Genetically modified foods at the Food Coop

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]Yea, I watched that paranoid ranter, Al Gore, on Charlie Rose last night. He said prominent scientists said we have maybe ten years to effect a change in the emissions of CO2 before we reach a point of no return. Charlie pressed him hard, reasonable man that he is, about this timeframe, but Al wouldn't be moved.

What a load that guy is!

It's really amazing how you keep attempting to pretend that this is a discussion about global warming, when every single party here agrees about the facts of global warming. And as EmilyM pointed out to you earlier, Al Gore takes a position contrary to yours on the topic of genetic modification.

So you agree we should adopt stringent measures to stop global warming? Perhaps we should start a thread on that topic, and we can see what you're willing to do there.

As far as Al's position on GM crops, he did refer to peak oil as a real and imminent problem. If you walk down that path, you'll find industrial agriculture very much a part of the mix, and GM plants are very much a part of industrial agriculture.

Vis a vis Al position on GM plants, I would suggest he's got his hands full convincing folks of the urgency of the global warming problem. He's just too smart to let the Karl Rove's of the world distract him from the big issues. Hardly a ringing endorsement for GM foods.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]Dr. Pusztai's research was published in the leading medical journal in England, The Lancet. It was published on October 15, 1999

This the only statement of any value from what you've said above. As was discussed ad nauseum earlier in this thread, his credentials are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the data. Does it suck that they did an end run around him to get the stuff approved? Maybe, although there's no evidence of any harm stemming from that decision.

Why didn't you just send the study if it's so great, and why didn't they cite the reference in Seeds of Change? I'm going to look this thing up and read it for myself.

And remember, that the potatoes Puzai was studying were not a food product currently or ever available. It was a plant he created for the study.

While I appreciate that your expertise may be in science, not politics, to ignore the politics of food would be exetremely dangerous. Many chapters of "Seeds of Deception" are devoted to the very one-sided agenda of the FDA, especially under the Reagan and Bush I regimes. The scientists at the FDA were flat out told to shut-up when they raised objections to the lack of research on GM foods. There are references too numerous to cite in this post but here is an example:

An FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl ("Biotechnology Draft Document 2/2/1992" March 6, 1992 www.biointegrity.org) noted "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering." According to the New York Times (January 25, 2001) "Dr. Pribyl knew from studies that toxins could be unintentionally created when new genes were introduced into a plant's cells."

An example of this may be the GM potatoes created by Dr. Pusztai for his rat feeding study. Dr. P combined a lectin gene with insecticide qualities known by him to be safe for human consumption (he is a recognized expert on lectins) with a potato. The unexpected results cited in his study reasonably shocked him: how could combining two benign plants produce a toxic new plant? The only logical explanation I can think of is that, when it comes to genetic engineering, 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

These types of scary implications have been thoroughly discussed in foreign media and this is why most developed countries require labeling of GM foods. They are largely unknown to the US population. To suggest there is a scientific explanation for this and not a political one would be misguided in my opinion.

Another more extreme example of political situations imposed on science is the rGBH genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. This lovely Monsanto product is now banned in all developing countries, including Canada. That is, except for the US. Monsanto tried to ram it through the Canada review process but got caught when senior scientists at Health Canada (the Canadian equivalent to the FDA) complained to the press. Shiv Chopra, one of six such scientists, told a Canadian Senate committee investigating bGH "We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety, including rbGH". He "testified that one of his managers threatened to ship him and his colleagues to other departments where they would 'never be heard of again' if they didn't hurry favorable evaluations of rbGH" (Steve Wilson "Secret Canadian Government Study Reveals Serious Faults with bGH Research, FDA Approval Was Based On Faulty Conclusion?" October 7, 1998 www.foxbghsuit.com/jasw1007.htm.)

