Frankenfoods for YOU

mmmmmmmm

tttttttt

Rudolf Steiner tested the life values in wild wheat grains and compared these with man cultivated wheat
and found the wild seed germ had 17 times more nutrient value in it than its man cultivated counterpart
if anyone here has a race horse , this is a sure fire recipe to winning the race feed it up on the natural wild stuff

bttt










Z

The cafeteria at Monsanto owned facilities DOES NOT serve GM Frankenfood to its staff/workers. THAT in itself says a lot!

very good post,, i read the first page only,,, oh well,,, if the bombs plagues, and mother nature don´t kill us,, the food will



for the masses,,, i am a step ahead of the critters

"It is a fluke of the place...I get alot of you are amna crud too. I guess some weaker ones assume the stronger ones are male...stereotypes... I thought you were female at first but the other avatar...threw me and then I thought well good a self actualized male, not afraid of his female side...It is about balance the less we get stuck in societal expectations the fuller the experience of personhood and we are all One...so androgynous in view avoids the preeternal seeming conflict between girls and boys...Next the bunkies will want us to prove it with a link..."

Known Earth Languages are preferred here, gayboi.

Let me guess. You´re either a psych major or a womyn´s studies major. In either case, you´re an aspiring writer of bad post-modernist prose.

Nicht Wahr?

GMO is a way to go, fast into the ground

I watch out for the stuff it is toxic.

I can do something about what I eat-I may not be able to buy off the bush cabal or stop an EQ

Let me guess. You´re either a psych major or a womyn´s studies major. In either case, you´re an aspiring writer of bad post-modernist prose.

Nicht Wahr?

Nein


gayboi? You are assuming too much-my 3 kids would kick your brain in-coded talk for ass. And if you could see who you are addressing you would be looking stupid, if not ashamed.
Past majoring-already did a few and not in psych or womens studies-try radium physics...for starters, but I am a very good cook. Everyone has a right and left side-talk about projection-see, I do study people, and learn from it.

Frankenfoods, frankenfish, make frankenpeople who are herded into pens. Monsanto had sued a farmer in Canada about 8 months back. The farmer lost. The FDA supports frankenfoods and frankencreatures for USA, and they helped Monsanto. OUR taxdollars helping ´suffering´ Monsanto. Dupont has also got into the action.

The farmer had native plants growing on his property. Due to pollination(plants do it naturally-without props)the GM(sterile) plants contaminated his field. Big problems for the farmer-his plats will be hybridized by the GM plants. Hard to prevent pollination unless you have a hermetic garden, where GM is concerned.
The hook? Monsanto sued the farmer, for having their GM strains on his property. He will be forced out of business, and have to pay Monsanto.


For those who think this is woo woo, enjoy your hunger later and your inability to germinate your own seeds from what will be left. Yes, it is coming. EU has already standardized their seeds.

One mans banana needs to be the same as their neighbor to trade ´fairly´in the EU. The sizes have to be-´think´-loss of biodiversity. Most of your seed companies are owned by big Petrol companies. HMMM, seeing a pattern anyone? In fact, Monsanto just bought one of the biggest seed companies. Eat the genetically modified organism-jump right in, take the first bite.

They want all their sterile seeds to bloom everywhere, then every year if you want more you will have to buy them from Monsanto and others.

Many seeds are already illegal, variations of vegetables and fruits made illegal by Monsanto and others. Biological diversity disappears and lessens the abilities of the plants to withstand cold, pests, extreme variations in weather, limited to 2-3 types. A subtle way to lead one to extinction-food then humans.

A book I can recommend:
Saving Seeds: Gardeners Guide to Growing and Storing Vegetable and Flower Seeds
by Marc Rogers Storey Publ.

I have a problem with my taxes being used to help Monsanto shove GM foods down peoples throats. EU countries and even China have stated they will avoid USA foods/seeds that are GM-How will this impact our economy? It can´t take much more loss. Where are our personal concerns represented by OUR FDA? Is Monsanto paying them?

TIME IS NOW-WAKE UP before there is no food left. Control the problem now, before it controls us. protest

Shadow Dancer~ ... Bump for Intelligence and Integrity !......

Thx BDolphin

Where is the blush icon???




Might as well use this, making no claims but it must seem alien...

Take care

This reads like a script for a good scary horror movie, but it´s for real. Been in the works for a long time. What is truly astonishing is no one can seem to come up with a way to fight back. Re the farmer who lost the lawsuit, if you had any shred of faith that the justice system is intact, that travesty was your wake-up call. What is worse, even if you wisely stock up heirloom seeds, ultimately they will be contamined.

