Use your BACK button to return to article index.
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating
genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she
got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-
billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher
Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female
rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The
experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and
continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving
birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After
2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6%
from the other groups .
Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth -
the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller
rat, 20 days old, is from the "GM soy" group.
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three
weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared
to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%)
from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and
offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created
plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of
research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a
year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a
symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security,
Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on the top of her paper. She
presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of
GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in
controversy.
The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA
has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive
applications of Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand herbicide. About
85% of
the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives,
including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of
processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients
derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified
foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods
safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this
hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that
states, “The agency is not aware of any information showing that
foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any
meaningful or uniform way.”[1] The statement, it turns out, was
deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed
that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GM foods are different and
might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or
nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-
term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA
policy was, conveniently, Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their
vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy
as “just a political document” without scientific basis, and warned
that industry would “not do the tests that they would normally do”
since the FDA didn’t require any.[2] He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding
safety studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that
millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There
are no adequate tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology,
gut function, liver function and kidney function,”[3] and animal
feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer,
reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes
Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It’s the first of
its
kind.
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions.
Research on the liver, the body’s major de-toxifier, showed that mice
fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.
[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting
from a major insult to that organ. Mice also showed changes in the
pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme
(alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy
contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block
nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14%
less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent
problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely
criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used
mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their
GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the
organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study’s
nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant
differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels
of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had
actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences,
which were later discovered and made public. For example, the
published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin
inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold
increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy
allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two
sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also
account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human
feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene
transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means
that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut
bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein
inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists
found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of
their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also
found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were
fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered
the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to
integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens,
or anti-nutrients in the mother’s diet. These may be created in GM
crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of
gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA’s own natural genes,
scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can
also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing
the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue
culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations
throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in
Roundup Ready soy. We don’t know how many mutations or altered gene
expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed,
however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that
was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene
that had escaped Monsanto’s detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded
by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered
incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the
technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities,
or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they are not followed
up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially
precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles,
damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver,
lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the
kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels,
and unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans,
August 2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova’s research, however, will likely change that. That’s
because
her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6%
mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is
the only reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova’s findings, with her permission, at the
annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
(AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board
passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)
to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim
Willoughby, the Academy’s president, said, “Genetically modified
soy,
corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a
significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous,
independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the
population at risk.”
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even
follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed
the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready
soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than
that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier.
Had all the companies made a mistake? That’s unlikely. Rather, the
inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab
confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was
originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t
all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the
inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also
means that they are creating new proteins—ones that were never
intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian
test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans
used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may
explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For
example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM
corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false
pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany
claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and
caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM
cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and
fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms
returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests
on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin—
created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may
result from a GM crop that has “gone bad” due to genetic
rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences,
however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the
Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied
considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has
yet been sufficient to reverse the industry’s growth in the US. It
may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery.
That is why Ermakova’s findings are so important. If the study holds
up, it may topple the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM’s request, and fund an immediate,
independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our
Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money.
This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.
Medical Association Urges NIH to Follow-up Preliminary Evidence
October 31, 2005—Tucson, AZ. At the conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) held from October 27-30, the results of a Russian rat study were presented in which an astounding 55.6% of the offspring of female rats fed genetically engineered soy flour died within three weeks. The female rats had received 5-7 grams of the Roundup Ready variety of soybeans, beginning two weeks before conception and continuing through nursing. By comparison, only 9% of the offspring of rats fed non-GM soy died. Furthermore, offspring from the GM-fed group were significantly stunted—36% weighed less than 20 grams after 2 weeks, compared to only 6.7% from the non-GM soy control group.
The study was conducted by Dr. Irina ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). It was originally presented on October 10, 2005 to the symposium on genetic modification in Russia, organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS). It was presented at the AAEM conference by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, the world’s bestselling book on GM food safety.
Smith says, “The Russian study is preliminary and not conclusive. But given the disturbing and dramatic results, it begs immediate independent follow-up.”
Medical AcademyUrges NIH Follow-up
The board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine reviewed the Russian research, and endorsed a resolution at their October 30 meeting, which states: “We recognize that this study is preliminary in nature. It hasn’t yet been peer reviewed and the methodology has not been spelled out in detail. But given the magnitude of the findings and the implications for human health, we urge the National Institutes of Health to immediately replicate the research.”
According to Dr. Jim Willoughby, he Academy president, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk.”
Genetically Altered Foods Prone to Side Effects
Smith, who is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in Iowa, presented the AAEM conference with results from other published studies as well. Animals fed GM food developed potentially precancerous cell growth, stunted organs, damaged immune systems, problems in blood cell and liver cell development, lesions in the stomach, kidneys, and livers, and higher death rates. Also, nearly 25 farmers claim that varieties of GM corn caused their pigs to become sterile.
There has only been a single human feeding study, which, according to Smith, verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transferred into the DNA of intestinal bacterial. “This means that even if you stop eating GM soy, you may still have the foreign protein being produced inside you, possibly for the long term.”
According to Smith, the process of gene insertion can turn genes off, permanently turn them on, change the expression of hundreds of other genes, create mutations, and introduce new allergenic proteins. “Even the FDA’s own scientists warned of possible toxins, allergens, new diseases and nutritional problems,” says Smith, who refers to agency memos made public from a lawsuit. “Government scientists had urged their superiors to require long term safety tests but were ignored by the person in charge of policy—who was the former attorney for biotech giant Monsanto and later their vice president.” FDA policy states that the manufacturers can decide if their own GM foods are safe, without required studies.
Click here for photos of stunted rats.