There are no Health Risks There are no Health Risks inin

Genetically Modified FoodsGenetically Modified Foods

Bucolic Fairfield, Iowa

Jeffrey Smith

Fairfield, Iowa

Institute forResponsibleTrchnology

US GM cropsSoy 94%Soy 94%Corn Corn 88% 88%Cotton Cotton 93% 93%Canola Canola 90% (Canada) 90% (Canada)

Sugar beets 95%Sugar beets 95%Alfalfa (hay, not Alfalfa (hay, not sprouts) ?%sprouts) ?%

Minor Food

Crops

Hawaiian Hawaiian papayapapaya

virus resistant

ZucchiniZucchinicrookneck crookneck squashsquash

virus resistant

Why do we avoid GMOs? Organic misinformation Fear mongering by Jeffrey Smith And the Organic Consumers Association

Non-GMO Shopping Guide Wildly incorrect list of foods

www.NonGMONonGMOShoppingGuideShoppingGuide..com for shopping guides and tips

Forget the

1-100, How vigilant were you to avoid GM food when eating out?

1-100, How vigilant were you this week to avoid bringing GM food home?

Don’t you have better things to do with your time?

Rate yourself

cellsnucleus

chromosome

DNA

gene

TA

A A

C

C

C G

GG

T

TT

ABasepairs: A-T & C-G (nucleotides)

How does Genetic Engineering work?1. Isolate a gene with a desired trait*

3. Introduce the gene(s) into a plasmid

4. Use Agrobacterium to insert plasmid into plant cells.

5. Re-grow cells to plants via tissue culture (cloning)*

Inserting is very precise, with less error than crossing plants.

Gene constructPromoter: on switch

Gene sequenceGene sequence

Stop signal

e.g. Bt toxin gene from soil

bacterium

often CaMV (virus)

e.g. from pea

Identify cells with incorporated genes

Only transformed cells survive

Test for markers Add antibiotic

Grow transformed GM cells via cloning (tissue

culture)

Antibiotic Resistant GenesAntibiotic Resistant Genes““IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL

FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATIONFLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”.”

This was allegedly said in 1992 by Dr Murray Lumpkin, in a memoDirector, Division of Anti-infective Drug Products

It is not clear why he would commenting on this nor have expertise in this field.

Allergens and

Toxins

New diseases

Nutritional problems

But there are no peer

reviewed papers on this

anywhere.

Somebody somewhere might have warned you

of:

• GM plants might “contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.” (But they don’t)

• That is why they are the most tested food products in history.

FDA Toxicology Group

11. . “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”, “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”, (he has no examples)(he has no examples)

2. “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, 2. “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, (hardly likely)(hardly likely)

3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the 3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”, environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”, ((proofproof?)?)

4. “Undesirable alterations in the 4. “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.”levels of nutrients.”

(If they aren’t equivalent they don’t get (If they aren’t equivalent they don’t get released.)released.)

They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace, and that is what we do.”Division of Food Chemistry and Division of Food Chemistry and TechnologyTechnology

“Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products

may pose human food safety concerns.”

Didn’t we just say this? And it has never been demonstrated to be true!

Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’sGerald Guest, Director, FDA’sCenter for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

FDA declares GMOs no different “The agency is not aware of

any information showing that foods derived by these

new methods differ from other foods in any

meaningful or uniform way.”

This slide is correct.

Food and Drug Administration

“Statement of Policy” May 29, 1992

No one has ever seen

Secret FDA

documents that confirmed the facts

contradicted the statement

Does this sentence even make sense?

What was said within FDA“The processes of genetic engineering

and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”

Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer

She did say this, but nobody else did.

By “trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices,” the agency was “trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.”She said this in 1991, but since she is still at the FDA she has surely changed her mind.

Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer

Today Linda Kahl, PhD says

• I wrote that memo over twenty years ago, as a reaction to an earlier draft of our policy statement, which published later in 1992. In response to comments from me and other FDA staff, the policy evolved significantly before its publication. Soon after writing the memo, I became the principal author of the guidance for industry in the final policy statement and discussed the thinking supporting the policy to many domestic audiences and to foreign audiences in  Canada, Japan, Russia and Argentina.

•  • The memo thus serves to show that the deliberative process that led

to our policy was open to free expression by all participants in its development.  Considering different perspectives and thinking in developing our policies helps ensure that we use the best science to support the best policy.