When the Senate subsequently learned that Dr. Chopra was suspended for testifying, they asked to see his boss, Andre Lachance. He never appeared because his lawyer said he wasn't well. Shorly thereafter, Lachance was removed from his job.

doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
An FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl ("Biotechnology Draft Document 2/2/1992" March 6, 1992 www.biointegrity.org) noted "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering." According to the New York Times (January 25, 2001) "Dr. Pribyl knew from studies that toxins could be unintentionally created when new genes were introduced into a plant's cells."

By the way, there's something you should know about this field: progress has been extremely rapid. What we know about genes and proteins has been doubling on a timescale of about three years. 2001 is a long long time ago; it's when the first draft of the human genome was published. 1992 is like the dark ages. If you actually want to know what's going on (as opposed to parrotting conspiracy theories of yore) there's no substitute for reading medline abstracts and up-to-date reviews.

The Seeds of Deception is in it's fifth printing and constantly being updated.

The FDA, on the other hand, determined in 1992 that GM crops were substantially equivalent to conventional crops. If 1999 was the dark ages, what was 1992? The ice age?

doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
The Seeds of Deception is in it's fifth printing and constantly being updated.

Just shows, you can fool some of the people some of the time. If you were interested in the facts, you'd check some reliable sources. If you were quoting Deuteronomy or the Koran in support of your anti-GM beliefs, I'd understand and respect that. But if its beat up of the Pusztai affair is anything to go by, this book is little more than porn for the looney end of the organic food movement. Enough with what Jeffrey M. Smith says. Find some actual evidence that GM foods are harmful when consumed as intended, and we're all listening.

greg wrote:
The FDA, on the other hand, determined in 1992 that GM crops were substantially equivalent to conventional crops.

Yup, a very long time ago. It's was logical assumption to make in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but it was relatively untested back then and there were plenty of unknowns. You can debate how much of a risk they were taking with the American public based on what they knew at the time. You could call the roll-out foolhardy or dangerously premature. But it turns out that they were right!!

What I don't understand: this is a such non-cause so why are you an activist for it? People are not dying from GM-foods. People are dying every day from other decisions or lack thereof made by politicians, bureaucrats and corporations. If you have the time and energy, there's so many better things you could be doing with your time, so why focus on this non-issue?

No one has ever said eating GM foods is like drinking drano (sorry, Drano, I couldn't resist).

Chapter Two in SOD lists 21 possible problems with GM foods. None of these will kill right away, but they could rot our your organs slowly, cause unusual allergies, etc.

As just one of numerous studies cited in the book, in March 1999, York Laboratories in the UK observed that soy allergies skyrocketed 50% over last year. York is England's leading expert in allergies and does large annual samples of the population to determine the levels of various allergies.

In 1999 a sample of 4,500 individuals revealed that the number allergic to soy rose from 10 percent to 15 percent. This shift put soy into the top ten plants, the first time it had been in the top ten in seventeen years of testing.

The only explanation offered by York for this large increase was that GM soy products, all imported from the US, were first introduced into England during 1999. In the words of the researchers "these findings provide real evidence that GM foods could have a tangible harmful effect on the human body.

Why weren't these alarming results reported widely in the US? Has the FDA ever conducted studies similar to those conducted by York? Has anyone done studies of allergy levels in the US. If not, then how can we say that soy is not causing increased levels of allergies in the US? I for one am aware of a lot of people having allergies these days. Could GM foods be part of the problem?

doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
As just one of numerous studies cited in the book, in March 1999, York Laboratories in the UK observed that soy allergies skyrocketed 50% over last year. York is England's leading expert in allergies and does large annual samples of the population to determine the levels of various allergies.

As hyped by Jeffrey M. Smith. I cannot find a record in the scientific literature of the York study, just press releases. It looks again like he has taken someone's preliminary data lacking proper controls, and manipulated it and you.

