t have to be labeled as such, but there are efforts to close that
loophole. But by and large it was consumer rejection forcing the hand of manufacturers. The
European Commission is pro-GM, certain member state governments are pro-GM; but what has held
fast is the rejection by consumers.
My Institute for Responsible Technology has launched the Campaign for Healthier Eating in
America. We are organizing an education program through all the health food stores, health-related
magazines, and other places, to educate consumers to achieve the same tipping point in the United
States that we saw in Europe. Our goal is to force food manufacturers to reject the use of GM
ingredients. We are focusing on the natural products industry first because there are already 28
million Americans who buy organic foods on a regular basis, but many don’t know how to avoid
GMOs in their non-organic purchases.
We are orchestrating a cleanout of GMOs from the entire natural food industry. We are going to set
up GMO education centers in the health food stores and circulate non-GMO shopping guides. Soon
after we’ve given the manufacturers the chance to clean out GMOs, within a couple of years we’ll be
setting up in-store, on-shelf labeling voluntarily by the store managers that will identify any of the
holdout products that have not participated in this cleanout. We believe that by giving health-
conscious consumers clear choices, and by educating them, for example, about the fact that GMOs
might turn their intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, or that it has increased infant mortality in
rats five-fold, we'll have a strong loyal base of people who will no longer eat genetically engineered
foods. This, along with our GM-Free Schools campaign and our publicity campaign, we believe, will
force the tipping point of U.S. manufacturers within 24 months.
Crusador: That’s an excellent goal. Is there anything on the legislative front that would
mandate manufacturers to label products? What you’re saying really is true. The
consumer is the one that’s going to drive the market. Even though the big corporations
control many of the farms and seeds, ultimately if consumers do not buy these products
because they have knowledge of what they could possibly do to their body and what
products they’re in, their game would be up. I think that’s one of the main reasons why
the FDA has not mandated labeling on any of these products, because if consumers saw a
label that said “This product contains genetically modified ingredients” they would have
drawn questions many years ago and rejected this technology.
You’re right. The FDA is aware that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled and they’re also
aware that people say if they were labeled, more than half would avoid eating them. But the FDA is
mandated to promote the biotechnology industry, so they’re willing to deny the requests of 9 out of
10 Americans in order to promote an industry with five transnational corporations. Labeling
legislation has been introduced to Congress in the past. You can go to www.thecampaign.org to find
out the current status. That’s the campaign to label genetically engineered foods.
There has also been legislation introduced to get these products safety tested, and to protect
farmers from the liability associated with contamination. But the biotech industry has spent hundreds
of millions of dollars on lobbying Washington, and projected so much disinformation that it really is
one of their strongholds. In fact, they are influencing state governments as well. For example, after
California citizens created GM-free zones in a number of counties through ballot initiatives or county
supervisor ordinances, the biotech industry passed legislation in 14 states that would disallow any
such local GM-free zones.
Crusador: Is there anything else you would recommend to people reading this interview
to do to help stop this technology from advancing further?
Yes. Our institute has a number of educational programs that I’d like to make available. If you go to
www.seedsofdeception.com you can listen to or download a 60-minute talk of mine. You can burn it
yourself and pass it on or buy it on the website for about a dollar. We have a free syndicated
monthly column that you can sign up for and send to your friends. We have a DVD called “Hidden
Danger in Kids’ Meals” which is 28 minutes long; it creates instant activism. If you show it to
community members, a percentage of people will immediately want to be involved in our GM-Free
School campaign. We supply each campaign with a large manual, media kit, a website, a list serve,
and a strategy.
I think that for individuals wanting to do something on a local level, the GM-Free School campaign is
the best route, for many reasons. It will highlight to the entire community, not just to the parents and
schools, the health risks of GMOs. School lunch programs are being changed across the country
and they are a major issue right now, so it’s a perfect time to introduce the knowledge of the health
risks of GMOs. We provide the documentation so that campaigners don’t have to become experts in
this. They can simply play the DVD, show a book, hand materials, and it’s easy to generate
hundreds of people who will sign on to participate with the campaign because protecting kids is a
natural response, and in this case very appropriate.
I think the main thing is for people to take steps to avoid eating genetically engineered foods. As
part of the Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, we are endorsing a third party verification
program that will validate non-GM claims by the entire natural food industry. This program has been
endorsed by Whole Foods, United Natural Foods, Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, Lundberg Family
Farms, Straus Family Creamery and others, and is moving forward. We will have a non-GMO
shopping guide based on third-party verified content, hopefully by the end of this year. And we’ll
have a series of updates.