They can readily e contaminated but one can contain a small garden in a greenhouse type enviroment. It is better than awaiting the contamination. I try to avoid GMO foods at all costs but they do try and hide the origin...in the produce sections. I also try to mark the companies that seek to exploit weaknesses in a system and use it against others(for their profit, whatever that is). Once they are marked I try and avoid sponsoring them or their products as much as possible. Of course, this system is flawed, but it makes me feel better attempting to make a stand and abide in it.


I try and support companies that reflect responsibility in their business faire.

I am surprised how many people I meet who have never grown food or have no idea how to grow food for their family. Many assume having a general idea will work, when there are many things to know in order to produce food. IMO many are going to be broadsided-especially with contamination of various kinds, bizarre weather, anomalous geomagnetics, sterile seeds, and other disruptive conditions.


Namaste

bttt








Z

for the uninformed

Notice the water shortages increasing???

Notice any work being done on water lines, specifically in front of your houses???


The summer will bring lots of bizarre weather...and alot of drought or the other extreme flooding...from various origins...

Pay attention things are going to speed up abit...soon

What You Should Know About Genetically Modified Foods!


What is Genetic Modification & Engineering?
Genetic engineering is a process whereby genes from one organism are moved into the genome of another organism. In the case of genetically engineered foods, genes from bacteria or other plants or organisms are moved into crop varieties with the assistance of a viral vector. This provides herbicide-tolerance and/or insect resistance to existing domesticated plant varieties. In many cases, biotechnology breaks down natural species boundaries. The genes inserted cannot be removed and thus become released into the environment during the pollination process.

Which Plants are being Genetically Modified?
Soybeans, Cotton, Corn, Rice, Sugar Beets, Canola, and Potatoes are the predominant crop plants being engineered. From 1996-2001 herbicide-tolerant plants (allowing them to withstand the overspray of herbicides) accounted for 77% of genetically modified acreage while the insect-resistant plants accounted for 15%. There are nearly 170 million global acres were planted with genetically engineered seed. To date, the bulk of modifications have been performed to reduce labor costs while no plants have been engineered for enhanced nutrition. Nearly 70% of foods in the United States grocery stores contain byproducts of genetically engineered organisms. Nabisco®, Frito-Lay®, Proctor & Gamble, and Kraft® are just a few of the food processing companies who are using genetically engineered byproducts.

How are Genetically Modified Foods Regulated?
Genetically modified plants are being regulated by a patchwork of three agencies: the EPA, FDA, and the USDA. The FDA considers genetic bioengineering to be a mere extension of traditional agriculture. In 1992, the FDA determined that foods with genetically engineered byproducts were not significantly different than conventionally grown foods. Companies must consult with the FDA but there are no requirements to test the food´s safety prior to full-scale marketing.

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe?
Unless a Life Science company calls the new genetic insertion a "food additive," genetically modified foods are not required to be submitted to pre-market safety testing for substantial equivalence. In 1999, the British Medical Association (BMA) published a report on the impact of genetic modification. The report states the BMA believes more research on issues around allergenicity and possible toxicity needs to be undertaken. In April of 2000, the National Academy of Sciences claimed new allergens may be introduced into foods via genetic engineering; new toxins may be introduced into foods; and existing toxins may reach new levels, or may move into the edible portion of plants. The FDA´s own scientists have warned that caution should be taken with the introduction of genetically engineered foods. FDA scientist, Dr. Gerald Guest writes:

In response to your question on how the agency should regulate genetically modified food plants, I and other scientists at the Center for Veterinary Medicine have concluded that there is ample scientific justification to support a pre-market review of these products. As you state in the Notice, the new methods of genetic modification permit the introduction of genes from a wider range of sources than possible by traditional breeding. The FDA will be confronted with new plant constituents that could be of toxicological or environmental concern.
Do Genetically Modified Foods Hurt or Help the Environment?
Genetically modified plants are promoted in part by claiming reductions in the need for synthetic herbicides and pesticides while the plants will not harm the environment. There is some evidence that insecticide use is down, particularly for the cotton crop which is notorious for large amounts of insecticide use, while studies on herbicide use show that levels have remained the same and in some cases have risen.

Perhaps the most poignant risk from genetically modified plants occurs at the environmental level. Newly introduced genes can spread to weedy relatives creating either more persistent weeds or in some cases sending a rare species into extinction. We need our weeds - they are in many cases the traditional relatives of our domesticated plants. They assist us in overcoming crop blight. General hybridization with wild traditional weedy plants has created more aggressive weeds for many of the world´s most important crops. Are transgenic crops different? No. We know that gene movement is likely and we know we can lose track of gene movement. It will be even more important to track and contain movement as we introduce the second wave of genetically modified crops to produce pharmaceutical and industrial biochemicals.