Here is some of what the literature says on the subject:

Lack of detectable allergenicity of transgenic maize and soya samples.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005 Aug;116(2):403-10.
(tested children and adults with allergies and asthma)
"None of the individuals undergoing tests reacted differentially to the transgenic and nontransgenic samples under study. None of the volunteers tested presented detectable IgE antibodies against pure transgenic proteins. The transgenic products under testing seem to be safe in terms of allergenic potential. We propose postmarket testing as an important screening strategy for putative allergic sensitization to proteins introduced in transgenic plants."
(publicly funded, Portugal)

A comparative study of the allergenic potency of wild-type and glyphosate-tolerant gene-modified soybean cultivars.
APMIS. 2004 Jan;112(1):21-8.
"By using standard in vitro methods and SPT for determination of allergenicity we were not able to detect any significant difference in the allergenic potency between GM and WT soybeans."
(publicly funded, Denmark)

Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified soybean protein extract in a murine model of oral allergen-specific sensitization
Clin Exp Allergy. 2006 Feb;36(2):238-48.
No difference between GM soy and regular soy. They both elicit immune reactions. But a good method for checking it in future using mice.
(publicly funded, Italy)

Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean.
Plant Physiol. 2003 May;132(1):36-43.
"These data provide evidence for substantial equivalence of composition of transgenic and non-transgenic seed eliminating one of the dominant allergens of soybean seeds."
(publicly funded, United States)

Clinical risk assessment of GM foods.
Toxicol Lett. 2002 Feb 28;127(1-3):337-40.
"There is no evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry. We need to proceed cautiously in the future, assessing individual GM foods on the basis of their individual merits and risks prior to introducing them into the market."
(publicly funded, Britain)

... and then some.

Do you honestly trust Jeffrey M. Smith's account of something someone claimed but didn't back up in 1999 more than all of these independent studies from different countries since?

Jeff's book has extensive footnotes. Every quote, every study, every citation is footnoted and sourced. If you'd bother to actually read the book and really wanted to know something on this topic, you'd quickly discover this to be true. IN the case of the soy study, it was reported by Mark Townsend "Why soy is a hidden destroyer" Daily Express, March 1999.

And as usual, you ignore my question: why didn't the US media cover this story? I certainly find it shocking and would definitely have read it if I found it in the NY Times. Could it be that the US government is more interested in hyping "biotechnology" than protecting it's citizens.

As for all of those citations you spout, I personally am more interested in who paid for the research than what it says. To quote Deep Throat "follow the money".

As noted in a previous post, there is a strong correlation between the funding source and the results obtained. Given that govnerment support for research is dwindling and corporate funds are surging you can pretty much figure out what type of research is being done.

If the research doesn't support the corporate agenda of expanding biotechnology and propping up the "big lie" then it is scrapped and the researcher is shipped of to Nome.

Here's is just one account of such an incident in SOD (there are plenty others cited). In September of 2001, Ignacio Chapela, a microbial biologist with the UC Berkeley, was taken to a 12th floor office in a bad nabe of Mexico City and threatened by the Mexican Director of the Commission on Biosafety and GMO's, Fernando Ortiz Monasterio. After the usual threatens of professional ruin failed, Monasterio started asking questions about Chapela's children and which schools they attended. The implication to Chapela was clear: his children were in danger if he continued his present course. This story was told to Jeff Smith directly by Chapela.

Chapela's crime: he and a research assistant had discovered that 6% of the indigenous corn in Mexicao had been contaminated with GM genes. GM corn had been banned in 1998 in Mexico to protect the purity of the Mexican maize, the source of all maize on the planet. These mother stocks are where scientists go to get pure maize seeds and if they are destroyed, we will have lost the source of all pure corn.

Chapella's study was subsequently reported in Nature on November 29, 2001. Immediately two publicists working for Monsanto and operating under the fake names of Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, began a relentless attack on Dr. Chapella. Their complaint was not about the finding that the Mexican corn had been corrupted with GM corn (that has never been disputed and still is believed to be true) but about another finding of the study, that the CaMV promoter used in the creation of the GM corn had caused the GM genes to be fractured in the corn genome. If true, this would suggest that the GM corn was unstable, imprecise and possibly unsafe. This ancilliary finding the researchers acknowledged in the research was more of a guess than a finding and it was reported by them as such.

