Jeffrey Smith and the Seeds of Deception

by Jeffrey Dach MD

Jeffrey Smith was one of the speakers at the Denver Boulderfest Meeting, July 2008, and he spoke about the dangers of Genetically Modified Food as detailed in his book, 

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating

Showa Denko, and GMO Tryptophan

Left: (scanning electron microscope) SEM image of genetically modified Bacteria used to make tryptophan.

Arpad Pusztai and Genetically Modified Potatoes

In 1995, a Hungarian Scientist working in Scotland by the name of Arpad Pusztai lead a 20 member team to create protocols to test GMO foods.  Working in Scotland, they created a genetically modified potato that produced a protein (called lectin) which was toxic to insects and harmless to humans.  This inserted lectin protein served as a pesticide.  This lectin gene came from the snow drop plant and was placed into the potato.  By itself, the lectin protein was safe, but genetically modified, it became unsafe.  Rats fed the genetically modified potatoes developed health problems which were reported in a 199 Lancet article. 


Effect_of_diets_containing_genetically_modified_potatoes_Lancet_1999_Arpad_Pusztai.pdf
29.7 KB




A quote from his report:the rats fed GMO potatoes developed "proliferative hyperplastic growth of the rat small intestine leading to crypt enlargement and a part of the stomach enlargement and this was due to the genetic technique, and not due to the lectin effect." 

Upper Right image Courtesy of Arpad Pusztai home page. left image genetically modified potatoe.

In testimony to Scottish Parliament, Dr Pusztai says, "Rats fed GM potatoes had interference in growth and development of some of their vital organs, had changes in gut structure and function and reduced immune responsiveness to injurious antigens.  In contrast, the animals fed on diets containing the parent, non-GM-potatoes or these potatoes supplemented with the gene product had no such effects." (link)

Arpad Pusztai went public on television interviews with his data, and was fired and silenced after a stellar 35 year career.  He was later vindicated, invited to speak before parliament, and published his study in Lancet, the most extensive animal feeding study on GMO foods.  His work was credited with the banning of GMO food in Europe.

Pusztai Lancet Articles

Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, The Lancet 354: 1353-1354. Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999)

Health risks of GM foods, The Lancet 353: 1811. Editorial (1999) Pusztai, A.

Transform Your GI Tract Into a Toxic Factory

One obvious goal of genetic plant modification is to make the plant resistant to insects.  This is commonly done by inserting a bacterial gene into the plant.  This bacterial gene codes for a protein which is toxic to insects, such as the Bt gene from the Bacillus thuringiensis. 

In a 2004 article in Nature,  Dr. Trudy Netherwood of Newcastle University reported on her study the fate of these ingested plant genes (GM soya) after human ingestion.  However, before even starting the study, Dr. Netherwood found copies of the plant trans-genes already colonizing the gut bacteria of 3 of 7 human subjects.  Apparently, these three human subjects had already consumed food contaminated with GMO products, just like all the rest of us trusting consumers.

If you remember from high school biology class, bacteria have the ability to transfer genetic material from one to another, called horizontal gene transfer.  What this means is that our friendly bacteria of the gut take up and incorporate the bacterial genes from GMO food and manufacture the protein instructed by the new code.  These proteins are the expected toxins and pesticides coded by the trans-genes, as well as the totally unexpected protein byproducts inherent in today's crude technology.  Thus we have transformed our own GI tract into a toxic factory.  An even greater problem arises for genes coding for antibiotic resistance which are commonly spliced into plants and used in the GMO manufacturing process. These genes coding for antibiotic resistance are then incorporated into our own gut bacteria.  Thus we have created a new race of super antibiotic resistant bacterial organisms already in place waiting for a chance to cause an antibiotic resistant infection.

To make matters worse, not only is the new genetic code from GMO food incorporated into friendly gut bacteria, it is also incorporated into the epithelial cells of the GI tract, and the liver. Dr. Netherwood's work was confirmed in a 2006 study by Dr. Sharma in Alberta Canada who found that transgenic DNA from Roundup Ready Canola Meal could be found in the gut epithelial tissues of pigs eating the GMO meal.

Golden Rice and Grains of Hope - Vitamin A Gene Spliced into Rice

On July 2000, I read Grains of Hope, the cover story in Time Magazine (left) about Ingo Potrykus and his genetically modified Golden Rice that makes vitamin A.  At the time, I thought this was a great thing.  The problem with plain rice as a food staple is that it lacks vitamin A, and impoverished peoples of third world countries subsist on rice and many go blind from vitamin A deficiency.

