NUCLEAR NEWS FOR LIFE
GE FOODS

 

  Genetically-Engineered
  Foods - How It Is Done,
  What Are The Risks
  By Barbara Keeler and Shirley Watson DC, CCN, DACBN, QME
 

 
          If the present trend continues, chiropractors will face
increasing challenges in diagnosing diet-related conditions and in
prescribing appropriate meal plans. Without changes in food labeling
laws, they will not know what their patients are ingesting.
 
          In 1996 genetically engineered foods were quietly
introduced into the market place and rapidly permeated it. Today,
there are three GM varieties of soy, 10 varieties of corn, papaya,
yellow neck squash, canola, potatoes, tomatoes, dairy, and animal
products already on the tables of most consumers, with more than a
hundred expected soon. According to most estimates, 60-70% of all
processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients, including
proteins previously absent from human diets.
 
          Patients may look to their health care providers for advice
about GE foods. Like most consumers, patients may be understandably
confused about GE foods. Having seen ads by well-funded GE seed
companies promising tastier, more nutrient-dense, allergen-free
foods, and an end to world hunger, they might wonder why farmers in
India torched Monsanto's cotton crops, and citizens in Ireland,
France, and California ravaged Monsanto's GE food crops or GE seeds.
Why, they might ask, did a Greenpeace delivery truck that dump four
tons of US GE soybeans on the front steps of Prime Minister Tony
Blair, one of UK's few supporters of GE foods, with a banner reading
"Tony, Don't Swallow Bill's Seed."
 
          Authoritative regulatory bodies present conflicting views
as well. United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy
is that most genetically engineered foods are substantially
equivalent to their unmodified counterparts and do not require
labeling or special premarket testing. By contrast, The Canadian
equivalent to FDA and the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N.
Food Safety Agency, The UK Ministry of Agriculture questioned the
safety of certain GE foods, especially dairy products from cows
treated with bovine growth hormone. Medical boards such as the
British Medical Association, the European Union's Scientific
Veterinary Committee, and German equivalent to the American Medical
Association have issued warnings or raised concerns.
 
          Beyond advising patients, chiropractors will need to decide
whether or not they want to carry nutritional supplements containing
GE foods. Should they decline, they need to know how to avoid them--a
challenging task under current regulations, which do not require
segregation or labeling of GE products.
 
          In the near future, decisions about GE foods may become
more relevant. Consumer demand gives industry incentives to supply
alternatives.
 
          WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING?
 
          Any dispassionate assessment of potential benefits and
hazards of genetic engineering must begin with an understanding of
the processes involved. Genetically engineered (GE), trasgenic,
genetically modified (GM), and transformed are all terms that relate
to a wide range of agricultural, industrial, and medical products in
which genetic codes have been altered using recombinant DNA
techniques. Genetic engineers intend to confer on the genetically
engineered organism (GEO) new, desirable characteristics not found in
the original, unmodified organism (UMO). Eighty percent of
biotechnology research is directed at modification of food plants;
the remaining on non-food crops such as cotton, ornamental plants and
pharmaceuticals.
 
          THE GE PROCESS
 
          Below is a summary of a typical GE process. Hazards can be
introduced at any of the following steps. Some hazards could directly
impact patients who ingest the food. Other hazards are indirect,
operating through pollution of other food species, or through
unintended effects on local and global ecosystems.
 
          1. First, the new gene, or transgene, is isolated as a
stretch of DNA, and linked or spliced to a suitable promoter. This
part of the process can be performed with precision. A promoter is a
DNA sequence that regulates the activation of a gene and determines
where, when and to what degree the transgene is expressed in the new
GE organism. The intended function of the transgene is to code for
production of a protein, which in turn will catalyze a biochemical
reaction in the plant.
 
          2. Next, the new spliced gene is inserted into the UMO's
own chromosomes, usually in cultured cells or seed embryos. Insertion
of transgenes cannot be executed with precision, and has been likened
to "heart surgery with a shovel." The two most common methods are
Agrobacterium and the 'gene gun'.
 
          a. Agrobacterium: Called "nature's genetic engineer," this
infectious bacterium naturally transfers DNA to its plant host. The
bacterium is modified to carry the engineered gene, then introduced
into a host plant cell, where the new genes integrate into the host
DNA of the plant cells. The technique has been criticized for the
occasional transfer of DNA from the bacteria and introduction of
live-engineered bacteria into the environment.
 
          b. The gene gun: Gold or tungsten micro-particles are
coated with transgenes and fired into the targeted cells or tissues.
One or more copies of the transgene integrate into the chromosomes of
some target cells.
 