Nonetheless, due in large part to the "dirty tricks" division of Monsanto, Nature, for the first time in its 133 year history, was forced to print a partial retraction of the study.

Again, any doubt about why there isn't more testing of the safety of GM plants should be put to rest with this story.

doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
Jeff's book has extensive footnotes. Every quote, every study, every citation is footnoted and sourced. If you'd bother to actually read the book and really wanted to know something on this topic, you'd quickly discover this to be true. IN the case of the soy study, it was reported by Mark Townsend "Why soy is a hidden destroyer" Daily Express, March 1999.

You've got to be kidding. Since when is a British tabloid newspaper a reliable source of scientific information? Follow those footnotes and those sources, and I bet none of them end in peer review and hard data. Like in this case: the trail ends nowhere. No numbers or details from the people who did the work.

greg wrote:
And as usual, you ignore my question: why didn't the US media cover this story? I certainly find it shocking and would definitely have read it if I found it in the NY Times.

For the same reason the rest of the British press and the rest of the press in the rest of the world (including countries who were undecided back then about GMOs) didn't cover it: it wasn't newsworthy. There was no hard data about GM vs. non-GM soy (even the Express made that clear). No facts to verify and report. It was a moment of publicity-seeking by someone in a nutrition lab in England, picked up by a tabloid to scare people to sell newspapers. And the science of GM soy allergies has been carefullly checked many times over since then by different people in different places, and therefore politicians and scientists have since reached consensus on the subject. Everyone but you, who'd rather listen to a beat up of a single old newspaper article than check the facts.

If ever Nature or J.Toxicol. or any one of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific publications publish a quality controlled study demonstrating a GMO to be dangerous to eat, I'm sure the NY times and other quality papers around the world will cover it.

greg wrote:
As for all of those citations you spout, I personally am more interested in who paid for the research than what it says. To quote Deep Throat "follow the money".

Every single one of those is a public institution in different countries, funded by departmental and grant money that ultimately comes from their respective governments, generally via quasi-autonomous agencies (e.g. equivalent of NIH). You have been fed lies that there isn't non-industry research money available to study the science. Several of those countries do not have any interest in American biotech firms and don't grow soy. I'm personally familiar with the funding arrangements in one of those countries. It consistently ranks among the lowest in the world in corruption, highest in transparency, highest in standards of food safety, and last in allowing additives or changes of any kind to food. They spend a huge amount on their equivalent of the FDA checking every last detail before allowing anything across their borders. If the scientists there can't find a difference between the allergenic properties of GM and non-GM soy, no one can. There is no way Monsanto can influence every scientist in every lab around the world.

What's more, when publishing, they're usually required by the journal to state where they got their funds and reveal any conflict of interest, and then their work is checked anonymously by other scientists. Not a perfect system but the best we've got. Who checked Jeffrey M Smith? Who checked Mark Townsend at the Daily Expresss?

Would you mind if I called you a fanatic? "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." Because when it comes to GM soy allergies, the verifyable evidence, the scientific consensus, and the political consensus are all on the same side for once, with yourself on the other. You're ignoring the facts because they don't fit your beliefs, which means you've left rationality way behind.

And I'm still very curious to hear your real reasons for being an anti-GM campaigner, and discuss ideas for how to make the world a better place that don't contradict scientific evidence.

Hey, didn't I write about Dr. Chapala. I thought I did but you seemed to have ignored him.

And believe it or not, there are lots of people involved in the movement to stop GM foods. I went to a book signing two nights ago by Anna Lappe, daugther of Francis Moore Lappe. She told how she got up at the end of forum at a biotech trade show and asked some unfriendly questions. Incidentally she was the only female to ask the all male forum a question. She was immediately pounced on by the corporate PR lady from the trade show and viciously attacked.

What are all of these corporate food drones so afraid of anyways.