Are GMOs Safe?
Haleakala Times
July 15, 2008
by Jan Welda
"Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally." - WHO website, www.who.int/
"These techniques are generally known as recombinant DNA technology. With this technology, DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism and causes the organism to acquire modified or novel traits." - www.wikipedia.org.
Genetically altered, or genetically modified, organisms, have been around since 1976, when a company called Genetech was established, exploring the "commercial potential" of recombinant DNA technology. There has been active debate about this ever-expanding technology ever since. One of the concerns is the potential, largely unknown, effects of these never-before-in-existence altered plant or animal genes.
Others include current laws that allow these new genes to be patented, becoming the legal property of one person or corporation, which leaves the way open to potential abuse. Owners of patented genes can fine or otherwise punish unauthorized use - including, for example, farmers who may not want GMOs at all, but whose fields have become unintended hosts for patented seeds because of wind blowing them onto the property. (see www.percyschmeiser.com for interesting information on this type of case - Schmeiser vs. Monsanto).
Another example of controversy surrounding GMOs has to do with what has been called the "Terminator Gene," the patent for which is owned by "Delta and Pine Land and the United States Department of Agriculture," according to Wikipedia. "Delta and Pine Land was bought by Monsanto in August 2006," it continues; "This yet-to-be-commercialized technology would allow the production of first generation crops that would not generate seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds."
For thousands and thousands of years, farmers have saved seed from one crop to plant the next year; many times this practice has prevented starvation. "Terminator Gene" technology could make it impossible for farmers to grow crops without first buying new seed, every year, from some large corporation. Percy Schmeiser says, "farmers should always be able to use their own seed."
Today, chances are good that a large portion of the corn, potatoes and soy products that you eat are genetically altered. How can you tell? You can't - not easily, anyway - because they have never been required to be labeled. If, for example, you happen to have a mild individual allergic reaction to some invisible combination of genes in your tofu or French fries or corn-syrup-laced soda, it would be pretty much impossible to isolate the cause.
And you can't simply avoid all genetically engineered food products if you want to, because none of them are labeled, making it difficult to know what to avoid. That decision has already been made for you, whether you have agreed to it or like it or not. Even if you choose to grow all of your own organic food as a precaution, growing them from purchased certified organic seed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't been genetically engineered, because GMOs do not have to be labeled.
Dr. Lorrin Pang, the State of Hawaii's Department of Health Maui District Health Officer, offers some information on this subject, from a scientific point of view. Regarding the question of whether there is a significant difference between GE products and those that are the product of natural evolution, how closely they resemble each other, and whether additional caution and testing is necessary, he says, "The FDA does consider GE foods equivalent to foods produced by conventional methods such as natural selection and pollination. While they claim that the method of production might differ, they say that the end product is supposed to be the same.
"This is a position based on intended changes. There is ample warning that additional screening for unintended effects is needed, according to the World Health Organization. This necessary additional screening should cover both unintended products of the gene mutations, profiling all proteins, as well as the gene's potential for moving into the cells and bacteria flora of the host (called horizontal gene transfer).
"The bottom line is that a holistic approach is needed to examine all potential effects of GE products, whether or not they were intended. This type of screening would culminate in human trials and post-marketing surveys, and would require that GMOs be labeled as such. Furthermore, since each product may differ, independent of the method of production, there is a need to consider each product individually on a case-by-case basis.
"In theory, compared to traditional methods of crossing/selection, GE leads to a greater likelihood of unintended genetic effects on plants."
Transgene is the term for "a gene or genetic material that has been transferred by any of a number of genetic engineering techniques from one organism to another," according to Wikipedia. The World Health Organization addresses the unknown and unintended effects of GE plants by saying, "Introduction of a transgene into a recipient organism is not a precisely controlled process, and can result in a variety of outcomes with regard to integration, expression and stability of the transgene in the host" "If GE plants are not like their conventional counterparts, how could changes in those plants impact health outcomes for human beings? Many unintended changes might not result in any health effects, while some might be beneficial; some might be hazardous. But as a group, unintended genetic changes in plants will result in more unintended health effects. Calling it a 'food' does not preclude these health effects," Dr. Pang says.
"It is a principle of medicine that product inconsistencies lead to more health side effects. Also, having more good and bad effects simultaneously doesn't don't necessarily mean that they 'cancel out'. From a single product, one effect might be good for lungs and another bad for livers, for example. Furthermore, if one is in a good state of health, the 'beneficial' effects would add very little, and so one only risks the hazards. If one is very sick with multiple organ failure, the bad effects might be minor compared to the potential for benefits. This is similar to medicines - the prescription really depends on knowledge of the patient as well as ALL health effects of the medicine," he explains.