Do Genetically Modified Foods Solve the World Hunger Problem?
New varieties of genetically engineered crop plants have consistently shown reduced amounts produced per acre since their introduction.

[link to environmentalcommons.org]

felt there were too many good links in this thread to let it pass by-with all the monsanto chit going on

a shameless one, shameless indeed-


do not let your food sterilize you, or mutate your DNA like the poor bees, bats, butterflies, moose, wheat, and a host of others suffering immensely since 1996-when they allowed (law changes-with clarence thomas former monsanto attorney...and many more)this crap in the open air and let it contaminate all kinds of fertile native plants-making them sterile...many times wiping out the native plants and replacing them with their roundup-ROUNDUP-classic irony.

As they take many farmers to court daily and try and steal their family farms...this started way back when willie nelson was doing farm aid and most were uninvolved-happy to let the agro MEGA farms wipe out industry for the rest of us and the quality went downhill with assurances of better quality...now the FDA is trying to get Codex Alimentarius through-so they tell the public(after salmonella on peanuts, melamine in food, E. Coli on many vegies and fruits...and now the almonds and then pistachios...ridiculous!!!


As they take more control and demand it under threat of violence or torture-they dictate choices that are sure to kill many early...as we see how their support of fast food has led to severe obesity in toddlers...and the laws are set up to persecute the parents-

I do not allow my kids to eat such slop much at all or not at all...but a nanny state, nanny world order is for babies and I am half a century, I can chew my food on my own.









many of their plants have the pesticide inserted into the plant...allowing monsanto,dow,dupont,bayer,merck plants to thrive and the native ones to be eradicated


Better wake up folks-privatizing water follows as fast as they can change laws-and they are!!!




Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 06/02/2009 11:45 AM

I have posted this as it concerns the bees-and I feel they are blighted with a few things: chemtrails



Nicotine based pesticides


GMO/GE plants(with Round Up in DNA of plant)


EMF Pollution-they are very sensitive to EMF and RF



It all ties in together to increasing famine and controlling behavior...






Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 11/14/2009 06:44 AM

[link to www.youtube.com]


Frankenfoods are growing in control


contaminating food-as fast as they can


avoid processed foods as much as possible that is where many will eat contaminated rice...causing 100s of millions of dollars for damages GMO/GE-finally the contaminated Alfalfa have been stopped as they could easily contaminate healthy seeds/plants!!!! Not all battles are lost-but more supporters for healthy food are needed.

[link to www.youtube.com]
Bad Seed, IPR, patented seeds, sterile,"roundUP ready", where 5% of companies control 85% or more of the food supply-monSATAN is one of them.


find out who's whom:
[link to www.politicalfriendster.com]



frankenfoods
[link to www.youtube.com]
How they move the genetic material into their Frankenfoods-via bacteria or VIRUS-manipulating nature and microbes/viruses and then patenting nature and their wizardry...

The monster will surely become the master.

Mutant Milk Robert Cohen author-discussing psychoneuro endocrinology...very interesting-the bovine growth hormone is shared with humans only and the most powerful of all the hormones...HGH, bovine growth crap causes tumors...

processed meat eeeewww
[link to www.youtube.com]


long interview-with Jeffrey Smith of
Institute for Responsible Technology-VERY INFORMATIVE but not for the lightweight-the interview is about 40 minutes long but the man is well informed and very accurate-

[link to www.youtube.com]


Hello...anyone GETTING THIS???

george noory and Jeffrey smith
[link to www.youtube.com] 10 min



Since 1996-when they were able to pass their "Equivalency Law"
Soy, corn, cotton, and canola have been all over and entering our diets. Cottonseed


Why not back to HEMP??? Since cotton needs about 10 times more herbicides than hemp would ever need...Cotton uses more herbicide than MOST CROPS-could this be contaminating our groundwater-all the pesticides and herbicides-poisons recouped from WWII weapons???


Bovine growth hormone puts pus in the cows milk...it is called crack for cows...with the cwhorporations rigging reports and studies...lying to profit-I have had too many friends die of breast cancer and blame the milk or the hormone crazed chickens...when people die in their 20s or 30


Now they are starting to MONKEY with crook neck squash, zucchini, Hawaiian papaya, sugar beets, as well as soy and corn derivatives being omnipresent.

GMOs have increased the use of pesticides by a quarter billion pounds.


