Well-come to Wellness ... We Believe in GMO-Free

It's official! We're going 100% GMO-free!

We have been committed to offering only the best organic foods since 1971. We have also honored your right to know what is in the food you choose. Because of the increased use of genetically-engineered, or genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, we continue to investigate the ingredients used in the growing and production of all of the foods we sell.

On August 1, 2014, our 43rd anniversary, our grocery department transitioned to 100% certified organic and GMO-Free.

We sincerely appreciate your continued support and encourage conversation and inquiries on the subject of GMOs. We are available online, over the phone, and in person every day at the store.

Download and share the press release!

What does this mean for you?
Some of the items you are used to seeing on our shelves will be discontinued. However, they will be replaced with new products that are GMO-Free and organic.

During this transition, what can you do to help us?
We pride ourselves in screening ingredients before putting them on our shelves, and encourage product suggestions from customers. If you know of products that are GMO-Free and organic, let us know.

What can you do to support truth in labeling? 
We have a collection of documentaries and books on GMOs, as well as online resources (below) that offer more information. Start talking! Talk to your friends, your family, your senator. Make it known that you have the right to know what is in the food you purchase.

The Institute for Responsible Technology
Organic Consumers Association
Non-GMO Project

We are seeking products with trusted logos such as:


Make Mother's Day Special

Cook up an elegant feast this Mother's Day: 
Spring Vegetable Gnocchi with Artichokes and Artichoke Broth, 
Green Garlic Tapenade, Chevre Truffles & Champagne

Spring Vegetable Gnocchi with Artichokes and Artichoke Broth 

Serves 6
1/4 organic butter
1 pound organic medium artichokes, hearts only
10 cloves organic garlic, sliced
1 large organic leek, sliced
1 organic bay leaves
1 sprig organic thyme, stems removed
1 sprig organic rosemary, stems removed
2 cups organic white wine
4 cups organic vegetable or chicken broth
1 tablespoons organic salt
1/2 tablespoon organic black pepper
1 cup organic spring vegetables of choice


1 pound organic russet potatoes
1 teaspoon organic white pepper
1/2 teaspoon organic nutmeg
1 organic egg
1 teaspoon organic salt
1 cup organic flour
1 cup organic grated parmesan


1.    Preheat oven to 375˚F to cook the potatoes for the gnocchi. 

2.    Lightly brown the butter in a deep sauce pan and add the artichoke hearts. Sauté on medium heat for 7 minutes, until you can start to smell the artichokes. Add the sliced garlic and leeks and sauté for another 2 minutes. Add the herbs and wine and reduce the wine by half. Add the broth and bring to a boil, then decrease the heat to low. Cook the artichokes approximately 15 to 20 minutes, until tender when poked with a knife. 

3.    To prepare the gnocchi, bake the potatoes at 375˚F until soft, approximately 25 minutes. Remove the potatoes and slice open the skin to allow the steam to escape for 3 minutes. Using a spoon, scoop out the potato into a food mill. Mill the potato into a bowl and add the spices, egg, salt, and half of the flour; incorporate with your hands gently. Add the remaining flour and the parmesan. The objective is to incorporate all of the ingredients with the least amount of “working” the dough (10 to 15 maximum touches). Shape the dough into small gnocchi. 

4.    Poach the gnocchi in salted boiling water until they float for 10 seconds. Remove and place them in ice water. 

5.    To serve, scoop a portion of gnocchi into each bowl then ladle artichokes, spring vegetables, and artichoke broth on top. 

Recipe courtesy of CUESA.org

Green Garlic Tapenade

One bunch organic green garlic, coarsely chopped
1/4 cup organic olive oil
5 cloves organic garlic, sliced
organic pepper
organic salt
Acme Italian Bread

1. Add all ingredients into a food processor (or a mortar and pestle) and mash until desired consistency is reached. 

2. Slice bread into 1/2-inch rounds. 
3. Spoon tapenade into a medium bowl and serve.

Serve with Chevre Truffles (CUESA.org) and Bossard Thuaud Sparkling White Wine.

GMO Series: Our Commitment to You

Our Commitment to You
Since 1971, we have been committed to offering only the best natural and organic foods. We have honored your right to know what is in the food you choose. Because of the increased use of GMOs in our food supply, we continue to investigate the ingredients of some of our favorite products. By August 1, 2014, our 43rd anniversary, we will offer only certified organic and non-GMO foods for sale. In order to keep our doors open and stay in business, we will need to dramatically increase our sales. Please help us do so by spending more of your food dollars at Earthbeam and by telling friends and family about our great store. 
We will be eliminating all products with at-risk, non-organic ingredients:

Corn (including flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrups)
Soy (including flour, oil, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavones)
Canola Oil
Cottonseed Oil
Beet sugar (unless specified as "pure cane")
Papaya (only from Hawaii)
Zucchini/Yellow Squash

We encourage you to join us in the continuing conversation about food safety and food choices. As awareness spreads, many organizations, groups, websites, and other sources have gathered and shared information about this vital shift in our food supply. Here are the website we recommend for more information:

Non-GMO Project, a non-profit collaboration committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices. Look for their logo and certification on our shelves, one of the tools we will be using to ensure GMO-free products.