•  

“Animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” (Never been observed)

“I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that the lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern.”

He said this in 1992.Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s

Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

“There is a profound difference between the types of

unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic

engineering,”

“There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick

up effects that might not be obvious.”

“This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no

unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of

concern. But time and time again, there is no data to back

up their contention.”

This doesn’t make any sense, even grammatically.

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl

This is a political document:

“What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?

Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad,

general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type

document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political

document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of

unintended effects.”

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl

Michael Taylor• Staff lawyer at FDA in 1970s

• Practiced privately 1980s: firm also represented Monsanto

• Deputy FDA commissioner under Kessler 1991

• Led Food Safety Inspection Service 1994-6• Worked for Monsanto for 16 months

• 10 years in academia• Rejoined FDA in 2009 to lead food side of

FDA• Scrupulously follows FDA conflict guidelines

Who overruledthe scientists? No one

Standard letter indicating product is safe.

‘Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe...’”

FDA Letter to Monsanto, 1996

First GM Crop

FlavrSavr

Tomato

Rats refused to eat the

Tomato?

.What really happened is that

gastric monitors were mis-installed

in some of the rats and the

experiment failed.

•However, it was repeated and the

rats did fine

(GMO on left)No animals avoid GM feed

when given a choice, because they are indistinguishable.

Mice avoided GM cornThis looks very contrived

After 28 days•Contrary to Smith’s claims:

•Expert pathologists stated that mild gastric Expert pathologists stated that mild gastric erosionserosions

•Were seen at equal levels Were seen at equal levels

•In both GM and non-GM fed ratsIn both GM and non-GM fed rats

More fearmongering

The process of The process of creating a GM creating a GM crop crop actually does actually does notnotcreate create unpredicted unpredicted changes in DNA changes in DNA and plant and plant compositioncomposition

Unexpected Unexpected changes changes in the DNAin the DNA

•Smith is suggesting Smith is suggesting the FDA would actually the FDA would actually approve a lethal approve a lethal product!product!

Disruption of gene networksJuly 1, 2007, New York Times:• The presumption that genes operate independently has The presumption that genes operate independently has

been institutionalized. . . . It is the economic and been institutionalized. . . . It is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.industry is built.

• Plants are carefully tested for safety.Plants are carefully tested for safety.

• There are no known examples where a specific gene There are no known examples where a specific gene recipe was inserted into a cell and produces recipe was inserted into a cell and produces something other than what was expected.something other than what was expected.

•RNA•Proteins•Natural compounds•But, there are no known examples But, there are no known examples where a specific gene recipe was where a specific gene recipe was inserted into a cell and produces inserted into a cell and produces something other than what was something other than what was expected.expected.

Changes in Mon 810 cornChanges in Mon 810 corn “Interestingly, a newly expressed spot (SSP 6711)

corresponding to 50 kDa gamma zein, a well-known allergenic protein, has been detected. Moreover, as a major concern, a number of seed storage proteins … exhibited truncated forms having molecular masses significantly lower than the native ones.”

• In a nutshell, Zolla claims that allergens can occur in GM crops, and emphasizes the need for testing.

•Well, Duh!

(Zolla)

GM soy has increased soy allergen

Trypsin inhibitor(soy allergen) up to 7 times

higher in cooked GM soyBecause some samples were

incompletely cooked!

Altered nutrients(unlikely)

Increased: Anti-nutrient (soy lectin)

Allergen (trypsin inhibitor)

Lignin (disease related?)

Reduced: Protein; A fatty acid

An essential amino acid; Phytoestrogens

 Before a GM crop is placed on the market its composition is carefully evaluated. GM crops are not approved if the composition analysis doesn’t show that they are as safe and nutritious as other varieties of the same crop. 

GM soy has higher lignin content

“Components of this same biochemical pathway also produce… rotenone, a plant-produced insecticide that may cause Parkinson’s disease.”

So the FDA is approving poisonous crops? Really?

David Schubert, PhD, Salk Institute

UK attempts to create UK attempts to create long-term safety studieslong-term safety studies

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

Rats fed GM potato (GNA lectin)

•Potatoes used by Pusztai were an

unapproved experimental variety.

•Rats fed uncooked potatoes always

develop digestive lesions!

(Ewen and Pusztai )

GM potatoes damaged rats (10 or 110 days)This study is

discredited: do not take it seriously.