ROUND UP ready seed sterilizes other NAtive plants-because the other plants do not have round UP in the DNA...this round up is a pesticide/herbicide-this is what kills insects and "weeds"-the problem is that means any plants not made by monSATAN or their ilk.
Part II frankenfoods
[link to www.youtube.com]
referring to their seed being found on your property-REGARDLESS OF HOW IT GETS THERE-BY WIND, BY INSECT, BY RAIN, BY WAGON,ETC., THE FARMER IS THEN RESPONSIBLE.


EPA,FDA, and Dept of Agriculture oversee the biotech industry and GMO/GE/Frankenfoods.
1996 opened PANDORA'S box-unleashing famine and death in the billions. FDA(with absolutely NO SAFETY STUDIES)

Is anyone feeling the love?

george noory and Jeffrey smith
[link to www.youtube.com] 10 min



Since 1996-when they were able to pass their "Equivalency Law"
Soy, corn, cotton, and canola have been all over and entering our diets. Cottonseed


Why not back to HEMP??? Since cotton needs about 10 times more herbicides than hemp would ever need...Cotton uses more herbicide than MOST CROPS-could this be contaminating our groundwater-all the pesticides and herbicides-poisons recouped from WWII weapons???


Bovine growth hormone puts pus in the cows milk...it is called crack for cows...with the cwhorporations rigging reports and studies...lying to profit-I have had too many friends die of breast cancer and blame the milk or the hormone crazed chickens...when people die in their 20s or 30


Now they are starting to MONKEY with crook neck squash, zucchini, Hawaiian papaya, sugar beets, as well as soy and corn derivatives being omnipresent.

GMOs have increased the use of pesticides by a quarter billion pounds.


ROUND UP ready seed sterilizes other NAtive plants-because the other plants do not have round UP in the DNA...this round up is a pesticide/herbicide-this is what kills insects and "weeds"-the problem is that means any plants not made by monSATAN or their ilk.
Part II frankenfoods
[link to www.youtube.com]
referring to their seed being found on your property-REGARDLESS OF HOW IT GETS THERE-BY WIND, BY INSECT, BY RAIN, BY WAGON,ETC., THE FARMER IS THEN RESPONSIBLE.


EPA,FDA, and Dept of Agriculture oversee the biotech industry and GMO/GE/Frankenfoods.
1996 opened PANDORA'S box-unleashing famine and death in the billions. FDA(with absolutely NO SAFETY STUDIES)

Is anyone feeling the love?

cool. What's on your list....I can't eat anything in the nightshade family...got any goodies for a temperate climate?

Monsanto is now suing the German government

[link to www.opednews.com]

Monsanto is now suing the German government (and, by that, the people) to force them to grow their GM Corn.

However German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had "legitimate reasons" to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer's harvest.

Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany.

new connections I have discovered-canola and Corn(maize)-FRANKENFOODS version666

HIV connections-as they are transgenic and also in cauliflower-watch it-stick to GE/GMO free foods or pay the price$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



also:
GM crops contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they have been harvested, startling new government research shows.

The findings cast a cloud over the prospects of growing the modified crops in Britain, suggesting that farmers who try them out for one season will find fields blighted for a decade and a half.

Financed by GM companies and Margaret Beckett's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the report effectively torpedoes the Government's strategy for introducing GM oilseed rape to this country.

Ministers have stipulated that the crops should not be grown until rules are worked out to enable them to "co-exist" with conventional ones. But the research shows that this is effectively impossible.

The study, published by the Royal Society, examined five sites across England and Scotland where modified oilseed rape has been cultivated, and found significant amounts of GM plants growing even after the sites had been returned to ordinary crops. It concludes that the research reveals "a potentially serious problem associated with the temporal persistence of rape seeds in soil."

The researchers found that nine years after a single modified crop, an average of two GM rape plants would grow in every square metre of an affected field. After 15 years, this came down to one plant per square metre - still enough to break the EC limits on permissible GM contamination.

Last night Pete Riley, the director of GM Freeze, said; "It is becoming clearer and clearer that it is going to be impossible to grow GM crops in Britain."
[link to www.saynotogmos.org]



Crisis Position

Safe Food News 2000

Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California at Berkeley

When you insert a single gene into a plant or an animal, the technology will work. You will be able to move that gene from organism A to organism B. You will be able to know that the transfer was successful. You will be able to know that the gene is being expressed, and even that the function of the gene is being expressed. So you'll get the desired characteristic. But you will also get other effects that you couldn't have predicted from your original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable. And that's what the science is having to deal with.