Also sponsored by the Non-GMO Project is The Campaign for Healthier Eating, a great resource for families, recipes, and hands-on projects related to eating well.

Institute of Responsible Technology, founded in 2003 by author and GMO expert Jeffrey Smith. A world leader in educating policy makers and the public on GM foods and crops, with thorough investigations, reports, and resources on health, environment, the economy and agriculture. IRT is the source for many of the articles we distributed in the GMO Series.

Organic Consumers Association is an online and grassroots non-profit public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The OCA deals with crucial issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, Fair Trade, and more. This is a great site for breaking news in the food and agricultural industry.

We are also pleased to announce two GMO lectures in April sponsored by Earthbeam:

Monday, April 15 @ 6:00PM the San Mateo Public Library, Oak Room
Wednesday, April 17 @ 6:30PM Burlingame Public Library, Conference Room

Please RSVP for these events by responding to this e-mail.

UPCOMING IN MAY: film screening of The Genetic Roulette.

Thank you for your time and commitment to learning more about GMOs. We are always available to answer questions at the store and via e-mail (earthbeampress@gmail.com).


Earthbeam Foods

GMO Series #6: GMOs & the FDA

An FDA-Created Health Crisis Circles the Globe
How corporations engineered the non-regulation of dangerous genetically modified foods
People are often confused as to how countries like France, Germany, and Peru have banned GMOs, and yet the United States has not banned GMOs or even required labeling products so that consumers have the choice about what they may want to purchase and consume. How is this possible? What is happening behind the scenes?

Government officials around the globe have been coerced, infiltrated, and paid off by the agricultural biotech giants. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved.[1] In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.[2] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA's "non-regulation" of GM foods

Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.[4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS, the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.
Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.” According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”
Following Monsanto’s lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports. On May 26, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”[5] Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

Fake safety assessments

Biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, but it is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Companies can submit whatever information they choose, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of their own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states flatly, “It is clear that FDA’s current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE [genetically engineered] crops.” He says, “The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat.”[12] Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded:
“If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up. . . . If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards . . . then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent’ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings.”[13]
At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops. Rather, they issue a letter including a statement such as the following:
“Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”[14]
The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London[15]describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journalLancet said, “It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”[16]

Evaluations miss most health problems

Although the body of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has verified the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others.
  • The gene inserted into plant DNA produces a protein never before seen in the food supply that is inherently unhealthy.
  • The inserted gene has been found to transfer into human gut bacteria and may even end up in human cellular DNA, where it might produce its protein over the long-term.
  • Toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products.
  • Farmer and medical reports link GM feed to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals.
But there is not a single government safety assessment program in the world that is competent to even identify most of these potential health problems, let alone protect its citizens from the effects.[21]
A review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E. Ann Clark, for example, reveals that 70% (28 of 40) “of the currently available GM crops . . . have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock. The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato Decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops.” In the remaining 30% (12) of the other crops tested, animals were not fed the whole GM feed. They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce. But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant. Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria. This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others. Clark asks, “Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?”[22]

Because genetically modified organisms are relatively new to our food supply, pro-GM arguments often claim that “[it is] generally agreed that long-term monitoring of the human health risks of GM food through epidemiological studies is not necessary because there is no scientific evidence suggesting any long-term harm from these foods.”[31] However, there is a flaw in the biotech logic: because no long-term epidemiological studies are in place, we have no evidence showing long-term harm. Without the studies, the harm cannot be unveiled.
Here is a quote from Dan Glickman, the pro-GM US Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton:
What I saw generically on 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 and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever ‘they’ were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn’t have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”[32]
Fortunately, not everyone feels that questioning GM foods is disloyal. On the contrary, millions of people around the world are unwilling to participate in this uncontrolled experiment. They refuse to eat GM foods. Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have committed to avoid using GM ingredients. And the US natural foods industry, not waiting for the government to test or label GMOs, is now engaged in removing all remaining GM ingredients from their sector using a third party verification system. The Campaign for Healthier Eating and The Non-GMO Project in America are circulating non-GMO shopping guides in stores nationwide so that consumers have clear, healthy non-GMO choices. With no governmental regulation of biotech corporations, it is left to consumers to protect themselves.