A second cause of problemsThe protein

produced by the inserted

gene may be harmful

•but if so it would never be approved

Herbicide tolerance (73%)Herbicide tolerance (73%)–Roundup ReadyRoundup Ready–Liberty Link (Glufosinate tolerant)Liberty Link (Glufosinate tolerant)

Pesticide production (18%)Pesticide production (18%)–Bt toxin Bt toxin

Crops with both traits (8%)Crops with both traits (8%) But note that the patent on Roundup But note that the patent on Roundup

expired in 2000 and you can buy it expired in 2000 and you can buy it from any vendorfrom any vendor..

primary traits

Bt-toxinBt-toxin(Industry) Science has found

that Bt: Has a history of safe useHas a history of safe use Is destroyed during digestionIs destroyed during digestion Is not active in mammalsIs not active in mammals Has been used in organic Has been used in organic

farming for 50 years.farming for 50 years.

In realityIn reality

Bt-toxin:• Is highly immune stimulating (immunogenic) –

both mucosal and systemic responses• As potent as cholera toxin• Induces IgG, IgA, IgM responses• (Dose dependent response observed)• Is an adjuvant for other antigens (induces immune response)• However, this was done on frozen sections of

mouse intestine and has little to do with human consumption by ordinary means!

(Vazquez-Padron)

But he keeps it up.But he keeps it up.

Bt-toxin:• Produced enhanced immune response to

Hepatitis B surface antigen, Bovine serum albumin for IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies. (Proposed vaccine adjuvant.)

• Is as potent an immune stimulator as cholera toxin

• Cry1Ac is similar in structure to Cry1Ab used in most Bt corn

• But, again done on intestinal sections.

(Vazquez, Scand. J. Immunol)

Bt Spray Affects Humans

Bt sprayed over Vancouver and Washington:“Although some of the symptoms reported to DOH are

plausibly due to Foray 48B (Bt), it is virtually impossible to determine whether symptoms

experienced by any specific individual were the result of exposure to the spray.”

Farm workers exposed to Bt pesticides

BT sprays have been used for over 50 years

And have a good safety record.

“The number of positive skin-prick tests … increased 1 month after exposure and persisted for 4 months after repetitive

exposure.”

Actually, there are no reported cases of Bt toxicity or allergies!

Serum antibody test (Bt extracts)

• No papers in the literature report such effects.

Symptoms• None

• Nor are there any papers suggesting such symptoms.

Implications• He’s making this up.

Expert advisors to the EPA: Mouse and farm worker studies:Mouse and farm worker studies: “ “Suggest that Suggest that Bt proteinsBt proteins could act as could act as

antigenic and allergenic sources. … antigenic and allergenic sources. … Only surveillance and clinical Only surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals assessment of exposed individuals will confirm the allergenicity of Bt will confirm the allergenicity of Bt products.”products.”

And none have been observedAnd none have been observed..

((EPA Scientific Advisory Panel 2001)

BtBt inin cropscrops

But, mostly in the leaves!

Mice ate Bt corn (30/90 days)

He’s beating this to death!

Government of Italy Government of Italy

November 2008November 2008

Weaning and old mice fed Bt cornWeaning and old mice fed Bt corn Weaning mice:• Changes in T cells, B cells and T

cell subsets – CD4+ and CD8+, (gamma delta) T cells, (alpha beta) T cells

Old mice:• Changes in B cells,

T cells, T cells

I’ll bet he doesn’t understand this slide either!

(Finamore)

(Mon 810)(Mon 810)

IgG & IgE

None of this work was repeatable. Later studies found no difference between GM and non-GM fed mice.

Cytokines(Immune signaling molecules)

This was not repeatable(Finamore)

Increased only in weaning miceIncreased only in weaning mice  Associations

IL-6None of Finamore’s work has been repeatable.

IL-13

MIP-1b

Increased in weaning & old miceIncreased in weaning & old mice

  Associations

IL-12p70 Not repeatable

Increased only in weaning miceIncreased only in weaning mice  Association

(gamma delta)

T cells Not repeatable

Mice ate Bt/RR cornIncreased infertility and lower

birth weight

Government of Government of AustriaAustria

November 2008November 2008

This study does not This study does not existexist

Rats ate Bt corn (90 days)

Indicators for liver and kidney toxicity,

blood pressure problems, allergies,

infections or disease, higher blood sugar, and anemia

No such indicators were found

Monsanto study Monsanto study and reanalyzed and reanalyzed by Seraliniby Seralini

90 day Bt corn study (Mon 863)90 day Bt corn study (Mon 863)

(Burns)

•Animal study experts have agreed with Monsanto’s analysis. •Claims made by Seralini have been rejected by experts world wide.