In the October 13, 2004 edition of the Bangkok Post, WHO assistant Director Kerstin Leitner says, "At this point, we have no evidence to say that it is dangerous to consume food products that contain GMOs, but at the same time we also don't know its negative side. So, we have to say that we do not know the adverse health effects of GM food."
That's pretty clear.
"According to the precautionary principle, one should not ingest, inhale (occupational exposure) or inject (biopharmaceuticals) substances without knowing their benefits and hazards. The hazards need not be zero. But they must be known, so that we can weigh them against the alternatives. It is up to the manufacturers of GE foods to create the studies and databases to evaluate their human health effects.
"While some may argue that safety evaluations cannot be done, since foods are complicated and there will be many other confounding dietary factors, many such epidemiologic investigations are done despite this. We may implicate the potato salad as the source - without identifying the agent - of illness during a family picnic. Or we may learn that certain types of juices affect kidney stone formation, for example.
"If these products as a class do have unintended effects which may in theory lead to health issues, and if the health effects in humans have been poorly studied - should we be eating them?" Dr. Pang asks.
"The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health," according to their mission statement.
Dr. Pang says, "It is appropriate to end with a return to the FDA; much has transpired since their opening claim of substantial equivalence. The FDA has been shown in the past few years to be plagued by two faults. Conflicts of interest, before a U.S. congressional investigation, and shoddy science.
"FDA epidemiologist David Graham says, 'I would argue that the FDA as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless.'
"From an internal scientific review of the FDA (Nov 2007, FDA: Science and Mission art Risk), the FDA lacks an adequate number of scientists and does not seem to value science in its vision. A quick fix is unlikely since these same issues were brought up (and have continued) during a similar review sixteen years ago.
"How much additional testing is required for these novel GE products? They might now get more testing than conventional foods, but is that enough? Until science is restored at the FDA (and conflict of interest is controlled) I would not trust their opinion, or those who blindly cling to their authority, on this issue," Dr. Pang states.
This is an issue that affects all of us, and it's worth a much closer look. Movies have been made and many books published on the subject recently, both pro and con; check some out at the library or buy your own and find out more.
Here are just a few of the books available: Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone by Mark L. Winston, Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith, Understanding Genes and GMOs by Colin J. Sanderson, GMO Free by Mae-Wan Ho, Ho Mae-Wan and Kim Li Ching, and Genetically Modified Foods by Nigel Hawkes.
July 15, 2008
by Jan Welda
"Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally." - WHO website, www.who.int/
"These techniques are generally known as recombinant DNA technology. With this technology, DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism and causes the organism to acquire modified or novel traits." - www.wikipedia.org.
Genetically altered, or genetically modified, organisms, have been around since 1976, when a company called Genetech was established, exploring the "commercial potential" of recombinant DNA technology. There has been active debate about this ever-expanding technology ever since. One of the concerns is the potential, largely unknown, effects of these never-before-in-existence altered plant or animal genes.
Others include current laws that allow these new genes to be patented, becoming the legal property of one person or corporation, which leaves the way open to potential abuse. Owners of patented genes can fine or otherwise punish unauthorized use - including, for example, farmers who may not want GMOs at all, but whose fields have become unintended hosts for patented seeds because of wind blowing them onto the property. (see www.percyschmeiser.com for interesting information on this type of case - Schmeiser vs. Monsanto).
Another example of controversy surrounding GMOs has to do with what has been called the "Terminator Gene," the patent for which is owned by "Delta and Pine Land and the United States Department of Agriculture," according to Wikipedia. "Delta and Pine Land was bought by Monsanto in August 2006," it continues; "This yet-to-be-commercialized technology would allow the production of first generation crops that would not generate seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds."
For thousands and thousands of years, farmers have saved seed from one crop to plant the next year; many times this practice has prevented starvation. "Terminator Gene" technology could make it impossible for farmers to grow crops without first buying new seed, every year, from some large corporation. Percy Schmeiser says, "farmers should always be able to use their own seed."
Today, chances are good that a large portion of the corn, potatoes and soy products that you eat are genetically altered. How can you tell? You can't - not easily, anyway - because they have never been required to be labeled. If, for example, you happen to have a mild individual allergic reaction to some invisible combination of genes in your tofu or French fries or corn-syrup-laced soda, it would be pretty much impossible to isolate the cause.
And you can't simply avoid all genetically engineered food products if you want to, because none of them are labeled, making it difficult to know what to avoid. That decision has already been made for you, whether you have agreed to it or like it or not. Even if you choose to grow all of your own organic food as a precaution, growing them from purchased certified organic seed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't been genetically engineered, because GMOs do not have to be labeled.