Until then, we have an electronic version of a shopping guide on our website based on company
claims, as well as strategies of how to avoid eating GMOs. This is accomplished by buying organic,
buying products that say non-GMO, or avoiding principally soy, corn, cotton, or canola, and their soy
and corn derivatives. By cotton I mean cottonseed oil. The other three GM food crops are Hawaiian
papaya, a little bit of zucchini, and a little crook neck squash. There are also dairy products from
cows that have been injected with bovine growth hormone. Some processed foods also use
genetically engineered enzymes, additives, and cooking agents that are harder to avoid. We give
information about these on the website. Some people also choose to avoid meat and dairy from
animals that have been fed GM crops, and that is also more difficult. People need to choose the
non-GMO choices based on their level of comfort and accessibility.
Now, when we discussed colonizing your gut bacteria earlier in this interview, I want to point out that
not every derivative of a GM crop has the ability to colonize gut bacteria because there may not be
any DNA left in refined oil or in high fructose corn syrup. Not every derivative has the same risk
profile, but all have some risk because of the massive changes of the DNA and the possible toxins
and allergens. I would suggest to “stop gambling with your health in every bite” by avoiding GMOs.
Crusador: Excellent. I appreciate your time, Jeffrey.
Thank you very much, Greg.
The Documented Health Risks Of Genetically Engineered Foods
Crusador Interviews Jeffrey Smith Listen to 1 Hour Lecture: Don't Put That In Your Mouth
September 28, 2008 Source
CRUSADOR Interviews Best-Selling Author Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith is a leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). His globally respected research captured public attention in 2003 with his first book on the
serious yet unknown side effects of genetically engineered foods, Seeds of Deception.
Recently, Smith introduced his latest book on the subject titled Genetic Roulette. According to
Smith, when you eat genetically modified food you are gambling with every bite. In his power-packed
new book, the biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered.
Smith documents 65 health risks with GM foods that Americans eat every day. What you will discover
will shock you, anger you, and hopefully, prompt you to take action as a consumer to put a stop to
this reckless science that treats humans as guinea pigs.
Smith has counseled world leaders from every continent, influenced the first state laws regulating
GMOs, and is now uniting leaders for The Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, a revolutionary
industry and consumer movement to remove all GMOs from the natural food industry.
CRUSADOR editor Greg Ciola recently met with Jeffrey Smith in person at the conference of the
American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine in Orlando, Florida to discuss his new book and some of
the dangers with genetically modified foods.
Crusador: Jeffrey, it’s good to be with you. Why did you write your new book Genetic
Roulette and what’s the difference between this one and your previous book, Seeds of
Deception?
Well, Seeds of Deception is laid out in story format, and it relies on experiences of scientists who
were threatened, fired, stripped of responsibilities, forced out, or bribed, research that was rigged,
reporters who were muzzled or threatened, and regulatory agencies that were hijacked by the
biotech industry. Woven into the stories was the science of genetically engineered foods and the
health risks. The combination was a success. It became the world’s best-selling book on GMOs,
translated into ten languages. But it was very hard to extract information from it as a reference
because it was all imbedded in stories. That’s what led me to write Genetic Roulette.
I realized that what I wanted to do was to provide a book that easily and irrefutably won the argument
that genetically engineered foods are not safe. My challenge was to design a book that could be
read quickly by a busy politician, policy-maker, superintendent of schools, or CEO, and yet also have
the in-depth information about the science so that their staffers or scientists can read it. Thus, it’s
laid out so that you can scan it very quickly and get the whole picture at once or go in-depth and
read the details.
There are 65 two-page spreads, each devoted to a different risk of genetically engineered foods.
The left side is an executive summary with a conclusion, bullet points, and a quote from a scientist.
The right side is detailed, referenced text. People can simply flip through and read just the left side
and be overwhelmed at the thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals, thousands of people linking
toxic and allergic responses to genetically engineered products, and discover the reasons why
genetically engineered foods are so unsafe. Or, they can dig deeper into the science and the faulty
claims by the biotech companies presented on the right side.
Crusador: It’s interesting that your book came out when it did. I received an email
several months ago from a supplier of genetically engineered seeds. He read one of the
stories you wrote that was posted on our website. He was furious and basically said there’
s no evidence of any harm with this technology, so quit trying to scare people or stop a
proven technology. In your new book you cover some of the serious side effects that are
occurring with this technology that shows clear evidence of harm in humans and animals.
Can you discuss some of these problems?
There are two main types of genetically engineered crops. One produces its own pesticide and one
is engineered not to die when sprayed with herbicide. If we look at the pesticide-producing crops,
there’s overwhelming evidence that the pesticide that’s in every cell of the plant, in every bite that we
eat – in Bt corn, for example – has an allergic and toxic response. It’s been traced to death in
animals, sterility problems, mysterious illnesses in humans when they breathe in the Bt pollen, and
allergic reactions in workers who handle Bt cotton. Even Monsanto’s own study showed dramatic
indications of toxicity in rats that were fed their genetically engineered corn.
