Allergies and GM Food

[frances]

The link you gave me was to an article written by Jon Entine. I list his connections to industry below. I met him for tea once. When I started asking why he supported pesticide spraying and GM testing in Hawaii and noted that there were increased birth defects and cancers and people were concerned he ran away. Hawaiians have been going to the courts to try and protect themselves and their families from being sprayed by numerous, secret pesticides, in the testing fields where GM companies are developing new crops as Hawaii has a climate that allows year round growing. I mentioned to him that the Dr Andres Carrasco studies showing that frog and chicken embryos showed similar defects to those being reported near the GM soy fields in Argentina.

His article is full of PR-type claims that do not stand up to examination. The Van Eeneenaam (she is a Monsanto scientist) 100 billion animals study looks at livestock going to slaughter. 95% are broiler chickens killed at 49 days. Neither this nor the other 5% of livestock, who are also slaughtered young, show GM is safe for us to eat for 80+ years. There were no controls, no one knew how much GM the animals were fed, etc. This is not an experiment but a crude soundbite to fool the public.

Next we have the great big lists of studies. It’s like having a great long list of studies showing that the windscreen wipers work on the car, that the boot opens and that the doors make a nice clunk when you close them. What drivers really want to know is do the brakes work? What’s the engine like? This is why not having multigenerational, long term, fertility and developmental studies mandatory on all GM foods is ridiculous and non-scientific. There is mention of the Chelsea Snell review of 24 studies, 12 long term and 12 multigenerational. However they show differences in the GM and non-GM fed animals. In these studies not all the GM events are described ie the study says "GM soy’ not MON810 or whatever. Not all the GM crops tested are commecialized. So testing crops that are either not known or not eaten and then claiming this shows safety seems to me profoundly deceptive and non-scientific. The differences between the GM and non-GM fed animals are then dismissed as ‘not biologically relevant’. What that means is never defined and therefore is not scientific.

Also ‘long term’ is a bit loose as cows fed for 25 months count as ‘long term’ even though they live for 20+ years. Also half the cows were replaced in the study (Steinke) for unclear reasons. How would you explain this as scientific? Similarly with the multi generational studies. There is one on sheep where no one knows how many sheep there were! It seems to be a bit of a strange study if you can’t even count sheep. Maybe they fell asleep.

The trotting out of ‘lists of studies’ that are mostly irrelevant to human health and do not form a coherent examination of the safety of GM crops are to lull people who ‘love science’ into a partisan position. I really wish all those science lovers actually looked at the studies and started to ask questions rather than just accepted what they are told by people in white coats. If you would like to see more studies that should raise questions then google GM myths and truths.

Jon Entine has a long history of shilling for industry and has written in praise of fracking, pesticides, nuclear power and GM. These are some of the positions he has held:

1. Senior Fellow of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California. IFAL was created by the World Food Centre, which is funded by confectionary company Mars and the University of California. UC receives funding from corporations including Monsanto, Novartis (now Syngenta) and Seminis Seeds (owned by Monsanto)

2. Senior Fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University. The University receives a large amount of funding from the Koch brothers who are oil billionaires that support climate change denial.

3. Founder of ESG MediaMetrics, which ‘provides ‘media strategy, writing, speechwriting, and engagement with critics’ for clients, especially at times of ‘intense media or government scrutiny - or to head off unfair attacks,’ according to its website. Current and past clients include Monsanto, the Vinyl Institute trade group and the natural gas company NiSource.’

4. Executive Director of the Genetic Literacy Project. The Genetic Literacy Project is part of the Science Literacy Project, an independent 501c3 funded by grants from non-partisan foundations.’ It is unclear who the Science Literacy Project is and which foundations support it. Previously the Project was housed at George Mason University, (see above for details).

5. Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank which does not disclose its funders. These are known to include the Koch brothers, Kraft and General Mills Foundation. They have opposed minimum wage rises, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, supported ‘regime change’ in Iraq and cast doubt on global warming.