"The reason why Monsanto can claim scientific soundness is that they are only answering the technical question, 'Can I move this gene and this characteristic from A to B?' They are not asking the questions that the current understanding of cell biology demands. You can ask the technical question and get the answer you are looking for. You can take a gene from A and put it into B. We know that. But that's the only question we can answer with certainty. We now realize that there are a whole host of other questions.

"Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation. And the fact that the industry folks don't deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous. If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you're going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle.

"We're in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that's what you get when you're dealing with living systems."

[link to www.mindfully.org]

Declaration of Dr. Richard Lacey, M.D., Ph.D.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et al. Plaintiffs
v. Donna Shalala, et al. Defendants.
Civil Action No. 98-1300 (CKK)

I, Richard Lacey, state:

1. I reside at [ ] Leeds, UK.

2. I earned both a B.A. in biochemistry and an M.D. from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Bristol. Since 1971, I have been a member of the Royal College of Pathologists, and since 1983, I have been Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of Leeds. (I have been on Emeritus status since 1995.)

3. I am an expert in food safety issues, and my background makes me especially qualified to assess the potential risks of genetically engineered food products. I served four years on a U.K. government advisory panel on food as it relates to human and animal health, and I have written five books on food safety, including one published by Cambridge University Press in 1994 containing a detailed discussion of genetically engineered food. (This book has been translated into Japanese and Polish.) In addition, I have written over 200 articles published in standard scientific journals and attended and spoken at numerous scientific conferences both in the U.K. and abroad. (A list of my publications and honors is attached.)

4. In 1989, I anticipated that there could be serious health risks to the British cattle and human populations from the practice of feeding cattle rendered meat from sheep and other animals. I published my warnings in Food Microbiology, 1990. In this article, I explained the nature of the malady that could result. This was the first prediction of what eventually became the "mad cow" epidemic in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the governmental authorities were slow to respond to my warning. Had they properly assessed and acted upon the information I presented, much hardship would have been avoided, and the citizens would not have been subjected to as high a degree of risk. (Because of the long latency period between exposure to the infectious agent and development of symptoms, there is a potential for widespread incidence of infection within the British public over the next forty years.)

5. It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques. It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety. Paragraphs 6 through 10 explain why these new foods entail higher risks, and paragraphs 12 through 15 explain why none of them is generally recognized as safe.

6. Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods. Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism's genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multi-faceted. Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value. Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems -- and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient -- it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism. Prediction is even more difficult because even when dealing with one variety of a food-producing organism and one particular set of foreign genetic material, each insertion event is unique and can yield deeply different results.

7. The mechanics and risks of recombinant DNA technology are substantially different from those of natural methods of breeding. The latter are typically based on sexual reproduction between organisms of the same or closely related species. Normally, entire sets of genes are paired in an orderly manner that maintains a fixed sequence of genetic information. Every gene remains under the control of the organism's intricately balanced regulatory system. The substances produced by the genes are those that have been within the species for a long stretch of biological time. (In cases where mating is between closely related species, there is generally close correspondence between the substances produced by each.) In contrast, biotechnicians take cells that are the result of normal reproduction and randomly splice a chunk of foreign genetic material into their genome. This always disturbs the function of the region of native DNA into which the material wedges. Further, the foreign genes will usually not express within their new environment without a big artificial boost, which is supplied by fusing them to promoters from viruses or pathogenic bacteria. As a result, these genes operate essentially as independent agents outside the host organism's regulatory system, which can lead to many deleterious imbalances. Moreover, this unregulated activity produces substances that have never been in the host species before and are usually very different from any that have -- which could lead to problems even if production were at a low rather than a high level. There are several other major differences between genetic engineering and traditional breeding, all of which could, as can the above-mentioned ones, induce the presence of unpredicted toxins or allergens or the degradation of nutritional value.

8. Consequently, whereas we can generally predict that food produced through conventional breeding will be safe, we cannot make a similar prediction in the case of any genetically engineered food.

9. Therefore, the only way even to begin to assure ourselves about the safety of a genetically engineered food-yielding organism is through carefully designed long-term feeding studies employing the whole food; and it would be necessary to test each distinct insertion of genetic material, regardless of whether the same set of genetic material in the same type of organism has previously been tested.

10. Even if the most rigorous types of testing were performed on each genetically engineered food, it might not be possible to establish that any is safe to a reasonable degree of certainty, as is possible in the case of most ordinary chemical additives. However, we at least would be in a far better position than now to have greater confidence in these new foods.

11. I regularly attend professional conferences in my specialities and I keep abreast of the scientific literature. I also stay in communication with many life scientists and health professionals.

12. To the best of my judgment, neither genetically engineered foods as a general class nor any genetically engineered food in particular is generally recognized as safe among those experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate their safety.