With the Roundup Ready soybeans, which are engineered not to die when sprayed with Roundup
herbicide by Monsanto, there’s evidence of both allergenic and toxic reactions as well. Soon after
GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. We know from one study that
there’s an allergenic protein that was found to be unique in the GM soy and not in non-GM soy, and
at least one subject showed a skin prick response to the GM and not the non-GM soy. We also
know a naturally-occurring allergen in soy was as much as sevenfold higher in cooked soy, in
Monsanto’s own study, compared to non-GM soy.
We also see reproductive problems. Mice fed GM soy had changes in their testicles, which suggests
possible problems in the sperm cells. The young embryo offspring of mice that were fed GM soy had
changes in DNA expression compared to those whose parents were fed natural soy. With rats
whose mothers were fed GM soy, 56% of the offspring died within three weeks compared to 9% of
those whose mothers ate non-GM soy. After the study was completed, the rat food used by that
laboratory began incorporating GM soy. Within two months of all the rats in the facility eating a GM
soy diet, infant mortality skyrocketed to above 50%. This is the same GM soy that’s planted in 89%
of the soy fields in the U.S.
Crusador: How is it that these products are allowed to be on the market with all of this
evidence of harm?
Well, there are a couple of things. First of all, the biotech companies have hijacked the regulatory
agencies. This was clear when thousands of documents were made public from a lawsuit in the
1990s showing that the scientists at the FDA had warned their superiors that GM foods might create
allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems; and urged them to require long-term safety
studies. But the person who was hired to be in charge of policy was Monsanto’s former attorney and
later Monsanto’s vice president, and he overruled the warnings of the scientists. He created a policy
in which the industry completely self-regulates and the FDA requires no safety studies whatsoever.
This was because the White House had instructed the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry.
The second reason is that there is a very in-depth and effective public relations mechanism which
spouts misinformation and disinformation constantly throughout the world. You hear complete
distortions that GMOs are safe -- and they're not; that they're appropriate to feed the world – and
they’re not; that they improve yields – and on average they don’t; that they’re safe for the
environment – which they’re not. You hear this over and over again and it’s not only among the
general public, but also among politicians.
For example, Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under Clinton said, “what I saw
generically from the pro biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was
almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good because it was going to solve the problems of the human
race.”
Crusador: Let’s pick up his statement. It’s easy to prove that this technology is not going
to solve the problems of the human race. This is a dangerous technology; they’re doing
something with science that would never happen in nature on its own. You’re dealing
with corporations that are really interested more, it appears to me, in hijacking the food
supply and patenting all these products that people use on a daily basis in order to
control the seeds, the food, and the farmers. It’s all about control, and they use this
jargon about feeding the world and helping the environment as a tool of deception. Isn’t
that true?
When Arthur Andersen Consulting Group asked Monsanto’s executives, years ago, to describe their
ideal future, Monsanto described – in 15 to 20 years – a world in which 100% of all commercial
seeds were genetically engineered and patented. Andersen Consulting created a plan to try and
achieve that. Other companies have the same goal. The biotech industry bought up a huge
percentage of the world’s seed supply. So the concept of control as you mentioned is accurate.
In addition, there are 1.4 billion farmers that save seeds each year and Monsanto and others want to
create a terminator technology which causes the harvest to be sterile and un-plantable, forcing
these farmers to have to go back to the biotech seed dealers for their seeds each year. So it’s an
enormous control issue. There are also patent issues where a seed blows onto your field and grows
in your field. If you happen to inadvertently replant it with your other seeds, you can get sued and
pay fines and lose the rights to your own plants.
Crusador: That’s happening on a big scale, from what I understand. There are hundreds
of lawsuits against farmers for that very issue; aren’t there?
As of a couple of years ago, there was about 190 lawsuits already filed and many more settlements,
and Monsanto already gained $15 million from farmers that they had threatened, many of which say
they had never done the things that Monsanto claimed that they had done.
Crusador: You stated that the FDA essentially turned over the regulation of this
technology to the biotech companies themselves. What kind of safety studies have they
done to validate, or prove to the world, that this technology is entirely safe for humans to
ingest?
There have been very few safety studies, and the ones conducted by industry are clearly rigged to
avoid finding problems. They use small sample sizes, short duration; mature animals instead of the
young, sensitive ones. They use bogus control groups. They use insensitive or obsolete detection
methods, poor statistical analysis, and poor reporting. They have got bad science down to a
science.
In Part 3 of my book Genetic Roulette, I go into detail about how industry-funded research is rigged.
It shows clearly that they’re not interested in proper science. They’re interested in producing a pre-
determined conclusion of safety. However, when they get something approved, they don’t use peer-
reviewed studies – they use their lousy science and typically keep it secret, hidden from the public,
claiming that disclosure would be confidential business information.