Jon Entine is the author of:

• ‘Pension Fund Politics: the dangers of socially responsible investing’
• ‘Crop Chemophobia: Will precaution kill the Green Revolution?’ a book that dismisses concerns about toxic chemicals
• Position paper for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) entitled ‘Scared to death: how chemophobia threatens public health’. The ACSH is a science front group whose donors include Coca-Cola, McDonalds and chemical and GM seed companies Bayer Crop Science and Syngenta.

Articles defending:

• Shale gas (fracking)
• Plastics
• Hormone disrupting BPA
• The pesticide atrazine that is linked to hormone disruption, cancer and birth defects[xv]
• Bee-harming neonicotioid pesticides[xvi] that are systemic, cannot be washed off and are linked to human neurotoxicity

If you want to know about how science is being spun for the benefit of GM and food corporations I highly recommend Friends of the Earth’s “Spinning Food” and USRTK “Seedy Business.”

[phb]

Frances, reducing discussion to an ad hominem argument, where one is unable to defend oneself, is unfortunate.

While many areas of research are not completed, there is overwhelming evidence that gmos are not as made out by the anti-gmo activists.

One can’t ignore the science, especially that by independent research organisations. This is why I have suggested and continue to suggest looking at the many peer reviewed, independent scientific journal articles rather than information from the internet or from groups with particular agendas.

It is also worth noting that many large corporations provide funding to universities and other research organisations. Some funding is to substantiate/verify their in house research results, but is not provided to bias the research carried out. This would be unethical and also diminish the future credibility of such organisations. Maintaining credibility is far more important than the funding given. It is acknowledged that there have been some ‘loose cannons’ in some research institutions, but these have been dealt by the organisations swiftly and dramatically.

Notwithstanding this, large corporations also provide general funds but to carry out essential research which leads to health, social, economic and environmental outcomes. Many of the recent scientific discoveries and medical breakthroughs would not have been possible with such funding.

[foster.desiree]

I have a severe allergy to any wheat products and I firmly believe that it is because our wheat and most wheat actually, is Genetically Modified.

[phb]

Hi @foster.desiree.

GM wheat is not grown in Australia and none has been approved by the FSANZ.

Monsanto did make an application about 10-15 years ago, but they withdrew the application before assessment was completed.

If you are interested, the list of GM foods approved in Australia can be found on the FSANZ website

There is potentisl for GM wheat to be sold through imported product, but it is most likely labelled as containing GM food. The labelling reqyirements are also on the FSANZ website.

Should have also said that technically all wheat grown in Australia has been genetically modified by centuries of cross breeding. The modern wheat is quite different to its wild variety cousin, Einkorn wheat. However, wheat currently grown in Australia has not been genetically modified through genetic engineering (as outlined above).

[frances]

I did not reduce the argument to an ad hominem attack. I listed the bodies Jon Entine is associated with, recounted my meeting with him and detailed why the science he cited is inadequate for the claims made about it. I’m often told about the ‘overwhelming evidence’, except no one can actually produce it. No long term feeding trials (see my previous post) not multigenerational studies (ditto) no fertility or developmental tests. I wish you did actually look at the science and show me the studies that show GM is safe to feed to a pregnant woman, a baby, a person with a chronic illness. This does not exist. Why do you defend the abstract concept of science when the reality of experiments doesn’t exist?

I cannot believe you think that who funds the research is immaterial. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/can-the-source-of-funding-for-medical-research-affect-the-results/

Studies show that who funds research influences the outcome. Scientists and science do not exist on some higher realm where no human emotions exist. I have given extensive evidence as to why the whole GM project is not science but patented product. For a comprehensive and well researched book into the travesty that GM has made of science and our food read Stephen Druker’s book" Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public:.

[phb]

Using the argument that one can’t trust the science because it is biased as is either funded by the industry or carried out by those who will be influenced by the industry is quite offensive to the research industry and academic instutions in Australia and around the world.