 
          With either technique, the transgene(s) cannot be directed
to a specific location on the host chromosomes. Incorporation into
the host DNA is more or less random. Only in a small percentage of
the treated cells are transgenes successfully incorporated into the
DNA. In order for scientists to identify the cells to which
transgenes are actually transferred, marker genes are usually linked
under step 1. Genes resistant to antibiotics or herbicides are the
markers of choice. After insertion, genetic engineers add antibiotics
or herbicides that kill all cells except those with the resistance
marker, which is linked to the desired transgene.
 
          3. The transformed cells grow into intact plants.
 
          HAZARDS AND PROBLEMS
 
          The main sources of health and environmental hazards and
problems fall into four categories. They can arise from (1)
characteristics of the transgenes and new gene products introduced,
or the organism from which they are derived; (2) unintended effects
inherent in the technology; (3) interactions between foreign genes
and host genes; and (4) the unintended transfer of introduced genes
to other organisms and species.
 
          [SOCIAL] and economic hazards result from intensifying
corporate control on food production and distribution, which
threatens the variety and distribution of the food supply. A
particular concern is its potential impact on poverty and hunger in
the developing world.
 
          POTENTIAL HAZARDS FROM TRANSGENES AND GENE PRODUCTS SELECTED
 
          Novel genes introduced into food seeds are often from
bacteria, viruses, and other non-food species. They become blueprints
for proteins never previously consumed by humans in the quantities
produced in GE crops, where they are typically expressed at high
levels. Scientist warn that the long-term impacts of these genes on
human health are impossible to predict. Without segregation of GE
products and post-market monitoring, manifested effects will be
almost impossible to assess. Below are a few examples of novel genes
and the hazards they can introduce.
 

  • TOXIN-PRODUCERS According to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) document 57, Federal Register 22987, "Corn and potatoes engineered to produce toxins that kill insects are now classified by the EPA as pesticides, rather than vegetables." Most of the toxins produced by GE plants are bacillicus thuringiensis

    • (Bt) toxins. They bind to sites in the digestive system of a target
    insect, inflicting damage that quickly proves fatal. Plants have also
    been engineered to produce snowdrop lectins, which have demonstrated
    toxicity to mammals and nontarget insects.
     
  • HERBICIDE RESISTANCE GENES Of all genetically-altered crops

    • last year, 71% carried genes for tolerance of a specific herbicide
    made by the company engineering the seeds; for example, Monsanto's
    Roundup Ready soybeans. They guarantee exposure to herbicides with a
    nightmare litany of adverse health effects. The risks of these GE
    crops will be examined later in this article.
     
  • ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANCE GENES In Federal Register 22988, the

    • US FDA warns of "Decreased effectiveness of antibiotics due to
    antibiotic-resistance genes incorporated into every genetically
    engineered organism as markers to indicate that an organism has been
    successfully engineered. Scientists expect these genes and their
    enzyme products, which inactivate antibiotics, to be present in
    engineered foods."
     
              Indeed, the British Medical Association has warned that GE
    may speed the evolution of microbes resistant to antibiotics. The UK
    Ministry of Agriculture warned that antibiotic resistance genes in GE
    corn, could render useless eight powerful antibiotics used by doctors
    to fight fatal diseases. According to the warning the antibiotic
    resistance genes are so powerful they could degrade an antibiotic in
    the human gut within 30 minutes.
     
  • ALLERGENS According to FDA, on Fed I Register 22987,

    • "Genetic engineering may transfer new and unidentified proteins from
    one food into another triggering allergic reactions. Millions of
    Americans who are sensitive to allergens will have no way of
    identifying or protecting themselves from offending foods. Allergic
    reactions can cause more than simple discomfort-they can result in
    life-threatening anaphylactic shock."
     
              UNINTENDED EFFECTS INHERENT TO THE TECHNOLOGY.
     
              The random insertion of foreign genes into the genome can
    create unexpected and unintended effects. In mammalian cells, these
    effects can include cancer, according to the World Scientists'
    Statement (WSS): Supplementary Information on the Hazards of Genetic
    Engineering. Moreover, the effects can spread through the host genome
    from the site of insertion.
     