Well, two industry studies have been made public from lawsuits. One, for the Flavr Savr tomato,
which is no longer on the market, showed that 7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions. Another 7 of
40 died within two weeks of eating the tomato. Another study revealed that rats fed Monsanto’s
pestidice creating “Bt” corn showed toxic and other reactions.
There are only about two dozen peer-reviewed, published animal feeding safety studies on GMOs.
There are GM foods introduced to the market without ever being tested properly on animals or even
fed to humans before—they don’t actually do clinical feeding trials. The only human feeding study
ever conducted and published showed that the genes that were inserted into soybeans to cause
them to be herbicide tolerant transferred into human gut bacteria and was integrated stably into the
DNA. This means that long after you stop eating a genetically engineered food, your own gut
bacteria may be producing these foreign proteins, including the possibility of producing the Bt toxin –
a pesticide. This means that eating a GM corn chip could theoretically turn your intestinal flora into
living pesticide factories, possibly for the long-term.
In general, the FDA allowed the products to be on the market without this type of testing because it
was declared that it was “generally recognized as safe.” According to many attorneys, this
declaration was illegal, nonetheless, the U.S. set the precedent for the world, creating a myth that
the foods were equivalent and did not need to be substantially tested. What we see now from
mounting evidence is that they’re quite dangerous, that there is an enormous number of ways that
unpredicted side effects can and do occur, and that they may be responsible for many of the
worsening health statistics in the United States over the last ten years.
Crusador: Section 5 of your new book dovetails into what you just mentioned about GM
genes transferring to gut bacteria and internal organs. That’s quite concerning. Can you
explain how that happens, how they know that that happens, how many humans they
tested to determine that they have traits of these genes in their guts, and expound a little
bit more on what’s really happening inside the human body when these foods are
consumed?
In one study conducted on pregnant mice fed non-genetically engineered DNA, they discovered
fragments of the DNA in the offspring, including in their brains. It went through the placenta and
through the blood/brain barrier.
While this type of horizontal gene transfer may be relatively rare from normal food, the process of
genetically engineering a crop optimizes this transfer into human gut bacteria. For example, inserted
genes are from a bacterial source. Bacterial genes are more likely to swap transfer into bacteria.
The inserted genes also have their own “on” switch or promoter, which can keep them functioning
once they do the transfer. This might give them a selective advantage, causing them to spread and
prosper inside of us.
In the only human feeding study that looked at this, three of the seven volunteers showed that at
least part of the gene from GM soybeans was stably integrated into the DNA of gut bacteria. They
were British subjects and they tend to eat less GM soy than in the U.S. The incidence here may be
much higher.
A scientist in Germany discovered that GM genes had transferred to the micro-organism inside the
gut of bees. In the laboratory, genes from genetically engineered beets also transferred into soil
bacteria, demonstrating potential for widespread environmental problems as well.
In fact, when the FDA scientists were asked about the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes in GM
crops, they were appalled. A memo from a department of anti-infective drugs wrote in all capital
letters, “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR
ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”
They were concerned specifically about gene transfer, which might result in super diseases
accidentally equipped with genes giving them the ability to survive, even when treated with
medicines. The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on GM crops citing this as one of
the main reasons.
The concern about gene transfer has been prevalent, but very few studies have been done; if they
are done, and they find that we are developing super diseases or that our intestinal bacteria are
turned into living pesticide factories, it would destroy a multibillion dollar industry. There are very few
sources of funds for independent research. In fact, many scientists who discover adverse reactions
no longer have access to genetically engineered seeds for their study or to money to follow-up the
study. Sometimes they’re fired, sometimes they’re denied tenure, sometimes they lose status in their
departments or censured. Thus, we have very little research on the safety of GM foods.
Crusador: Biotech companies claim that any protein or bacterial genes that could be in a
genetically engineered food would be destroyed in the gut by the hydrochloric acid and it
would never make it past your stomach. You’re saying that this is actually going past the
stomach acid and into your deep intestinal system where your flora resides.
There has been a myth propagated by the biotech industry that it was all destroyed in the stomach.
The results of a feeding study on seven colostomy patients was a great surprise to the researchers
who found a significant percentage of transgenic DNA had survived passage through the stomach
and small intestines. But bacteria are also in the mouth. Even before GM food gets to the stomach,
it’s possible that it might transform our mouth bacteria. There’s evidence that the saliva actually can
promote gene transfer as well. This is an example of one of many unscientific assumptions that were
used as a basis for safety claims, which have been overturned. I have a four-page chart in my book
Genetic Roulette, showing key safety assumptions that were part of the argument why GM foods
would not be a problem – each one has been proven wrong.
Crusador: If something is happening negatively in the digestive system with your flora, the
next in line is your immune system. When you talk about the gut bacteria getting
colonized, is this something that can be reversed?