13. I base this judgment on two factors. First, although many life scientists (including some molecular biologists) claim that genetically engineered foods pose no unreasonable risk, I know of many well-qualified life scientists who do not think that their safety has been established. For instance, a recent official statement of the British Medical Association seriously questions the assumption that genetically engineered foods are in general as safe as those produced by traditional methods. In my opinion, the number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. Second, there is insufficient evidence to support a belief that genetically engineered foods are safe. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Few properly designed toxicological feeding studies have even been attempted, and I know of none that was satisfactorily completed. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty. Rather,they are primarily basing their claims on a set of assumptions that, besides being empirically unsubstantiated, are in several respects at odds with the bulk of the evidence.

14. The main assumptions are: (a) that producing food through recombinant DNA technology in itself entails no greater risks than producing it through sexual reproduction between members of the same species and (b) that the same safeguards commonly employed by breeders using conventional techniques will suffice for genetically engineered foods. As I have explained in paragraphs 6 and 7, the first assumption is unsound and at odds with biological reality. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 explain the unsoundness of the second assumption.

15. As far as I can ascertain, the current policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is primarily based on these two assumptions. Therefore, although it claims to be "science-based," this claim has no solid basis in fact. The only way to base the claims about the safety of genetically engineered food in science is to establish each one to be safe through standard scientific procedures, not through assumptions that reflect more wishful thinking than hard fact.

16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. ß 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: May 28, 1999.

[signed]__________________
Dr. Richard Lacey
[link to www.saynotogmos.org]

and please look at this
The instability of transgenic lines

The instability of transgenic lines has been well known since 1994, particularly in connection with gene silencing. This not only affects agronomic performance, but also safety. We have drawn attention to the structural instability of GM constructs in general, which may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination, especially because the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, present in practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials, actually has a recombination hotspot. We raised our concerns in a series of scientific papers [13 -16].

In the course of debating with plant molecular geneticists in UK's top research institute, the John Innes Centre (JIC), we discovered that the CaMV 35S promoter is active, not only in all plants, bacteria, algae and yeast, but also in animal and human cells [17,18]. None of our critics was aware that the promoter is active in human cells, including a molecular geneticist on the UK Agriculture & Environmental Biotechnology Commission set up to oversee our farmscale field trials [19].

This year, researchers in JIC admitted in their annual report that GM crops are unstable and prone to recombination. But when we pointed this out [20], they issued a strong denial, and accused us of ignoring one of their papers where they claim to have demonstrated that transgenic rice lines are stable. I have since reviewed that paper in detail [21] and concluded, "A generous interpretation of the data presented would suggest that 7 out of 40 (18%) transgenic rice lines may be stable to the R3 generation." In other words, at least 82% of the lines are unstable. That paper is not at all exceptional in making claims in the abstract, and often in the title, which are not supported by the evidence presented [22]. No reply has come from the JIC since. My colleague, Prof. Joe Cummins has summarised more up-to-date literature showing that all GM crops may be unstable [23].

Roundup Ready soya has consistently performed less well than non GM soya over the years, and this year's seeds are experiencing problems in germination, according to a report from the University of Missouri [24].

Terminator crops at large

Last December, I was asked to act as expert witness in defence of citizens who have taken civil action against GM crops which they strongly believe to be a threat to health and biodiversity. Among the crops were GM oilseed rape varieties used to produce F1 hybrids belonging to AgrEvo UK (now Aventis). At the time, I was also preparing a joint submission, with two other scientists, to the consultation document, "Guidance on Best Practice in the Design of GM Crops" put out by the UK Government's Advisory Committee for Release to the Environment (ACRE). One of the main enabling technologies' for 'best practice' suggested in the document is precisely Agrevo's seed/pollen sterility system, for it prevents GM gene flow.

It soon dawned on us that the GM oilseed rape lines undergoing field trials in the UK are engineered with 'terminator technology' - so named by critics because it renders harvested seeds sterile - for no other reason than to enforce corporate patents on GM seeds. Not only that, according to AgrEvo's application, similar crops produced by the company Plant Genetic Systems (PGS), a subsidiary of AgrEvo, have been undergoing field-trials in Europe since the beginning of 1990.

In the US, similar male sterile lines engineered with the 'terminator-gene', barnase have been tested at least as early as 1992. There have been 115 field trials, the vast majority done without risk assessment, as the first environmental assessment came up with 'FONSI' - Finding of No Significant Impact. Crops modified for male sterility include rapeseed, corn, tobacco, cotton. Brassica oleracea, potato, poplar, chicory, petunia and lettuce. The USDA commercial release data include 4 crops with barnase: a corn and a canola by AgrEvo, a chicory by Bejo, and another corn by Plant Genetic Systems.