     
              INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FOREIGN GENES AND GENES OF THE HOST ORGANISM
     
              Genes don't function in isolation. Food safety risks
    include unintended effects such as new toxins and allergens, or
    changes in concentrations of existing toxins and allergens. As
    explained by the FDA in Federal Register 22987: "Many plants
    naturally produce a variety of compounds that are toxic to humans or
    alter food quality. Generally, these are present at levels which do
    not cause problems. Combining plants and animal species in genetic
    engineering may create new and much higher levels of these toxins."
     
              Soybeans contain at least 16 proteins that can cause
    allergic reactions, which vary [AMONG] different ethnic groups. A
    major allergen, with antinutritional effects, trypsin-inhibitor, was
    found to be 26.7% higher in Monsanto's transgenic soybeans. Even so,
    the beans were approved for market on the basis of "substantial
    equivalence" to their unmodified counterparts. The same transgenic
    soy reduced growth rate of male rats and increased milk fat in cows
    consuming the beans.
     
              [A STUDY BY THE YORK NUTRITIONAL LABORATORY, EUROPE'S LEADING SPECIALISTS ON FOOD SENSITIVITY, REVEALED A 50 PERCENT INCREASE IN SOY ALLERGIES DURING THE PAST YEAR--A PERIOD WHEN THE PERCENTAGE OF GE BEANS IN THE TOTAL SOY CROP JUMPED DRAMATICALLY. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 17 YEARS OF TESTING, SOY RANKED AMONG THE TOP 10 ALLERGENIC FOODS. RESEARCHERS DID NOT ESTABLISH A CAUSAL TIE BETWEEN  GENETIC ENGINEERING AND SOY ALLERGIES. HOWEVER, THEY DID NOTE THAT IS THE MOST COMMON GE FOOD, AND THAT THEIR FINDINGS INDICATE THAT GE FOOD COULD HAVE A TANGIBLE, HARMFUL IMPACT ON THE HUMAN BODY. SUCH
    FINDINGS ARE OF PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANCE FOR VEGETARIANS WHO RELY HEAVILY ON SOY PRODUCTS AS PROTEIN SOURCES.]
     
              Dr. Pusztai, a world renowned researcher on plant lectins
    at Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats eating lectin-producing GE potatoes suffered significant damage to their immune systems, thymuses, kidneys, spleens, and guts, according Anther scientist, Dr. Stanley Ewen, said that the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, a commonly used vector or production aid in gene splicing, may
    have caused serious damage to the stomach and internal organs of the
    rats in Pusztai's study. Roundup Ready soybeans, Bt corn, and most
    other GE crops are produced using the CaMV as a gene-splicing vector.
     
              After releasing his findings, Pusztai was fired and his work discredited by the government- funded Rowett Institute. In February of 1999, front-page headlines announced that his findings were verified by a panel of 20 international scientists. According to the British press, Pusztai's firing and the scientific coverup by the
    UK government resulted from White House pressure on Tony Blair to keep British and EU markets open to Monsanto and other biotech companies.
     
              The Canadian equivalent of FDA and EU's Scientific
    Veterinary Committee recommended against foods from cows treated with
    Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). Between them, they examined evidence of
    potential cancer hazards: rats absorbed rBGH, developed immunological
    reactions, and formed cysts in their thyroids which infiltrated the
    prostate; and milk contained increased levels of the hormone IGF-1,
    which is linked to cancer. A minority of US dairy farmers still
    inject cows with rBGH.
     
     
              Following are a few other unintended results of GE crops so
    far.
     
              * impaired sense of smell and shortened lifespan in bees
    consuming pollen from GE plants;
     
              * changed hormone levels and altered milk content in cows
    eating GE soybeans;
     
              * sickness in cattle given Bovine Growth Hormone;
     
              * unexpected and unpredictable change in color of GE
    petunias;
     
              * failures of cotton and other GE crops;
     
              * toxicity of Bt to nontarget species such as monarch
    caterpillars;
     
              * toxicity moving up the food chain, causing death or
    impaired health in nontarget species consuming insects that fed on Bt
    crops.
     
     
              HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE UNINTENDED TRANSFER OF INTRODUCED GENES TO OTHER ORGANISMS AND SPECIES
     
              Evidence suggests that DNA is not broken down rapidly in
    the gut. Transgenes and antibiotic resistance marker genes may
    therefore spread to bacteria in the gut. NEW SCIENTIST reported that
    antibiotic resistant marker genes from GE bacteria can be transferred
    to indigenous bacteria in an artificial gut. Researchers have also
    found that when viral DNA is fed to mice, large fragments can pass
    into the bloodstream and into white blood cells, spleen and liver
    cells, and can link with mouse DNA. Viral DNA is more infectious than
    the intact virus. For example, intact human polyoma virus injected
    into rabbits had no effect, whereas, injection of the naked viral DNA
    resulted in a full-blown infection.
     