Bt cotton claims

Thousands of laborers in India reported allergic reactions to Bt cotton.No published study has documented that these stories are actually true and even the NGO that makes the claims makes them with some caution.

No evidence this is true

The Sunday IndianThe Sunday Indian, , 10/26/0810/26/08

• Hospital records:Hospital records: “Show that victims “Show that victims of itching have increased massively this of itching have increased massively this year, and all of them are related to BT year, and all of them are related to BT cotton farming.”cotton farming.”

• Pharmacy manager:Pharmacy manager: “Almost every “Almost every cotton worker from this village suffers cotton worker from this village suffers from itching. Not a day passes by from itching. Not a day passes by without a few of them coming to without a few of them coming to purchase medicines for that.”purchase medicines for that.”

• Millions of people who handle Bt cotton Millions of people who handle Bt cotton have reported no allergies.have reported no allergies.

The Sunday IndianThe Sunday Indian, 10/26/08

•Same stuff repeated:•Again, no actual evidence.

Upper respiratory

Eyes Skin Overall

Bt Spray

No actual reports exist.

Bt cotton

Bt cotton No real evidence exists.

Pesticide or nitrate poison seem to be likely culprit, not Bt cotton.

No real reports of skin problemsBt cotton

•A total on 9 sheep were used, and the results have A total on 9 sheep were used, and the results have not been published.not been published.

3 sheep in each group3 sheep in each groupA) Bollgard I B) Bollgard II C) Non-A) Bollgard I B) Bollgard II C) Non-GMOGMO

GMO groups:GMO groups:

Feb. 2008

Indian buffaloes Indian buffaloes (Haryana)(Haryana)• There is simply no published evidence There is simply no published evidence

that any farm animals have difficulty that any farm animals have difficulty eating GM crops.eating GM crops.

• This must be based on rumorThis must be based on rumor

Buffalo (Warangal)Buffalo (Warangal)• Grazed on Bt cotton plants (1 day) Grazed on Bt cotton plants (1 day) • Sick and unconscious for 2-3 daysSick and unconscious for 2-3 days• 13 deaths13 deaths• They had grazed for 8 years without incident. Likely They had grazed for 8 years without incident. Likely

the food was poisoned by herbicides the food was poisoned by herbicides or fungus.or fungus.

Post mortem (unofficial)Post mortem (unofficial)

• Unofficial Unofficial means means unpublished.unpublished.

Post mortem …Post mortem …Undigested food in rumen

Does Bt toxin kill rumen Does Bt toxin kill rumen bacteriabacteria? ? Oh come on, Oh come on, They died before digestion They died before digestion completed.completed.

We’re going to skip theseWe’re going to skip these

Bt Cotton farmer suicidesBt Cotton farmer suicides

•Farmer suicides based on GMO crops Farmer suicides based on GMO crops

have been debunked manyhave been debunked many timestimes..•It was found that suicides began It was found that suicides began

long before GM crops.long before GM crops.

•India has harvested 5.1 million tons India has harvested 5.1 million tons

of cotton per year, compared to 3 of cotton per year, compared to 3

million tone before Bt million tone before Bt

•Caused by heavy debts.Caused by heavy debts.

•Suicides have actually decreased Suicides have actually decreased

since Gm adoptionsince Gm adoption..

Bt corn, reports…•12 cows died on a German farm out of hundreds of millions? •Is there any reason to blame the corn?

Bt corn, reports…

Farmers say pigs and cows became sterile

“Farmers say” is not a publication,

Bt corn, reports…

Undocumented claims from Norway

Inhaled Bt Pollen

No evidence has been provided.

Bt corn, reports…

Deaths after consuming corn:• 9 horses• 4 buffalos• 37 chickens• 5 unexplained human deaths•And a partridge in a pear tree….

You can ignore this. It isn’t true.

Bt corn(2011) Bt-toxin in blood of

Canadian women and fetuses

Unfortunately the amount

reported was below the

detection level of the

instruments.

Third reason for problems The protein may be different than

intendedExcept that this is rigorously tested, and untrue.