I know of no curative procedure. In fact, there’s not even a diagnostic procedure to see if we have
been colonized, as you say. We do know that several animal studies have shown the possibility of
potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract due to GM crops. For example, with the Bt
crops they found that when the Bt was fed to mice, they had damage in the lower part of the small
intestine along the intestinal wall. This could be a double threat, where you colonize the gut bacteria
and also harm the cells in the digestive tract that are normally associated with assimilation.
Crusador: Digestive problems in the United States are the most common complaint to
doctors. There’s a list of different ailments that occur in the digestive system. Do you
think that GM foods have anything to do with some of these problems?
Well, one of the world’s leading researchers in GM foods, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, says that the
gastrointestinal tract is the first point of contact with GM foods and should be the most affected; and
he’s found that in many cases. It’s very likely that GM foods may contribute to these types of
problems. Another scientist I spoke with is concerned with the cancers associated with the
esophagus, colon, and stomach because of genetically engineered foods. He believes that they
may create a growth-promoting effect in the gut.
There is an increase in the number of digestive problems that overlap with the introduction of
genetically engineered crops. I can’t say with confidence that a particular disease is based on a
particular crop because we don’t have the studies. In fact, we don’t even have labeling in this
country, so it’s difficult to do epidemiological surveys or post-marketing surveillance.
The Canadian version of the FDA, Health Canada, promised in 2002 that they would monitor the
population in Canada to see if GM foods were causing problems, but within a year they gave up,
saying it was too difficult. So we are being used as guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment with
no clear benefits for this technology and enormous risks associated with our health and the
environment.
The environmental issue may be even worse than the health problems, because genetically
engineered crops create self-propagating genetic pollution that could outlast the effects of global
warming and outlast nuclear waste. As long as species exist on the planet, they may be continuing
to hand off to their offspring genes that were created in the laboratory.
Crusador: That’s alarming. When you say antibiotic marker genes or antibiotic resistant
marker genes, my understanding is that they’re using these antibiotic marker genes to
somehow detect whether the new genetic traits have been transferred to the plant. Can
you explain that process a little bit?
When scientists create genetically engineered crops, they typically identify a gene from bacteria,
make changes in it, multiply it millions of times and put it in a gene gun and blast it like a shot gun
into millions of cells, hoping that some of those genes make it into the DNA of some of those cells.
But you can’t tell with a microscope which cells have picked up the genes. So they also put into their
transgene this antibiotic resistant marker gene, which, once it’s integrated into the DNA, produces a
protein that renders the cell invincible to a particular antibiotic. They douse these millions of cells
with this antibiotic, killing almost all of them; the few that survive do so because the transgene is now
integrated into their DNA. They clone the surviving cells into GM plants. But the antibiotic resistant
marker gene that was used only once just to see if the gene made it in stays and becomes cloned
and is found now in millions and millions of acres of the food that we eat.
The scientists at the FDA, as I mentioned, were appalled at this. One particular scientist wrote in a
memo which became public due to a lawsuit that the risks did not justify using this method of
antibiotic resistant markers. There are other methods that can be used but this method is less
expensive. So in order to save the biotech industry a few bucks, they’re putting our population at
risk. The FDA website clearly says that antibiotic resistant diseases can give rise to amputations,
prolonged sickness, and death. It’s a huge problem because of the overuse of antibiotics in
cleaners, food and in animals. GM crops are not creating this problem, but could potentially worsen it
and make it a disaster for people who gain infectious diseases.
Some of the excuses that have been used by the biotech industry are that most of the crops use a
gene resistant to an antibiotic called Kanamycin that is not so important a drug. I show in my book
how their assumptions are not true, that it could lead to multiple resistances to a whole family of
popular antibiotics and that they really are risking our health.
Crusador: It’s like a one-two punch between the gut colonization and the antibiotic
resistance. With all the ongoing terrorist threats, flu outbreaks, bird flu scares, and
eradicated diseases that are resurfacing, we could potentially be looking at a serious
problem if these antibiotics won’t work in a time of crisis. It’s hard for me not to believe
that a sinister plan is at work. I know you’re talking about a lot of things that may just be
happening randomly, but it almost seems like some upper echelon has knowledge of how
all this is effecting the population and they’re connecting the dots for an evil agenda.
What do you know about any of this?
I’ve never come across documents that spell out intentional destruction of immune systems. The
documents that I see are more in terms of control and profit. However, the results may be a disaster
because of the unpredicted side effects and the huge reach of these dangerous products that are
fed to millions of people. In particular, one of the most dangerous at risk groups is children. Toxic
reactions can potentially be much more dangerous to fetuses and young children. Kids are three to
four times more likely to develop allergies. Nutritional problems will show up more pronounced in a
fast growing body rather than an adult. And if GM crops create antibiotic resistance, it could hurt
kids with frequent ear infections, etc.