              WSS warns that released transgenes have the potential to
    multiply and recombine beyond control. Once released into the
    environment, polluting genes cannot be recalled. A recent report in
    NATURE suggests that transgenes may be as much as 30 times more
    likely to escape than the plant's own genes. Evidently the same
    mechanisms that enable the vector carrying the foreign genes to
    insert into the host genome can also mobilize it to jump out again to
    reinsert at another site or to infect other cells.
     
              Already documented is the spread of transgenes and marker
    genes to wild relatives by cross-pollination, creating superweeds.
    Unfortunately, some of the most troublesome weeds, such as wild
    grains, are close relatives of food crops. In some African uplands,
    for example, rice crops grow adjacent to wild rice species that
    constitute a serious cause of crop loss. Eventually, superweeds
    affect the food supply by requiring more frequent and more toxic
    applications of herbicides to food crops.
     
              Transfer of transgenes and antibiotic resistant marker
    genes from genetically engineered crop plants into soil bacteria and
    fungi have been documented in the laboratory. Evidence exists that
    DNA released from dead and live cells are not readily broken down,
    but retain the ability to spread antibiotic resistant marker genes to
    pathogenic organisms in the environment. They may also contribute to
    generating new viral pathogens.
     
              Transgenes can also pollute conventional crops, endangering
    consumer right to choose. European labs detected traces of GE corn in
    organic corn chips from Prima Terra Inc. of Hudson, Wisconsin. Some
    of the corn supplied to Prima Terra from a certified organic supplier
    was contaminated with gene-altered corn, attributed to engineered
    pollen blown GE corn on a neighboring farm.
     
     
              WHAT CAN BE DONE TO INSURE SAFETY?
     
              FDA does little to insure safety. Premarket testing is
    voluntary, except for GE crops registered as pesticides with EPA. FDA
    recommends only that developers conduct a few in vitro tests to
    assess whether the transgenic protein is similar in biochemical
    characteristics to a handful of common allergens. In vitro tests are
    specific for single compounds or antigens. For transgenic proteins of
    indeterminate allergenicity, for example, those with genes derived
    from organisms not commonly consumed by humans, FDA does not require
    any empirical analysis.
     
              What analysis is performed is often flawed. For example,
    biotech companies test herbicide tolerant GE seeds BEFORE they are
    treated with the herbicide. Recent tests show biochemical changes,
    such as alterations in phytoestrogen levels, take place in GE seeds
    AFTER they are treated with the herbicide glyphosate.
     
              The inadequacy of even the voluntary testing recommended by
    FDA is clear from the conclusions of a 1994 Conference on Scientific
    Issues Related to Potential Allergenicity in Transgenic Food Crops
    hosted by the US FDA, EPA, and Department of Agriculture (USDA).
    According to the scientists, in vitro tests cannot screen for the
    vast diversity of unique allergens and toxins of unknown structure
    and function that may be created through GE manipulations, nor can
    they assess the potential allergenicity of proteins derived from
    sources not normally part of the human food supply or that are
    generated through the genetic engineering process.
     
              The experts also maintained that no adequate animal models
    exist for assessing human allergenicity. Moreover, use of human
    subjects in assessing food allergenicity has its own challenges-- for
    example, the large numbers of subjects it would require because of
    the low incidence of reactions in the human population to any given
    allergen.
     
              In December of 1998, scientists representing twenty- nine
    industrialized countries concluded that effective testing of GE food
    would require innovative approaches. Test subjects can't consume
    100-1000 times likely intake, as is done when testing drugs, to
    insure safety. Instead, food safety testing should use doses that
    approximate the normal dietary use of food, maintaining a balanced
    diet for the test subjects. Monitored long-term testing would be
    necessary to detect long-term effects. Dr. John Fagan considers it
    essential to establish clear guidelines for premarket assessment of
    health and environmental effects of each GMO. Fagan is a molecular
    biologist who for twenty- two years conducted research in recombinant
    DNA for the National Institute of Health. He received research grants
    totaling $2.5 million. Once he recognized the causes for concern, he
    returned $600,000 in 1994 and withdrew a proposal for $1.25 million.
    He has since developed testing techniques to identify GE foods in the
    market place.
     