[4] See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
[5] Dan Quayle, “Speech in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building,” May 26, 1992.
[13] Bill Freese, “The StarLink Affair, Submission by Friends of the Earth to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel considering Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” July 17–19, 2001.
[14] FDA Letter, Letter from Alan M. Rulis, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA to Dr. Kent Croon, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Monsanto Company, Sept 25, 1996. See Letter for BNF No. 34 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon.html
[15] See for example, “Good Enough To Eat?” New Scientist (February 9, 2002), 7.
[16] “Health risks of genetically modified foods,” editorial, Lancet, 29 May 1999.
[21] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[22] E. Ann Clark, “Food Safety of GM Crops in Canada: toxicity and allergenicity,” GE Alert, 2000.
[31] Mike Zelina, et al., The Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops on San Luis Obispo County,” A Citizen Response to the SLO Health Commission GMO Task Force Report, 2006.
[32] Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, St. Martin's Press, September 2001, pg 139

GMO Series #5: Effects of GMOs on Children

Effects of GMOs on Children

Excerpted from Jeffrey M. Smith’s Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

“Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children.”13 —Vyvyan Howard, expert in infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, United Kingdom

Changes in nutrition have a greater impact on the structure and functioning of young, fast-growing bodies. More of the food is converted to build organs and tissues, whereas adults convert more to energy and store this as fat.

The UK Royal Society said that genetic modification “could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods” and recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women and babies.”14 Epidemiologist Eric Brunner said that “small changes to the nutritional content might have effects on infant bowel function.”15

Children are more susceptible to problems

Children are three to four times more prone to allergies than adults and “are at highest risk of death from food allergy.” 16 Infants below two years old have the highest incidence of reactions, especially to new allergens encountered in the diet. Even tiny amounts of allergens can sometimes cause reactions. One reason for this sensitivity, according to the EPA, is that “An immature gut or permeable mucosal epithelium is more likely to allow a higher degree of macromolecular transport and access to the immune system than the intact barrier of a normal mature gut. . . . The immune system must also be of sufficient maturity. . . . Both systems appear to be functioning optimally by age three to five.”17

According to the Royal Society of Canada, “The potentially widespread use of GM food products as food additives and staple foods, including use in baby foods, may lead to earlier introduction of these novel proteins to susceptible infants either directly or via the presence of the maternally ingested proteins in breast milk.”18

Children can react to much smaller doses of toxins than adults. Exposure to hormones or endocrine disruptors may also severely affect normal development. And children who are prone to infections may be severely impacted if antibiotics lose their effectiveness due to antibiotic-resistant genes in GM food and the overuse of antibiotics in rbGH treated cows.

Children have a high exposure to GMOs

Children consume a large amount of products that may be genetically engineered. Their diet consists of a higher percentage of corn compared to adults, and allergic children often rely on corn as a source of protein. Cornstarch as a talc substitute on children’s skin may also expose them via inhalation. Infants are sometimes reared on soy infant formula. Among the potential side effects are changes in soy’s natural estrogen mimickers, which may influence sexual development.


[information below from Jeffrey Smith’s “Removing Junk Foods (and GMOs) Improved Children’s Behavior”]

Best Prevention: Eliminate Junk Foods

Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria’s processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a full-time police officer on duty. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, no suicide, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with similar results.

Mice react to junk food and genetically modified foods

Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice’s behavior was completely different than the three mice in the neighboring cage, who were fed nutritious whole foods. They slept during the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like. The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the first day of junk food, the mice’ behavior “changes drastically:” they become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.

Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.

And a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences presented evidence at the 14th European Congress of Psychiatry that genetically modified soybeans fed to rats caused an increase in “Anxiety and Aggression.”

It’s interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That’s because GM foods such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.

Protect Yourself & Your Family

GM ingredients are much more common in processed foods, hidden in ingredients like lecithin and sweeteners. These components are deteriorating the health of our families, our crops and animals, and our ecosystems. Instead, reach for wholesome, nutritious foods to improve overall health, balance, and behavior.

For recipe ideas with fresh, wholesome ingredients, visit DeliciousLivingMag.com

For ideas on how to get kids involved in a healthy, nutritious diet, watch for our article in the Burlingame Mother’s Club newsletter this spring!

Quick & Elegant Brunch

US-grown, organic asparagus is here! A lovely, herbaceous, perennial spring vegetable, asparagus is noted for its delicate and versatile flavor, as well as its diuretic properties. Low in calories and sodium, it is a great source of Vitamin B6, calcium, magnesium, and zinc, as well as dietary fiber, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin, rutin, niacin, folic acid, iron, phosphorous, potassium, copper, manganese, chromium and selenium. Asparagus is fast and easy to prep and cook: after a thorough rinse, remove any stiff portion of the shoot with a knife or use your hands to snap it off.