Another population at risk is recipients of U.S. food aid. The United States used food aid to dump
surplus grain, including genetically engineered soybeans and corn. Zambia, for example, after doing
an analysis of the potential risks, decided to reject U.S. corn that was genetically engineered and go
for food from a different source. The U.S. pounced on Zambia, claiming that they were willing to
starve their people for no particular reason. But if you look at these food aid recipients, they would
have been ingesting 90% of their caloric intake as corn, the majority of which was genetically
engineered to produce Bt toxin. These people were already immune compromised and digestively
compromised. U.S. food aid would pour this toxin into them, possibly colonizing their gut bacteria
and creating the recipe for a huge disaster. We are in a situation where we’re risking the whole
population.
Crusador: Let me pick up on another section of your book and bridge that into everything
we’re talking about here with human health. Section 2 says gene insertion disrupts the
DNA. We talked about the gut flora and the antibiotics. Now let’s look at the cell. Every
single cell in the human body has to replicate. DNA is the mechanism that sends the
message or code to the cells to do that. What’s happening at the cellular level or to our
DNA when we eat GM foods or drink milk that’s been genetically engineered?
Well, the gene insertion process can cause mutations around the insertion site. It can delete genes,
change their functioning, or even turn genes on permanently. These are the natural genes. The
process of cloning the genes can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations up and
down the DNA. The DNA is typically 2 to 4% different than it was before the mutations produced by
cloning. The insertion process also creates massive changes in the amount of protein that other
natural genes produce. One study showed that a single gene insertion changed the level of
expression of up to 5% of the genes that were functioning in the DNA. We’re talking about huge
collateral damage that occurs within a plant’s genome as a result of gene insertion. These are not
Legos; you can’t snap them into place.
When the DNA changes that way, it can create toxins, carcinogens, allergens, anti-nutrients, positive
nutrients. It’s a genetic roulette. There are also thousands of natural products in plants which are
synthesized using these primary proteins and enzymes, etc., so they too can be changed. The
number of things that can go wrong is massive, but the amount of study that’s done on these
products before they’re put into the market is minimal and superficial.
One study in particular demonstrated that changes to the DNA were largely responsible for damage
to nearly all the systems in rats that were studied. Potatoes that were engineered to produce an
insecticide and fed to rats caused them to develop potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller
brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems. Rats that
were just fed the insecticide did not have that problem, so it wasn’t the insecticide itself that caused
the problem. Rather it was the unpredicted changes in the DNA and physiology of the plant that
somehow caused these drastic changes in the rats within ten days of feeding on GM potatoes.
Crusador: You also report on some farmers whose pigs and cows became sterile from GM
corn. Tell us about that and why there are concerns with humans as well?
There’s about two dozen farmers that claim that certain varieties of Bt corn caused their pigs and
cows to become sterile. In some cases with pigs, they developed pseudo pregnancies or gave birth
to bags of water. When they took these animals off of the genetically engineered corn, the problem
went away. When they put them back on the corn, the problem came back. Some people didn’t
notice this until it had happened a few times, and they noticed whenever the GM corn was fed, the
animals would no longer breed or the level of breeding was reduced dramatically.
There was one study that I highlight in Genetic Roulette that shows two endocrine disrupters in corn
that are enormously powerful and might also promote cancer growth according to laboratory tests.
Their levels in corn may differ based on the process of genetic engineering.
Crusador: Tell us about the use of the promoter, which comes from a virus, and is used to
switch on the foreign gene.
This is an interesting point. One of the genetic constructs that is put into GM crops is the promoter.
It is designed to turn on the foreign transgene after it has been inserted. It turns it on at high volume
24/7 around the clock.
The assumption that was used by the biotech industry was that the promoter would only turn on the
gene to which it was attached. However, we know that this particular promoter that’s used commonly
can turn on other genes in the plant genome at random, full time, high volume, 24/7, causing them to
overproduce whatever. It could be a toxin, carcinogen, or anti-nutrient.
Now, let’s say the promoter transfers to our gut bacteria, or worse, perhaps to our own DNA inside
our organs. It’s possible that it could turn on a gene at random. This is a type of genetic roulette,
like throwing darts at our genome to permanently turn on a gene and see what happens.
One thing that is of concern to some scientists is that embedded within our genes and the genes of
plants are ancient viruses from previous species that have worked themselves into the DNA. They
may be intact but simply not turned on. If the promoter transfers from genetically engineered crops
into the DNA of humans, or even within the crops themselves, it might awaken a dormant virus which
could have catastrophic implications.
Crusador: Wow. That sounds like something from an X-files episode. When you talk about
a promoter gene, what about cell division? How do we know that something couldn’t turn
on cells to divide faster and by somehow doing that, it could trigger an epidemic of
cancer?
Well, one thing that comes to mind immediately is recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. This is a
genetically engineered drug injected into cows to increase milk supply. What it does (in addition to
the fact that it increases the incidence of infection in the cows, which increases the pus in the milk,
which also tends to increase the use of antibiotics in the cows, which ends up in the milk) is increase
a hormone in the milk called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is associated with cell
multiplication.