              Fagan recommends that, before human trials, tests with
    rodents should determine that a genetic food is not acutely
    poisonous. Then, a graduated series of feeding studies with human volunteers [SHOULD] be conducted to screen for toxic and anti-nutrient
    action of the GE foods that may be slightly less acute, or require
    longer exposure to become apparent. However, he emphasizes that the
    best testing methods available cannot guarantee the safety of a new
    GE product.
     
              A further testing challenge is that, as Ralph Waldo Emerson
    points out, "Science can not be considered separately from the people
    doing the science. There is ultimately no science, only scientists."
     
              Who are the scientists? The industrialization of academic
    research imperils the objective search for truth about the risks and
    benefits of GE crops. Who has the resources and incentive to fund
    research about GE crops-- primarily affected industries. Who funds
    the peers who review the research? According to news reports, funders
    of product research threaten loss of funding to force their
    researchers to suppress or delay publication of negative evidence.
     
              Moreover, studies may be evaluated by biased panels. At the
    FDA, such panels contain representatives of the affected industries,
    and the revolving door between the personnel departments of the FDA
    and such regulated companies as Monsanto is well documented.
     
              A recent example of potential bias surfaced when National
    Academy of Sciences formed a panel to study GE plants producing
    pesticides, such as bacillicus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins, in their
    cells. At issue was that EPA regulates these crops as pesticides;
    suppliers make pesticide claims, and plants are engineered to kill
    insects. Before the panel was finalized, a study director, Dr.
    Michael Phillips[,] had already told callers that such regulation is
    inappropriate. Toward the end of the study, Phillips left the
    National Academy of Sciences to work for the trade association,
    Biotechnology Industry Organization.
     
              Of 12 panel members, seven had past or present financial
    ties to biotech or pesticide industries. An attorney and a scientist
    had represented Monsanto and the biotech industry against federal
    regulators, four other members received direct or indirect funding
    from GE seed producers such as Monsanto and Novartis, and another was
    a consultant for the pesticide industry.
     
              More to the point, the time for unbiased studies assessing
    risks and benefits is before, not after, release of these organisms
    into the environment and the diets of consumers. All factors
    considered, many nonindustry scientists recommend taking a long look
    before releasing any more GE crops.
     
     
              WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY?
     
              What has the world to lose by a "go slow" approach to allow
    for careful, study of long-term safety? What if evidence shows that
    Genetic engineering, with the current state of technology, is
    ill-advised?
     
              Biotech companies and some US government leaders would have
    consumers believe they would be denied tastier, more nutritious food.
    Yet so far most GE crops in the present food confer no benefits on
    consumers, but tolerate a specific herbicide made by the company
    engineering the seeds; for example, Roundup Ready soybeans, which now
    account for 37% of the US soybean crop. With few exceptions, the rest
    produce Bt toxins. Some enhance shelf life or transportability.
    Consumers would not miss these products.
     
              Indeed, scientists and economist[S] raise concern that
    consumer choice could be limited by extensive corporate integration
    within the agriculture/food-supply chain. In its September, 1999
    issue, CONSUMER REPORTS identified the six companies that dominate
    research and development in plant genetic engineering as Monsanto,
    DuPont, Novartis, Austra-Zeneca, and Aventis (formed by the merger of
    Rhone Poulenc with the shareholders of AgrEvo: Hoechst and Schering).
    Between them they also own a substantial and growing portion of the
    global seed market, and some own food-processing companies through
    acquisition or joint ventures. Such integrated consolidation could
    reduce the diversity of food products which ultimately reach the
    supermarket shelves.
     
              A compelling argument is that world will not be able to
    feed its hungry. Who among us has not responded with the deepest
    sympathy and concern for those starving wide-eyed young children
    flashed upon television screens from the outer reaches of this
    planet. The world is hungry and we need to address this heartbreaking
    and devastating situation. The biotech industry plays upon this deep
    concern by telling us that without GE technology we will never feed
    the world populace. Only with the increased production and
    nutritional enhancement of this technology will all those hungry
    children find relief from their peril.
     
              Yet the wide-spread growth in genetic engineering has not
    reduced hunger. Far from feeding the world, it is intensifying
    corporate control on food production and distribution which created
    poverty and hunger in the first place. Only the most negligible
    effort focussed on what less developed countries need: cheap,
    labor-intensive, robust and high-yielding staples for human food. The
    nature of GM crop development means that most research and
    development is undertaken by a relatively small number of large
    companies who dominate food engineering. Thus, the current focus is
    on herbicide tolerance and other requirements of labor-saving
    production by large farms in industrialized countries for developed
    markets. In areas with burgeoning populations, poverty reduction
    programs require raising, not lowering, demand for labor. Moreover,
    GE herbicide-tolerant seeds are more expensive than their unmodified
    counterparts, and of no benefit to farmers who cannot afford
    herbicides.
     