Dr. Lorrin Pang, the State of Hawaii's Department of Health Maui District Health Officer, offers some information on this subject, from a scientific point of view. Regarding the question of whether there is a significant difference between GE products and those that are the product of natural evolution, how closely they resemble each other, and whether additional caution and testing is necessary, he says, "The FDA does consider GE foods equivalent to foods produced by conventional methods such as natural selection and pollination. While they claim that the method of production might differ, they say that the end product is supposed to be the same.
"This is a position based on intended changes. There is ample warning that additional screening for unintended effects is needed, according to the World Health Organization. This necessary additional screening should cover both unintended products of the gene mutations, profiling all proteins, as well as the gene's potential for moving into the cells and bacteria flora of the host (called horizontal gene transfer).
"The bottom line is that a holistic approach is needed to examine all potential effects of GE products, whether or not they were intended. This type of screening would culminate in human trials and post-marketing surveys, and would require that GMOs be labeled as such. Furthermore, since each product may differ, independent of the method of production, there is a need to consider each product individually on a case-by-case basis.
"In theory, compared to traditional methods of crossing/selection, GE leads to a greater likelihood of unintended genetic effects on plants."
Transgene is the term for "a gene or genetic material that has been transferred by any of a number of genetic engineering techniques from one organism to another," according to Wikipedia. The World Health Organization addresses the unknown and unintended effects of GE plants by saying, "Introduction of a transgene into a recipient organism is not a precisely controlled process, and can result in a variety of outcomes with regard to integration, expression and stability of the transgene in the host" "If GE plants are not like their conventional counterparts, how could changes in those plants impact health outcomes for human beings? Many unintended changes might not result in any health effects, while some might be beneficial; some might be hazardous. But as a group, unintended genetic changes in plants will result in more unintended health effects. Calling it a 'food' does not preclude these health effects," Dr. Pang says.
"It is a principle of medicine that product inconsistencies lead to more health side effects. Also, having more good and bad effects simultaneously doesn't don't necessarily mean that they 'cancel out'. From a single product, one effect might be good for lungs and another bad for livers, for example. Furthermore, if one is in a good state of health, the 'beneficial' effects would add very little, and so one only risks the hazards. If one is very sick with multiple organ failure, the bad effects might be minor compared to the potential for benefits. This is similar to medicines - the prescription really depends on knowledge of the patient as well as ALL health effects of the medicine," he explains.
In the October 13, 2004 edition of the Bangkok Post, WHO assistant Director Kerstin Leitner says, "At this point, we have no evidence to say that it is dangerous to consume food products that contain GMOs, but at the same time we also don't know its negative side. So, we have to say that we do not know the adverse health effects of GM food."
That's pretty clear.
"According to the precautionary principle, one should not ingest, inhale (occupational exposure) or inject (biopharmaceuticals) substances without knowing their benefits and hazards. The hazards need not be zero. But they must be known, so that we can weigh them against the alternatives. It is up to the manufacturers of GE foods to create the studies and databases to evaluate their human health effects.
"While some may argue that safety evaluations cannot be done, since foods are complicated and there will be many other confounding dietary factors, many such epidemiologic investigations are done despite this. We may implicate the potato salad as the source - without identifying the agent - of illness during a family picnic. Or we may learn that certain types of juices affect kidney stone formation, for example.
"If these products as a class do have unintended effects which may in theory lead to health issues, and if the health effects in humans have been poorly studied - should we be eating them?" Dr. Pang asks.
"The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health," according to their mission statement.
Dr. Pang says, "It is appropriate to end with a return to the FDA; much has transpired since their opening claim of substantial equivalence. The FDA has been shown in the past few years to be plagued by two faults. Conflicts of interest, before a U.S. congressional investigation, and shoddy science.
"FDA epidemiologist David Graham says, 'I would argue that the FDA as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless.'
"From an internal scientific review of the FDA (Nov 2007, FDA: Science and Mission art Risk), the FDA lacks an adequate number of scientists and does not seem to value science in its vision. A quick fix is unlikely since these same issues were brought up (and have continued) during a similar review sixteen years ago.
"How much additional testing is required for these novel GE products? They might now get more testing than conventional foods, but is that enough? Until science is restored at the FDA (and conflict of interest is controlled) I would not trust their opinion, or those who blindly cling to their authority, on this issue," Dr. Pang states.
This is an issue that affects all of us, and it's worth a much closer look. Movies have been made and many books published on the subject recently, both pro and con; check some out at the library or buy your own and find out more.
Here are just a few of the books available: Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone by Mark L. Winston, Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith, Understanding Genes and GMOs by Colin J. Sanderson, GMO Free by Mae-Wan Ho, Ho Mae-Wan and Kim Li Ching, and Genetically Modified Foods by Nigel Hawkes.