The transgene sequence may:Mutate or truncateRearrange

Be read differentlyProduce multiple proteins

Of course, if any of this were true, the plants wouldn’t grow.

The protein may:

Be folded differentlyHave different molecules attached

But we’d find that during testing.

Altered protein in GM peas

may have “turned

them deadly”

Only altered

immune reactions.

AgriculturalFood Chemistry,

2005

GM peas with aAI

•These altered immune reactions meant that •Scientists discontinued the research if any risk is encountered.•The system works!

(Prescott)

Th2 type immune response

They discontinued the They discontinued the work.work.

Th2 cytokinesThey discontinued the work.

The Cause?Post

translational modification

• He doesn’t understand this either.

Fourth possible problem

MoreMore herbicide residuesherbicide residuesExcept it doesn’t happen!Except it doesn’t happen!

On the average use of biotechnology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop

yields by 22% and increased farmer profits by 68%.

GMO crops do not increase weed GMO crops do not increase weed resistance, but over reliance on Roundup resistance, but over reliance on Roundup can. This is best solved by crop rotation can. This is best solved by crop rotation and herbicide rotation.and herbicide rotation.

Bt crops produce more insecticide than they displace (European corn

borer 2010)

But since Bt is so specific and is not toxic to humans or animals, this is not a relevant issue.

Bt crops produce more insecticide than they displace (rootworm 2010)

Same as before

Chickens fed Liberty Link corn

died at twice the rate. This is

normal for the poultry industry and illustrates

that there is no difference between control

and GM corn.

More Liberty (Glufosinate) residues

1. Very little glufosinate herbicide residue on a plant ends up on the seeds.

2.  Almost all of the glufosinate herbicide residues in food are quickly eliminated in faeces.

3. Presence of glufosinate in the gut has been factored into legally allowed legally allowed levels in food.

Fifth possible Fifth possible problemproblem

DNA fragments are common in the gut and do no harm.

Transfer Transfer of of

transgentransgenes to gut es to gut bacteria bacteria

is is optimizedoptimized

• GM does not

affect gene

movement

into bacteria.

• Transgenes

are destroyed

in our gut.

Genes have never been found transferred to intestinal bacteria.

Nature Biotechnology, 2004

• GM soy burgers fed to 8 colostomy volunteers. Low levels of epsps found in bags.

• As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.

Human experiment showed no such transfer (unlike Smith’s claims)

What What can can transfertransfer??

•There is no There is no cause for cause for concern.concern.

Virus resistantHawaiian papayaHawaiian papayaZucchiniZucchinicrookneck squashcrookneck squash

• Most disease protected crops do not produce viral proteins.

• When they do, the safety has When they do, the safety has been established by careful been established by careful testing.testing.

If Bt genes If Bt genes transfer transfer •“They might turn our intestinal

bacteria into living pesticide

factories”

•They don’t. This is

nonsense. We have been

spraying crops with Bt for

more than 50 years.

•These bacteria do not

permanently colonize the

gut.

Summary:Possible Sources of Problems

1. All have been debunked in prior slides.

2. There is no cause for concern.

3. This is just fearmongering

Autism parallelsAutism parallels

Do not exist.Autism is not increasing

Case Study: Roundup Ready Soy

1.Disrupted DNANot a word of this true.  A careful statistical analysis based on the number of animals and the magnitude of the changes reveals that no statistically different or biologically significant changes were actually observed in the studies.Dozens of published animal studies have proven that Roundup Ready soybeans are safe.

European Food Research and Technology

4. Increased herbicide

Increased fusarium on crops (wheat, soy roots)There are no published papers that suggest

Roundup increases prevalence of fusarium.

5. Gene transferNone of this is true as we

noted earler

Evidence of GM soy-related problems;

NONE

Soon after GM soy was introduced into the UK, soy allergies

skyrocketed by 50%.

•Never been published.•No allergies were found and the studies did not measure soy allergy.

York Laboratory website

• “One patient had a positive skin test result to GMO

soybeans only.”

• Smith admits there is no evidence for increased allergenicity.

Skin prick test

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 2005

Mice fed GM soyPancreas

Critical examination shows that there are no statistical or biological differences. 

Journal of Anatomy, 2002Journal of Anatomy, 2002

European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003

Possible causes for increase allergies

Critical examination shows that there are no statistical or biological differences. 