I have read your linked blog and while interesting, it also indicates that if biased information is placed infront of a physician, they will most likely consider reputation in assessing the information (like the NIH in the blog).

The information/assessment in the article is also artificial and has been constructed to prove a point, not necessary what occurs in real life. It also does not prove that independent peer reviewed articles are biased.

It is also worth noting that ‘knocking’ science by claiming it is biased is also used by many conspiracy based organisations. One which comes to hand is the anti-vaccination groups which claim that the science around vacinations has been fabricated/biased as it has been mostly carried out initially by multinational pharmaceutical companies which profit from positive results. The science, which I only have a limited understanding but have witnessed the merits first hand, proves otherwise.

It is acknowledged that many research papers which are published are postive, but this is due in part to funding arrangements in place. Namely, funding removed/withdrawn from sponsors when initial results are known, especially if the results are negative. Negative results are also shelved, especially if similar negative research results has found and reported elsewhere. In the time and financial constrained environment, it makes little sense to spend valuable time and resources completong the research when the time could be bettet spent elswwhere. This is not biases but a fact of life. It is also important however to read both positive and negative articles to ensure that ones own assessments/resultinf opinions are not inadvertently biased.

In relation to pregnant mothers or chronically ill in society, when a new’ natural’ food products come into the market there is no requirement to do such for these foods. An example is krill food products which human digestive systems or bodies have not evolved with. Likewise with crossbreeding where new genes are included in commercial crops which had not previously existed. Requiring such would need to be across the whole food industry (inc. gmos and non-gmos). Imposong such just on gmos would be seen as being anti competitive and cause an enormous impost on technology development and favour natural food industry. It would also stiffle food innovation.

As I have outlined several times above, to look at what GMO means one should not be looking at websites or biased commentary from vested interst groups. The only way for one to gain a appreciation of the science and its merits and pitfalls, is to read independent peer reviewed articles. It is also inoortant to be open minded whilst at the same time being critical of the presented information (which any good scientist shoild do).

I have also purposely not referenced the positive or negative views of many leading and well known scientists in the research field or in other fields, as this can create a bias before an understanding/appreciation is gained …or unnecessary arguments over whether they are correct in their views or not.

One needs to spend the time and make up ones own mind on GMOs…

[frances]

Your feelings have nothing to do with the problems of industry funding science. Industry suppresses research it has paid for that shows harm. It harasses scientists whose work shows harm. It supports universities and research bodies that produce work that support its products. Here are some examples http://usrtk.org/gmo-science-is-for-sale-2/
To say me pointing this out offends you is bizarre.

There is also a problem in science as a whole that much research turns out to be unable to be reproduced. http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552 This causes doubts about whether findings can be trusted. To pretend that ‘science’ is some wonder activity that can do no wrong, rather than an activity carried out by the same flawed humans that live and work in every other sector, is fantasy.

To suggest this is conspiracy rather than humanity is just insulting.

Next you lurch into anti-vaccination areas. I am not discussing this. I am showing that the claims that GM is fully tested and shown to be safe are not based on science. It is PR.

As for negative results. The biggest scientific investigation into how to feed the world Agriculture at a Crossroads by the IAASTD showed that we need agroecology not GM. Agroecology can double food production in the places that need it most in 10 years, cool the climate and reduce rural poverty. We don;t hear about it as it cant be patented. I can send you links if you like.

I agree that eating krill is a bit weird, especially as I think the whales need it more than us. However it is a naturally occurring substance, perhaps some people are allergic to it. It is entirely unable to be compared to GM crops that contain DNA from bacteria and viruses, synthetic and chimeric DNA that we have never eaten before as the combination has never existed before. It may also be creating new RNA that can have all sorts of effects. This is not tested for.
http://www.thenutritionalhealingcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Wheat-Heinemann-Expert-Scientific-Opinion.pdf

Of course our wonderful FSANZ have dismissed this careful piece of work saying we’ve eaten RNA before in our diet so its all safe and we don’t need to do any testing. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Documents/Heinemann%20Response%20210513.pdf

No one knew about gene silencing until a few years ago so it is quite amazing that FSANZ thinks that everything to be known about it already exists in the scientific literature. This is the kind of rubbish that passes for science. Are you really willing to support the idea that because regulators think its OK, tests don’t need to be done?