Separately, the other genetic component in terminator crops, site-specific recombinase, has also been engineered into corn and papaya, and there have been 14 field trials between 1994 and 1998, with no environmental impact assessment at all.

There are more than 150 US patents listing barnase or site-specific recombination or both, the oldest, on site-specific recombinase, going back to 1987.

The first terminator patents that came to public attention were those jointly owned by US Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company, which Monsanto had intended to acquire. The novelty in those patents is the proposal to combine the terminator-gene system with the site-specific recombinase system, giving the company complete control over the hybrids as well as proprietary chemicals that control gene expression.

As a result of universal condemnation and rejection, Monsanto had announced it will not commercialise terminator crops, to everyone's relief. Research and development, however, have continued unabated. Everyone has assumed such crops only exist in theory, when they have been out there for more than 10 years.

It is no coincidence that simultaneous consultation went on in the United States on the USDA-Delta and Pine terminator patents. The USDA has since committed itself to commercial development of the technology, and, like the UK ACRE, also argued in its favour because it could prevent GM gene flow. But it cannot [24], because male sterile lines will be pollinated by non GM crops, and there is no way to prevent horizontal gene transfer.

On the contrary, the increased complication of the constructs may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination. The genes and gene products themselves are also known to be harmful. The terminator-gene barnase kills cells by breaking down RNA, an intermediate in the expression of all genes. The recombinase, in theory, breaks and rejoins DNA at specific sites, but is far from accurate and can scramble genomes. A male transgenic mouse engineered with only one copy of Cre recombinase was 100% sterile, because the recombinase enzyme managed to scramble the genomes of both daughter spermatids when they are still connected by a cytoplasmic bridge [25]. The mouse genome does not even have the lox sites recognized by the Cre recombinase.

Terminator insects give wings to genome invaders

The US Department of Agriculture has approved field release of GM pink bollworms this summer, made with a mobile genetic element, piggyBac, already known to jump many species. The element was first discovered in cell cultures of the cabbage looper, where it caused high mutations of the baculovirus infecting the cells, by jumping into the viral genome. In experiments in silkworms, researchers already found evidence that the inserts were unstable, and had a tendency to move again from one generation to the next [26].

"These artificial transposons are already aggressive genome invaders, and putting them into insects is to give them wings, as well as sharp mouthparts for efficient delivery to all plants and animals... The predictable result is rampant horizontal gene transfer and recombination across species barriers. The unpredictable unknown is what kinds of new deadly viruses might be generated, and how many new cases of insertion mutagenesis and carcinogenesis they may bring." [27]. The Institute of Science in Society
Londonia House, 24 Old Gloucester Street
London, WC1N 3A1 UK
Tel: 44 -020-7242 9831




Recent Evidence Confirms Risks of Horizontal Gene Transfer - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The Best Kept Secrets of GM Crops - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho's witness statement, February 2002.

The Risks of GM Food

Prof. David Schubert
July 2002

As a cell biologist I am very much discouraged by the content of the ongoing debate about introducing genetically modified (GM) plants into the marketplace. While the voiced concerns usually center around irrational emotional arguments on the one hand, and the erroneous concept that genetic engineering is just like plant breeding on the other, I believe that the three issues which should be of most concern on the basis of established science receive little or no discussion.

These are:

1. that introducing the same gene into 2 different types of cells can produce two very distinct protein molecules;

2. the recent observations that the introduction of any gene, be it from a different or the same species, always significantly changes overall gene expression and therefore the phenotype of the recipient cell; and

3. the possibility that enzymatic pathways introduced to synthesize small molecules such as vitamins can interact with endogenous pathways to produce novel molecules.

The potential consequence of all of these perturbations could be the production of biomolecules that are either toxic or carcinogenic, and there is no a priori way of predicting the outcome.

I will give a few examples and then argue why GM food is not a safe alternative.

In addition to their primary sequence of amino acids, the structure and biological activity of proteins can be modified by the addition of molecules such as phosphate, sulfate, sugars or lipids. The nature of these secondary modifications is totally dependent upon the cell type in which they are expressed. For example, if a protein involved in the cause of Alzheimer's disease, the beta amyloid precursor protein, is expressed in liver cells it contains covalently-attached chondroitin sulfate carbohydrate, while the identical gene expressed in brain nerve cells contains a much simpler sugar. This is because each cell type expresses a unique repertoire of enzymes capable of modifying proteins after they are synthesized. Once modified, the biological activity of the molecule may be changed. In the case of the beta-amyloid precursor protein, the adhesive properties of the cells are changed, but there is, at our current state of knowledge, no way of knowing the biological effects of these modifications.