This recipe is great for weekend breakfast or brunch, and great for entertaining!

Asparagus with Poached Eggs
Serves 2

1/2 lb organic asparagus, washed and trimmed
2  Portrero Nuevo Farm eggs
Flower of the Ocean sea salt
red pepper flakes
organic extra virgin olive oil
2 slices Acme Olive Bread

1) Fill a medium saucepan with 3 inches of water and set on high.
2) Heat olive oil in a pan at medium heat. Add asparagus and sautée, tossing regularly, for about 10 minutes.
2) When water boils, crack and add eggs right at the surface so they tumble into the water in one piece. Cover and remove from heat. Set a timer for 3-4 minutes (depending on how runny you like the yolk).
3) Toast bread slices.
4) Check doneness of asparagus by piercing with a fork. If they pierce easily, asparagus are done. Arrange 4-5 stems per plate.
5) When done, remove eggs from water with a slotted spoon. Set atop asparagus, season with pepper flakes and salt. Serve with toast.

GMO Series Fact Sheet

Get the Facts: Toxins and Reproductive Failures

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Rhetoric from the US government since the early 1990s proclaims that genetically modified (GM) foods are not significantly different from natural plant foods. This assertion is political, not scientific. In fact, FDA scientists had privately warned that splicing foreign genes into crops might produce dangerous side effects, including high levels of toxins. Their concerns have now been validated.

Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods, as well as several industry studies, show adverse or unexplained effects. Even the first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary review process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[i] According to expert Arpad Pusztai, PhD, such lesions in humans “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”[ii]

GM diets may cause liver damage

The liver processes toxins; its state can reveal toxins in the diet. Liver cells of mice fed GM “Roundup Ready” soybeans had structural changes,[iii] which, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia.”[iv] In addition, rats fed GM corn had liver lesions and indications of toxicity;[v] rabbits fed GM Roundup Ready soy showed altered production of liver enzymes;[vi] and the livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.[vii]

Organ damage and higher death rates

Virtually every organ shows changes from GM food. The pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy showed profound differences, including reduced digestive enzymes;[viii] the pancreas of rats fed GM potatoes were enlarged.[ix] In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production, and inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy,[x] and GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brains, livers, and testicles[xi] of rats as well as potentially precancerous cell growth in their stomach and intestines.[xii] Mice fed Bt potatoes—engineered to produce the insecticide called Bt-toxin—also had proliferative cell growth in their small intestine, as well as abnormal and damaged cells.[xiii]

In the FlavrSavr tomato study, 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.[xiv] Chickens fed GM corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.[xv] But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.

Reproductive failures and infant mortality

A preliminary study by a senior researcher at the Russian National Academy of Sciences had devastating results. More than half the offspring (51.6%) from female rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10% from the non-GM soy group.[xvi] The average size and weight of the GM group was smaller,[xvii] and they were unable to conceive.[xviii] Just after this study was completed, the Russian laboratory coincidentally began feeding GM soy-based feed to all their rats. After two months on the GM soy diet, the infant mortality of rats throughout the facility reached 55.3%.[xix]

When male rats were fed Roundup Ready soy, their testicles became dark blue instead of pink.[xx] GM soy diets also altered young sperm cells in mice;[xxi] and when parent mice ate GM soy, it changed the functioning of DNA in their offspring’s embryos.[xxii] An Austrian government study reported that mice fed GM corn had fewer babies, and smaller babies.[xxiii]

Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths

About two dozen farmers report that pigs had reproductive problems when fed varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls also became sterile. Other farmers blamed Bt corn for the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [xxiv]

When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within 5-7 days 1 out of 4 sheep died. An estimated 10,000 sheep died in one region alone. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in intestines and livers. Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[xxv] The majority of corn grown in the US produces Bt-toxin.

Investigators in the state of Haryana, India, report that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died.

[i] Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . . Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993) http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html
[ii] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
[iii] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180
[v] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf 
[vi] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193–199.
[vii] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,” www.iher.org.au/
[viii] Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,” J Anat. 2002 November; 201(5): 409–415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,” Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.
[ix] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
[x] R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193–199.
[xi] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
[xii] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4.
[xiii] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,” Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219–233.
[xiv] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[xv] S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996.
[xvi] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th – September 1st, 2006: 168–172.
[xvii] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[xviii] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[xix] I.V.Ermakova “GMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3–4.

[xx] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[xxi] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[xxii] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[xxiii] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[xxiv] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[xxv] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

Just Say NO!

NO refined sugar... NO RBGH-treated dairy... NO chemically-treated produce... NO refined oils... NO artificial colors, flavors or preservatives.