I find it amazing that you dismiss so casually the health of people, especially the unborn. Endocrine disruption shows that exposure to tiny amounts of chemicals during developmental windows that can be very short, can change the trajectory of a child’s health and wellbeing. Since when did experimenting on kids become OK? GM is entirely different from cross breeding and selective breeding and to pretend otherwise is deeply unscientific and deceptive.

You are very grandly pretending that I do not read peer reviewed science and that I have not heard the great and the good of the GM world talk about their work. I have been examining it for 21 years and have yet to hear anything convincing yet.

It would be interesting to see how critical your mind is. Have a look at this peer-reviewed article on the mutational consequences of plant transformation. It describes the two main methods of GM and the problems with them.

The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation

I’m tired of people like you talking down to me when it is clear you have not read what you are espousing.

[phb]

Frances, arguing that gmo research can’t be trusted because the industry funds it, is incorrect.

For this proposition to be true, all gmo research would need to be funded by the industry. The industry does not fund all research on gmos. The academic institution I worked for in the past did such research. That is, not funded by the gmo industry. The funding came from a pool of funds generated through other means.

Even if say for argument sake, all gmo funded research was biased and incorrectly validated hypotheses, then there would be enormous amount of non-gmo industry funded research disputing all the finding of all gmo industry research. This is not the case.

I can not emphasise more than to read peer reviewed independent artilcles on gmo. They exist, with many not funded by the industry or from companies like Monsanto. I can also find objective and theoretical journal articles which support either side of the fence.

I am also not dismissive of health risks, but all foods has risks. It is important to understand the risks, but also weigh up these up against the potential benefits. Laboring on risks only is only looking at one side of the fence.

I have also done much reading on the subject, but have a open mind to new technologies. I also understand the constrains which exist to try and feed the ever growing population, within a world with finite resources.

[frances]

Feeding the world is a furphy as the world already produces enough food to feed 10 billion people. People are hungry because we live in an unjust world, not because we lack GM crops. This is visible in the dairy industry where producers are going under as there is a milk glut. Here is a blog I wrote after attending a very misleading seminar. http://www.madge.org.au/twisted-tunnel-vision-food-locks-hunger

Regarding science, you encourage me to look at independent peer-reviewed studies. Interestingly you do not put forward any specifically and I’m still awaiting your response to the peer reviewed Latham article on the mutational consequences of plant transformation.

Since the devil is in the detail, lets have a look at a specific GM food we are eating. Roundup Ready GM canola GT73 is what we grow in Australia. FSANZ’s document for approving it is here http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/documents/A363%20FA.pdf

The text refers to 22 studies. All of them done by Monsanto scientists, all of them unpeer-reviewed and unpublished. One of them (p41) refers to a one month feeding study of rats. They used the Sprague Dawley rats, the same ones that Seralini (independent scientist whose 2 year feeding study showed harm to liver and kidneys of rats) used. The GM fed rats had a heavier liver weights that can be a sign of harm. This was dismissed as the canola having higher levels of a toxin called glucosinolates, despite it being within levels that should not produce harm. The differences between the rats were dismissed as not meaningfully different, which is unscientific as there is no definition of what that means.

There are references to peer reviewed studies at the end of the FSANZ report but these are irrelevant as they do not specifically refer to GT73. It’s a bit like saying ‘cars are safe’ when a purchaser wants to know that the Holden Barina they are buying is safe.