More than 30 studies present overwhelming evidence linking high levels of circulating IGF-1 in
humans with major cancers. Pre-menopausal women below the age of 50 with high levels of IGF-1
are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men with high levels are four times more likely
to develop prostate cancer. It’s implicated in lung and colon cancer. The IGF-1 levels in milk from
cows treated with rBGH are in much higher levels. In my mind, it’s a huge potential danger to
increase the levels of IGF-1 in the milk. There was also a study that came out last year suggesting
that the high levels of fraternal twin rates in the U.S. compared to the UK was due to the use of rBGH
in the dairy. The drug is banned in Europe.
Crusador: Let’s talk about Terminator technology or Terminator seeds. Biotech
companies want to control the technology to the point where farmers won’t even be able
to take second generation seeds and replant them in the ground because, as you said,
those genetic traits are going to remain indefinitely in that crop. Monsanto has to
basically run a police operation on farmers to make sure that they’re not saving seeds and
replanting them in the ground. So they took the technology to the next level and
developed seeds that won’t reproduce; you’ll just be able to use them one time, second
generation seeds won’t germinate. That’s been a big area where the biotech companies
have been trying to go; they’ve hit some roadblocks though. Can you explain where they’
re at with Terminator technology and do you see that as something that’s going to
eventually happen? If so, do you have any evidence of what that might do in the human
body?
There was such concern and resistance raised by world bodies over the Terminator technology that
Monsanto agreed years ago not to commercialize it. The Canadian government is acting on behalf of
the biotech industry now and trying to get Terminator accepted in international circles. So far, the
non-governmental organizations and other countries have been successful in blocking Canada’s
attempt to revive commercialization of the Terminator. The biotech industry is hoping to have the
Terminator technology active within a couple of years.
The impact can be enormous. They originally admitted that the purpose of the Terminator was to
focus in developing countries where most farmers save seeds. Terminator would force farmers to go
to Monsanto and other biotech companies year after year to get new seeds. This not only makes
farmers dependent, it will reduce the biodiversity. When the biotech industry takes over the seed
supply, it reduces the number of seeds available for farmers. Instead of having the enormous
diversity of genetics from seeds that have been saved generation after generation and cultured to
work properly in a particular climate and geography, there will be a fraction of that available through
seed catalogs. By eliminating the biodiversity, we would be risking the entire food supply on earth to
potential famine or blight.
We are also risking the farmers’ lives on unproven technologies which is fraught with unpredicted
side effects. For example, in India they convinced thousands and thousands of farmers to try their
unproven genetically engineered Bt cotton varieties. These varieties had erratic performances. In
the first year in one area there was about a 52% reduction in yield. It worked terribly in areas that
didn’t have irrigation, for example. Thousands of farmers ended up in debt, having borrowed money
for the seeds and for the chemicals. As a result, thousands of farmers have committed suicide in
India because of Bt cotton. It has not stopped Monsanto from aggressively marketing and using
Hollywood actors, even religious leaders, and all sorts of ways to convince farmers to give up their
traditional seeds and switch over to these more dangerous varieties.
Crusador: Most of Europe was opposed to biotechnology. They’ve put a lot of barriers in
place to stop it, however, recently a lot of the roadblocks have been coming down and GM
foods seem to be poised to make their way into the European marketplace and on
European farms. What’s happening on that front?
Well, the European rejection of GMOs was driven by consumers. There was such consumer push-
back that in April of 1999, Unilever, Britain’s largest food manufacturer, committed to remove GM
ingredients from their European brands. Within a week, nearly every major food manufacturer did
the same, and this tipping point of consumer concern has been the reason why GMOs are not sold
in the European marketplace. GM animal feed continues to be used because the meat and dairy
products from GM fed animals don’t have to be labeled as such, but there are efforts to close that
loophole. But by and large it was consumer rejection forcing the hand of manufacturers. The
European Commission is pro-GM, certain member state governments are pro-GM; but what has held
fast is the rejection by consumers.
My Institute for Responsible Technology has launched the Campaign for Healthier Eating in
America. We are organizing an education program through all the health food stores, health-related
magazines, and other places, to educate consumers to achieve the same tipping point in the United
States that we saw in Europe. Our goal is to force food manufacturers to reject the use of GM
ingredients. We are focusing on the natural products industry first because there are already 28
million Americans who buy organic foods on a regular basis, but many don’t know how to avoid
GMOs in their non-organic purchases.
