“I
used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically
engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it
says organic.”
-Allergy specialist John
Boyles, MD
Beginning in 1996, genes from bacteria and viruses
have been forced into the DNA of soy, corn, cotton, and canola plants, which
are used for food. Ohio allergist John Boyles is one of a growing number of
experts who believe that these genetically modified (GM) foods are contributing
to the huge jump in food allergies in the US, especially among children.
The UK is one of the few countries that conduct a
yearly food allergy evaluation. In March 1999, researchers at the York
Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by
50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the
UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham,
spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new
questions about the safety of GM foods.”
Genetic engineering may provoke allergies
There are
many ways in which the process of genetic engineering may be responsible for
allergies. The classical
understanding is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which may
trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were
outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While scientists attempted to
produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood
tests showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts reacted to the beans. It was
never marketed.
The GM variety planted in 91% of US soy acres is
called Roundup Ready—engineered to survive otherwise deadly applications of
Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The plants contain genes from bacteria, which
produce a protein that has never been part of the human food supply. Since people
aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times, no
tests can prove in advance that the protein will not cause allergies.
As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein
with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. According to criteria
recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, if the new GM
protein contains amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune
responses in other proteins, the GM crop should not be commercialized (or
additional testing should be done). Sections of the protein produced in GM soy,
however, are identical to shrimp and
dust mite allergens. But the soybean got marketed anyway.
Frighteningly, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted
verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our gut
bacteria and continues to function. This means that years after we
stop eating GM soy, we may still have the potentially allergenic protein
continuously produced within our intestines.
Damaged soy DNA creates new (or more) allergens
The process of creating a GM crop produces massive collateral
damage in the plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently
turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression.
This can increase existing allergen, or produce a new, unknown allergens. Both
appear to have happened in GM soy.
Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor,
were up to seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to cooked non-GM soy. Another
study discovered a unique, unexpected protein in GM soy, likely to trigger allergies.
In addition, of eight human subjects who had a
skin-prick (allergy-type) reaction to GM soy, one did not also react to non-GM soy, suggesting that GM soy is uniquely
dangerous.
Increased herbicides, digestive problems and allergies
Farmers use nearly double the amount of herbicide on
GM soy compared to non-GM soy; higher herbicide residues might cause reactions.
GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If proteins
“digest” slowly in humans, there is more time for allergic reactions (possibly
to many food proteins).
Eating GM foods is gambling with our health
Documents
made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA scientists were uniformly
concerned that GM foods might create hard-to-detect allergies, toxins, new
diseases, and nutritional problems. Their urgent requests for required
long-term feeding studies fell on deaf ears. The FDA doesn’t require a single
safety test. The person in charge of that FDA policy was Monsanto’s former
attorney, who later became their vice president.
Buying products that are organic or labeled non-GMO
are two ways to limit your family’s risk. Another is to avoid products
containing any ingredients from the seven GM food crops: soy, corn, cottonseed,
canola, Hawaiian papaya, and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash.
This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and
cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.
Genetically
Engineered Corn
The biotech industry is fond of bragging about their
genetically modified (GM) crops that “resist pests.” This conjures up images of
insects staying away from GM fields. But resisting
pests is a euphemism for contains its
own pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin from the
plant splits open their stomach and kills them.
The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide
in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies insist that the
pesticide, called Bt-toxin, has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for
example, have used solutions containing the natural form of Bt-toxin—produced
from Bacillus thuringiensis
bacteria—as a method of natural insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove
the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn
and cotton plants. Moreover, they claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in
our stomach; and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or
mammals. Studies show otherwise.
Bt spray is dangerous, the GM version is worse
Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune
responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless
compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide
range of substances.[i],[ii],[iii]
Farm workers and others have also had reactions to
natural Bt-toxin,[iv][v][vi][vii][viii]
and authorities acknowledge that “people with compromised immune systems or
preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”[ix]
In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and
Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported
reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the
emergency room.[x],[xi]
Now, thousands of agricultural workers in India exposed to GM Bt cotton
varieties are reporting those exact symptoms; they don’t react to natural cotton.[xii]
The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably
more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is
about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off
the plants like the spray does,[xiii][xiv]
and it is designed to be more
toxic than the natural version.[xv]
In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy
tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.[xvi]
GM pollen may cause allergies
Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten
intact. It is also in pollen, which can be inhaled. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating,
virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people was stricken by a
disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain,
vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first
in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by
proximity. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the
following year, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of
pollination.
The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had
been identified in a letter to the FDA in 1998 by a UK government committee.
They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA
of bacteria in the respiratory system.[xvii]
Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists
confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes transferred
from the soy into the DNA of human gut bacteria. If Bt genes from GM corn chips, for example, also transfer, it might
convert our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually
producing Bt-toxin inside of us.
Lab animals react to GM crops
Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to
produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat
study on Bt corn showed a significant increase in blood cells related to the
immune system.[xviii]
Pesticide producing GM peas[xix]
and potatoes[xx]
(not Bt) also provoked immune responses in rodents.
Allergic reactions are a
defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets
something as foreign, different, and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM
foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM
food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies
done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in
the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.”[xxi]
In addition to immune responses, several studies and
reports suggest that GM foods are toxic.
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.
International bestselling author and filmmaker
Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically
modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception,
is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic
Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs
are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive
director of the Institute for
Responsible Technology, whose Campaign
for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of
consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.
[i] Vazquez et al, "Intragastric and intraperitoneal
administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus
thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in
mice," Life Sciences, 64, no. 21
(1999): 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic
immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000):
147–155.
[ii] Vazquez et al, “Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999):
578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[iii] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides
Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
[iv] M.A. Noble,
P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, “Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance
program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray” (Vancouver, B.C.:
Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).
[v] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of
Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs.
Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993);
as reported in Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus
thuringiensis (B.t.),” Journal of
Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
[vi] J. R.
Samples, and H. Buettner, “Ocular infection caused by a biological
insecticide,” J. Infectious Dis. 148,
no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)”, Journal
of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)
[vii] M. Green,
et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An
epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer.
J. Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848–852.
[viii] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of
Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs.
Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6,
1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, “Bacillus
thuringiensis (B.t.),” Journal of
Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
[ix] Carrie
Swadener, “Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3
(Fall 1994). See also, Health effects of
B.t.: Report of surveillance in Oregon, 1985-87. Precautions to minimize your
exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Departmentof Human Resources, Health Division,
April 18, 1991); and Material Safety Data
Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury, CT: Novo Nordisk,
February, 1991).
[x] Washington
State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian
gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health,
1993).
[xi] M. Green,
et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An
epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer.
J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[xii] Ashish Gupta
et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District
of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report,
Oct–Dec 2005.
[xiii]
C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, “UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores of Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of
peroxidase on inactivation,” Environmental
Entomology 7 (1978): 270–272.
[xiv]
BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides, Environmental Protection
Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm
[xv] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and
F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and
consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological
Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus
thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green
lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),”
Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[xvi] FAO-WHO,
“Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint
FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from
Biotechnology,” Jan. 22–25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[xvii]
N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF's Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December
1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, “Guidance for
Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants,”
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf;
(see pages 64–68).
[xviii]
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 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf,
see also Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14
December 2004; and Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Modified Corn
Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up,” Spilling the Beans, June 2005,
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm
[xix] V. E.
Prescott, et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas
Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53
[xx] A. Pusztai, et al, “Genetically Modified Foods:
Potential Human Health Effects,” in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed.
JPF D’Mello) (Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347–372, also
additional communication with Arpad Pusztai.
[xxi] October
24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