MADGE, a group I helped found, received the studies from FSANZ that they used to approve this canola. We found that Monsanto had been unable to identify and characterise a new protein in the GM canola. instead they gave FSANZ details of a different one. This is important as proteins (which are what DNA codes for ie new proteins are the intended outcome of GM breeding) are what causes allergic reactions.
http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/GM-canola-approved-on-false-grounds.pdf

We did a longer report showing that the GM canola grown for the feeding trials were flawed. The problems include; not being sprayed with Roundup (the whole idea of Roundup Ready canola), being grown next to non-GM and a different GM canola and not being bagged therefore cross contamination is very likely and being toasted in a way that would have altered the proteins skewing the results. There is much more here:
http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/Rev-GM-RR-Canola-Animal-Studies-for-Tony-Burke.pdf

I hope this shows you why when I am told to trust the science on GM and that industry studies are fine, that I disagree. If you want to see more on my concerns with the science of GM please read my latest submission to the Productivity Commission’s current Inquiry into Regulation in Agriculture.

subdr224-agriculture.pdf

It is fully referenced and refers to such matters as there being no agreed protocols on the approval of GM foods. The European agency EFSA, thinks some chemical testing protocols can be relevant but does not require or even recommend any particular testing. "The number of animals used and analyzed, the endpoints (effects) tested for,
the control groups included, the diets used, and which data is reported, have not been in accord with OECD 408 and vary widely between experiments.’

The GM issue is not scientists vs anti-GM people. There are scientists and science that raises extreme doubt over the safety of GM crops. GM crops are failing in the field and are requiring more and more toxic chemicals to be used on them.

Instead GM is a power struggle over the control of food. Tame scientists are being used to cloak power.

The reports Seedy Business http://usrtk.org/gmo/seedy-business/
and Spinning Food detail what is going on.
http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/good-food-healthy-planet/spinning-food

Interestingly when GM farmers buy and plant the GM seed they take on the responsibility for the safety of the crops they grow. Therefore when/if it is discovered that GM causes harm, the GM farmers will be liable, not Monsanto. This at the very least should raise ethical questions of how we have let the developers and sellers of a technology to avoid all liability for it.

[Leptobrama]

jan you just don’t seem to get that fish was only the SOURCE of the gene. The gene has no fish characteristics; it’s just a gene; one that exists in many organisms. It’s just a building block. On its own it has no shape or affinity.

[phb]

@frances.

Something we can agree on is the reported contractual arrangements between the GM companies and growers. Maybe not the contracted growers who grow GM crops, but how they have dealt with cross-contamination of their patented genomes with unsuspecting farmers/neighbours to the GM crops.

I have a feeling that the reaction has been in response to potentially negative action by neighbouring farmers to the GM crops and this is one way for a big multinational to flex its muscle and make a commercial point.

As I outlined in an earlier post, I would have no problem consuming GM foods (I possibly have inadvertently when travelling abroad or eating out in restaurants), but can’t support companies which I believe take unethical measures to protect their commercial interests (even if such breach is not intentional by the other party).

This is principally why I chose not to knowingly purchase or consume GM foods.

[lyn]

David Suzuki is a geneticist, and he said, “The ability to introduce alien genes into a genome is an impressive technological manipulation but we remain too ignorant of how the genome works to anticipate all the consequences, subtle or obvious, immediate or long-term, of this manipulations.”

[frances]

Hi phbriggs
Since GM ingredients are estimated to be in 70%+ of processed foods (Australian Food and Grocery Council said that if all ingredients derived from a GM process ie including additives, then nearly every processed food would need one) it is likely you are eating them ever day.
I agree that the companies are acting unethically. Sadly they are allowed to do this in the food arena, as in so many others, by regulators and government. All I really want is transparency and accountability. That would mean real, independent safety testing that looks at human health endpoints, not the weight of chicken breasts or the tenderness of lamb chops.

This is what the Royal Society of Canada called for in 2001 and yet we still do not have this. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says we have the right to safe and nutritious food. Since GM crops have not been scientifically proven to be either, and in fact there is mounting evidence to the contrary, I feel our rights have been trampled.