We are orchestrating a cleanout of GMOs from the entire natural food industry. We are going to set
up GMO education centers in the health food stores and circulate non-GMO shopping guides. Soon
after we’ve given the manufacturers the chance to clean out GMOs, within a couple of years we’ll be
setting up in-store, on-shelf labeling voluntarily by the store managers that will identify any of the
holdout products that have not participated in this cleanout. We believe that by giving health-
conscious consumers clear choices, and by educating them, for example, about the fact that GMOs
might turn their intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, or that it has increased infant mortality in
rats five-fold, we'll have a strong loyal base of people who will no longer eat genetically engineered
foods. This, along with our GM-Free Schools campaign and our publicity campaign, we believe, will
force the tipping point of U.S. manufacturers within 24 months.
Crusador: That’s an excellent goal. Is there anything on the legislative front that would
mandate manufacturers to label products? What you’re saying really is true. The
consumer is the one that’s going to drive the market. Even though the big corporations
control many of the farms and seeds, ultimately if consumers do not buy these products
because they have knowledge of what they could possibly do to their body and what
products they’re in, their game would be up. I think that’s one of the main reasons why
the FDA has not mandated labeling on any of these products, because if consumers saw a
label that said “This product contains genetically modified ingredients” they would have
drawn questions many years ago and rejected this technology.
You’re right. The FDA is aware that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled and they’re also
aware that people say if they were labeled, more than half would avoid eating them. But the FDA is
mandated to promote the biotechnology industry, so they’re willing to deny the requests of 9 out of
10 Americans in order to promote an industry with five transnational corporations. Labeling
legislation has been introduced to Congress in the past. You can go to www.thecampaign.org to find
out the current status. That’s the campaign to label genetically engineered foods.
There has also been legislation introduced to get these products safety tested, and to protect
farmers from the liability associated with contamination. But the biotech industry has spent hundreds
of millions of dollars on lobbying Washington, and projected so much disinformation that it really is
one of their strongholds. In fact, they are influencing state governments as well. For example, after
California citizens created GM-free zones in a number of counties through ballot initiatives or county
supervisor ordinances, the biotech industry passed legislation in 14 states that would disallow any
such local GM-free zones.
Crusador: Is there anything else you would recommend to people reading this interview
to do to help stop this technology from advancing further?
Yes. Our institute has a number of educational programs that I’d like to make available. If you go to
www.seedsofdeception.com you can listen to or download a 60-minute talk of mine. You can burn it
yourself and pass it on or buy it on the website for about a dollar. We have a free syndicated
monthly column that you can sign up for and send to your friends. We have a DVD called “Hidden
Danger in Kids’ Meals” which is 28 minutes long; it creates instant activism. If you show it to
community members, a percentage of people will immediately want to be involved in our GM-Free
School campaign. We supply each campaign with a large manual, media kit, a website, a list serve,
and a strategy.
I think that for individuals wanting to do something on a local level, the GM-Free School campaign is
the best route, for many reasons. It will highlight to the entire community, not just to the parents and
schools, the health risks of GMOs. School lunch programs are being changed across the country
and they are a major issue right now, so it’s a perfect time to introduce the knowledge of the health
risks of GMOs. We provide the documentation so that campaigners don’t have to become experts in
this. They can simply play the DVD, show a book, hand materials, and it’s easy to generate
hundreds of people who will sign on to participate with the campaign because protecting kids is a
natural response, and in this case very appropriate.
I think the main thing is for people to take steps to avoid eating genetically engineered foods. As
part of the Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, we are endorsing a third party verification
program that will validate non-GM claims by the entire natural food industry. This program has been
endorsed by Whole Foods, United Natural Foods, Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, Lundberg Family
Farms, Straus Family Creamery and others, and is moving forward. We will have a non-GMO
shopping guide based on third-party verified content, hopefully by the end of this year. And we’ll
have a series of updates.
Until then, we have an electronic version of a shopping guide on our website based on company
claims, as well as strategies of how to avoid eating GMOs. This is accomplished by buying organic,
buying products that say non-GMO, or avoiding principally soy, corn, cotton, or canola, and their soy
and corn derivatives. By cotton I mean cottonseed oil. The other three GM food crops are Hawaiian
papaya, a little bit of zucchini, and a little crook neck squash. There are also dairy products from
cows that have been injected with bovine growth hormone. Some processed foods also use
genetically engineered enzymes, additives, and cooking agents that are harder to avoid. We give
information about these on the website. Some people also choose to avoid meat and dairy from
animals that have been fed GM crops, and that is also more difficult. People need to choose the
non-GMO choices based on their level of comfort and accessibility.
Now, when we discussed colonizing your gut bacteria earlier in this interview, I want to point out that
not every derivative of a GM crop has the ability to colonize gut bacteria because there may not be
any DNA left in refined oil or in high fructose corn syrup. Not every derivative has the same risk
profile, but all have some risk because of the massive changes of the DNA and the possible toxins
and allergens. I would suggest to “stop gambling with your health in every bite” by avoiding GMOs.
Crusador: Excellent. I appreciate your time, Jeffrey.
Thank you very much, Greg.