Health Health professionalsprofessionals“I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now

that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says

organic.”—John H. Boyles, MD, ear, nose, and throat, and allergy specialist

Dr Boyles website contains pages of anti-GMO misinformation and is probably not a good referral, since he gives no actual references to support his rants.

Rabbits Fed Roundup Ready Soy(For 40 days)

These studies contradict a large variety of published research.

Animal Science, 2006

Mice fed GM soyLiver• Authors do not provide sufficient detail to

repeat the experiments

• They do not say what soy variety

• They do not measure how much mice ate

• Do not measure enough samples

• Careful statistical analysis shows no meaningfule changes were observed.

• Only suggest need for further research

Cell Structure and Functon, Cell Structure and Functon, 20022002

Mice fed GM soyNo evidence for actual

problemsEuropean Journal of Histochemistry, 2004European Journal of Histochemistry, 2004

Offspring of Mice Fed GM Soy

Dozens of published animal studies have proven

that Roundup Ready soybeans are safe. The

authors of the studies make no claims about potential

negative health effects and instead say further

research is necessary.

Eur J Histochem

Ermakova’s unpublished work. She gave one talk and never published anything, but kept giving the same scary talk.So there are no real results.

GM-soy GM-soy groupgroup

Ermakova Irina, 2005-2007

MortalityMortality Ermakova’s Ermakova’s unverified unverified claimsclaims

Control Non-GM soy GM-soyGM-soy

Rat litters at Rat litters at Unpublished and Unpublished and

unverifiedunverified

GM-soy groupGM-soy group

Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

Non-GM soy Non-GM soy groupgroup

Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

19-day old ratsLarger rat is from control groupsmaller from GM-soy group.

Even a layman can see that these rats are different ages.

If GM crops are so bad, why don’t we see more problems?

Killed about 100 and caused

5,000-10,000 to fall sick

L-tryptophan produced by GM bacteria

•Smith wants you to believe that L-tryptophan produced by GM microbes is responsible for illness and death.•This is an unproven urban legend.•If it is pure L-tryptophan it does not matter how it was made.

Current Assessments

No post-marketing surveillance

No human clinical trials

No proper evaluation of plant changes or effects

Approvals based ondisproved or untested assumptions

Industry studies

GM crops are the most tested food products in history.There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers showing their safety.

Monsanto’s Monsanto’s plansplans

This is just stupid.This slogan has no truth to it.

Rate yourself 1-100• Do you believe actual scientific papers?

• Or do you prefer fear-mongering hokum?

May 2009 Update:May 2009 Update:The American Academy The American Academy of Environmental Medicineof Environmental Medicine

Is not recognized by the AMA.Is not recognized by the AMA.It is a quack organization formed to It is a quack organization formed to

spread anti-Gmo misinformationspread anti-Gmo misinformation

Polls of ConsumersPolls of ConsumersWhen asked what additional labeling information should be on food packages, When asked what additional labeling information should be on food packages, •Only 2% mention genetic modification (in the US)Only 2% mention genetic modification (in the US)•Only 2% mention genetic modification (in the UK)Only 2% mention genetic modification (in the UK)

•When you hear numbers like 93%, they are the result of a “push poll” such as When you hear numbers like 93%, they are the result of a “push poll” such as “Do you think GMOs should be labeled?”“Do you think GMOs should be labeled?”

Actual Research Results

• A study of 1783 papers on GMOs in the past decade found not a single paper showing harmful effects (Nicolia et al)

• An historical review of animal feeding data form USDA and other public records covering over 9 billion animals found no differents in livestock health or productivity. (van Eenennaam & Young)

Education is Key!Education is Key!

Education is Key!Education is Key!

 American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://ow.ly/uzTUy) American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (bit.ly/1u6fHay) World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI) National Academy of Sciences: ”To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” (http://bit.ly/1kJm7TB) USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z) 

 The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW) American Council on Science and Health: ”The consensus of scientific opinion is that the application of genetic modification technology introduces no unique food safety or environmental impact concerns and that there is no evidence of harm fromthose products that have been through a regulatory approval process." (http://bit.ly/1sBCrgF) American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE) 

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL) American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL) American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR) International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW) Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

 Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/1sBD8qv) International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK) Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K) Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ) Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt) “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

 French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO) Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF) International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat.  Food safety assessments by national regulatory agencies in several countries have deemed currently available GM foods to be as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption.” "Further, there is no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of foods containing genetically modified ingredients." (http://ow.ly/uzTL4)