For transparency and accountability we would also need labelling, post market epidemiological research, diagnostic testing for doctors if they suspect an allergy to GM etc, testing to see that labelling is accurate etc. We would also need a way that we can hold the companies, not the farmers, to account should harm be shown to have occurred. I do find it abhorrent that we are being experimented on in this way. Interestingly Caitlin Shetterley is releasing her book called Modified next month. She is a US journalist who was diagnosed as having an allergy to GM corn. She apparently has done a rigourous investigation into GM which should be a good read.

She was attacked by the usual suspects when she wrote her initial article in a magazine (I think it was Elle). It is the same story with anyone publicly challenging the PR of the GM industry. Interestingly Seralini won his defamation case against a French news magazine:
http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=29cbc7e6c21e0a8fd2a82aeb8&id=d47df5f47a&e=2b101d27fc

Yet another expose of how corporations are using willing academic scientists to push their products and attack people with contrary views has been released. 4 of the 13 scientist shills are linked to the promotion of GM food. http://www.alternet.org/investigations/13-academics-who-have-become-shills-corporate-giants-food-agrochemical-and-fossil#.V9Jm8-PoMYE.twitter

I hope you had a chance to look at the link to the ‘pre market assessment’ that FSANZ conducts that I sent to you previously. Note it is not called a ‘safety assessment’. The devil is in the semantics. I hope you are as concerned as I am that the specific studies Monsanto submitted for approval of the GM canola GT73 RR canola are all unpublished, in house studies done by Monsanto. The claim of peer review is false. That it is so easy to show, if you actually look at the approval documents, is why they do not want the even more invasive new GM techniques to have any assessment process whatsoever. This is entirely unscientific and in my view, criminal.

Science is being hollowed out and some scientists and institutions are abetting this for reasons no doubt connected with finance but also perhaps, ego and vanity.

We are what we eat and it seems we are becoming pesticide eaters of manipulated food that cannot be bred by natural methods. Since we have a very limited understanding of the incredible complexity of inheritance, casually changing it is playing with fire. Living organisms cannot be recalled. We are contaminating fields, farms and food and the most vulnerable are our babies and children. To me it is utterly unconscionable for anyone to act in this way.

I’ve just got back from Santa Rosa hearing about farmers who are growing food, not commodity crops. They create nutritious food in ways that regenerate the land and pull carbon out of the atmosphere. Using composting with grazing is proven to put huge amounts of carbon back in the soil where we need it. It can reverse climate change. It uses the sophisticated systems developed by earth over billions of years. I think we should show respect and work with, not against, these systems. I will try and convey the wonderful work they are doing in a blog and/or podcast that I’ll put on www.madge.org.au

I’m glad you are protecting yourself and your family and friends by shopping GM-Free.
Best wishes
Fran

[panlezark]

And David would be the first to admit that a non peer reviewed book, even by someone who is qualified, isn’t the same or carry the same weight as a journal article.
He was even in a position to do research, yet didn’t.

[foster.desiree]

As lyn says and David Suzuki has indicated, let us be wary of what we introduce in to our food chain. I am now allergic to Wheat - proven beyond doubt and the pain and discomfort is not worth me not reading labels, when I go grocery shopping. I ensure that the word ‘wheat’ is not included in the list of ingredients and because of that, I have been pain-free. The CSIRO did cover the topic of GM wheat and, because we were all reared on bread and staple foods, how is it that at this late stage of my life, I am now allergic?

[BrendanMays]

Our recent article on GMO foods includes some comment on allergies that people on this thread might find of interest.

[natural.thought]

Unfortunately no one clicked the link

[phb]

BrisScience (June): Speed breeding – accelerating crop research

Worth watching if one has an hour spare.

[natural.thought]

BrisScience? How have I never heard about this before?!

[phb]

@natural.thought

BrisScience? How have I never heard about this before?!

Log in to Facebook

https://brisscience.wordpress.com