The second concern is the potential for inducing the synthesis of poisonous or toxic compounds following the introduction of a foreign gene. These observations are clearly at odds with the individuals who imply that everything is fine because they are simply introducing one gene. In fact, the introduction of a single gene invariably alters the gene expression pattern of the whole cell and each cell of the individual or plant responds differently. One recently published example is the transfection of a receptor gene into human cells. In this case, the gene was a closely related isoform of an endogenously expressed gene. The pattern of gene expression was monitored using gene chip technology, and the mRNA levels of 5% of the genes was significantly upregulated or downregulated. Similarly, the simple introduction of a bacterial enzyme used for growth selection of transfected cells changes the expression of 3% of the genes. While these types of unpredicted changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention outside the community of the DNA chip users.

Furthermore, they are not unexpected. The maintenance of a specific cell phenotype is a very precise balancing act of gene regulation, and any perturbation is going to change the overall patterns of gene expression. The problem, like that of secondary modifications, is that there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis.

Third, the introduction of genes for a new enzymatic pathway into plants could lead to the synthesis of totally novel or unexpected products via the interaction with endogenous pathways. Some of the products could be toxic. For example, retinoic acid (vitamin A) and derivatives of retinoic acid are used in many signaling events that control mammalian development. Since these compounds are soluble and work at ultralow concentrations, a GM plant making vitamin A may also produce retinoic acid derivatives which act as agonists or antagonists in these pathways, resulting in abnormal embryonic development.

Given the fact that genetically modified plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species, what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the marketplace, but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.

Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy. The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulfation can be lost during purification. However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, is to require all genetically engineered plant products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinogenicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug.

Professor David Schubert
Cellular Neurobiology Lab
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
P.O. Box 85800
San Diego, CA 92186-5800
USA
Phone: (001) (858) 453-4100


A different perspective on GM food - Letter in Nature Biotechnology, October 2002
Food Fight - San Diego Union-Tribune, February 4, 2003





GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown

ISIS Report
June 12, 2001

All GM crops may be unstable, and worse, they may face total genetic meltdown due to escalating error catastrophes. Prof. Joe Cummins reviews recent research findings suggesting how this might occur.

'Error catastrophe' 'or extinction mutagenesis' is a theory about mutations and survival of populations. The idea is that mutation contributes to variability and variability drives the success of a population in the face of a changing environment. However, most mutations are deleterious. Error catastrophe occurs when high mutation rates give rise to so many deleterious mutations that they make the population go extinct. For example, foot and mouth disease virus treated with mutagens (base analogues fluorouracil and azacytidine) eventually become extinct [1]. Polio virus treated with the mutagenic drug ribavirin similarly went extinct [2]. Error catastrophe theory has led to a strategy of mutagenesis to control disease viruses.

Somaclonal variation a form of gene and chromosome instability that results from the tissue and embryo culture technique used in making GM plants [3]. Somaclonal variation occurs in tissue and embryo culture even without genetic modification, but genetic modification often makes it worse. Somaclonal variation is associated with replication of genetic elements called retrotransposons that replicate in the plant cell nucleus and are inserted into structural genes, causing mutation and chromosome rearrangement [4]. The genetic changes activated in GM may be numerous and subtle, and may produce gradual loss in productivity of GM varieties or unexpected toxic plant products. Transposons have been shown to have powerful impacts on genetic stability. For example, the P transposon of the fruit fly, Drosophila, when activated under appropriate conditions, causes 'hybrid dysgenesis', a slow destruction of the genome receiving the transposon due to chromosome and gene mutation [5]. Gressel [6] has suggested that hyperactive transposons could be introduced into weed populations in order to eradicate them.

There has not been adequate study of ongoing transposition in GM crops, all of which have been produced by embryo culture. Somaclonal variation has been patented in some crops as a means of producing genetic variability for selection, and it was assumed that the crops were genetically stable once established. But that assumption was not tested in most instances. Certainly, there has been inadequate study of the factors reactivating dormant transposons following plant embryo culture. The threat of extinction mutagenesis has never been discussed in governmental reviews that led to the deregulation of experimental GM crops, nor has there been effort to examine the factors leading to subtle yield-depression in GM crops. It may be only a question of time until GM crops dramatically decrease yield and become extinct. Finally, little or no thought seems to have been given to the havoc that could be wreaked upon the human genome by GM crop retrotransposon running amok within humans and farm animals.