              New technologies on the horizon promise to work against,
    rather than for, impoverished farmers. Gene use restriction
    technology, (GURT), commonly known as terminator technology, allows
    the seed producer to prohibit or restrict the use of farm-saved
    seeds. The seeds are programmed to produce deadly proteins late in
    their cycle. GURt insures that the seed either can not germinate, or
    may require another chemical to reactivate it, which would
    necessitate purchases of new seeds or chemicals each year from the
    major seed companies.
     
              Some GURT relies on switch technology, in which a transgene
    construct has a promoter sequence that determines when and where in
    the plant the gene will be turned on. These promoters can be
    engineered for externally influence in some cases, such as a chemical
    application. Recent GURT technology targets seeds that won't
    germinate unless exposed to a specific chemical sold by the GE seed
    supplier.
     
              Patents [FOR] GURT technology are owned jointly by the USDA
    and a corporation soon to be acquired by Monsanto. A new patent
    reveals that despite strong opposition to the US involvement with the
    GURT technology, USDA funding supports additional Terminator research
    at Purdue University.
     
              Among the promises of genetic engineering, according to the
    biotech industry and their US government supporters, is reduction in
    the use of pesticides. In fact, Bt crops might render ineffective a
    natural pesticide that actually does reduce use of toxic chemicals.
    The bacteria called bacillicus thuringiensis, which produce Bt toxins
    naturally, have been used by organic growers in topical sprays since
    the early 1970s. Unlike the GE Bt producing plants, the bacteria can
    be applied judiciously, as needed, and at appropriate points in the
    growing process. Bt bacteria are relatively shortlived, and they
    secrete toxin in a form that becomes activated only in the alkaline
    digestive systems of certain worms and caterpillars.
     
              By contrast, GE Bt crops secrete an active form of the
    toxin throughout the plant?s life cycle, including the harvest. These
    toxins in the plant tissue do not wash off, nor are they broken down
    by sunlight, as are their natural counterparts. Scientists estimate
    that by creating resistant pests, Bt crops will render the microbes
    ineffective within a few years.
     
              According to Consumer Reports, in some cases herbicide
    tolerate cotton needed fewer herbicide applications, but herbicide
    tolerate corn required more. While Bt cotton required fewer
    pesticides for target insects, they required as many or more for
    nontarget insects.
     
              AVOIDING GE PRODUCTS
     
              At this point, GE products are not allowed in foods with
    the Organic label. Your patients can avoid GE foods by exclusive
    consumption of organic products, provided they can find everything
    they need [FROM ORGANIC SOURCES], and that organic crops are not
    polluted with transgenes from nearby GE crops.
     
              In the United States a few food producers are attempting to
    provide some GE free products. For example, two of the largest US
    corn processors, A.E.Stanley Mfg. Co, and Arthur Daniel Midland Co,
    have declined to buy GE corn, which will make it easier for food
    companies to avoid GE corn in their processed foods. Honda Trading
    Co., which is a wholly owned division of the Japanese auto maker said
    that it will build a processing plant in the US, in Ohio, to sort and
    bag genetically modified free soybeans.
     
              All of these developments may affect consumer choice.
    Genetic ID offers a technology developed by Dr. Fagan for genetic
    analysis of foods.
     
              The authors join many leading scientists who recommend
    extensive study under controlled conditions before introducing GE
    crops into the food supply and the environment. We recommend that
    regulators require labels of products containing transgenes, so that
    consumers can weigh all evidence for themselves an make informed
    decisions. We further recommend that for the present, chiropractors
    advise their patients, to the extent possible, to avoid becoming
    nonconsenting test subjects in a mass experiment. As nontransgenic
    foods become available and identified, patients are well advised to
    choose them over foods with unknown genetic makeup.
     
     
     
              Barbara Keeler has focused on health, nutrition, the
    environment, and regulatory affairs as a journalist and a contributor
    to health, nutrition, science, and social science textbooks.
     
              Shirley Watson is Director of Education for the American
    Chiropractors Association's Council on Nutrition
     
    How alkaline?  current pharmaceutical products for acid reduction prescriptions (Tagamet, Pepcid, etc) could lead to activation or partial activation of these toxins..
     

    KOYAANISQATSI

    ko.yan.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

    Back to Nuclear Index