"Golden Rice is genetically altered to produce vitamin A and alleviate vitamin A deficiency.  However, this Golden Rice has never been studied for safety and in fact has never been approved for human consumption."

Left Image: Ingo Potrykus and Golden Rice on Cover of Time Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Dr. Shiva Calls Golden Rice a Hoax

Dr. Vandana Shiva calls Golden Rice a hoax, and that "while the complicated technology transfer package of "Golden Rice" will not solve vitamin A problems in India, it is a very effective strategy for corporate take over of rice production, using the public sector as a Trojan horse." endquote

Others have made the following comments:  "the ‘golden rice’ project was a useless application, a drain on public finance and a threat to health and biodiversity. It is being promoted in order to salvage a morally as well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry, and is obstructing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can truly improve the health and nutrition especially of the poor in the Third World. This project should be terminated immediately before further damage is done.

The ‘golden rice’ possesses all the usual defects of first generation transgenic plants plus multiple copies of the CaMV promoter (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus) which we have strongly recommended withdrawing from use on the basis of scientific evidence indicating this promoter to be especially unsafe.  A growing number of scientists (318 scientists from 39 countries to-date) are calling for a global moratorium on the environmental releases of GMOs until and unless they can be shown to be safe.

It is clear that vitamin A deficiency is accompanied by deficiencies in iron, iodine and a host of micronutrients, all of which comes from the substitution of a traditionally varied diet with one based on monoculture crops.  The real cure is to re-introduce agricultural biodiversity in the many forms of sustainable agriculture already being practiced successfully by tens of millions of farmers all over the world." (link) endquote

Genetic Pollution and
Contamination of the Environment

Once these genetically altered plants and animals are released into the wild, they spread easily and rapidly throughout the non-GMO wild-type species.  Genetic engineering creates genetic pollution defined as the “uncontrolled spread of genetic information (transgenes) into the genomes of normal non-GMO organisms.”  Once released into the environment, genetic pollution cannot be recalled and is irreversible.
The genetic contamination amplifies throughout the environment and dominates the niche.  This is another disturbing aspect of genetic engineering.  Unlike chemical pollution which does not replicate and gradually degrades in the environment, the genetic pollution replicates and amplifies throughout the plant and animal kingdom, creating far-reaching unpredictable consequences on the genetic diversity, and the number of species and varieties of organisms. Genetic Pollution must stop.

Monsanto and Piracy by Science
 
Monsanto is the largest company making GMO foods such as Round-Up Ready Soybeans. These are genetically modified to resist the herbicide Round-Up.  Monsanto has a long history of falsifying scientific studies and cannot be trusted.  They are systematically destroying the ecology of the worlds bio-diversity, and attempting to gain ownership and control of global food supply, and eventually all life on the planet.  This misuse of the courts, government and science is robbery and piracy of the highest order.

Left Image: Soybeans.

Right Image: Edward, English Pirate in the Caribbean, 18th century lithography. Courtesy of Wikimedia


The World According to Monsanto, Genetically Modified Food - The Next  Great Scandal. 

Click Here to watch the video of The World According to Monsanto.

Left Image: Round-Up Herbicide Chemical Structure, This kills all plant life and is made by Monsanto,  Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.


Many Countries have already Banned GMO Food 

In a previous article, Protect Your Family From Bad Drugs, we discussed that when a drug is banned in other countries, this is a tip off that we might be dealing with a bad drug.  The same could be said for GMO food which has already been banned in many countries.   The following countries have banned or restricted the import, distribution, sale, field trials and planting of GMO’s:

Algeria, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Japan, Phillipines, The European Union, Norway, Austria, Germany United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu,  New Zealand.

North America: Genetically Modified foods are in widespread use throughout the U.S.  Maryland has banned GE (genetically engineered) fish and North Dakota and Montana have filed bans on GE wheat. The Municipalities of Burlington, Vermont (declared a moratorium on GE food), Boulder, Colorado (bans on GE crops) and the City and County of San Francisco (urged the federal government to ban GE food) are the only towns or states to take some sort of stand against plants, animals, foods, crops and body products that are, or contain Genetically Modified Organisms. (link)

October 2006, Mexico rejects GMO corn.(link)

The British Medical Association (BMA) has asked for a Moratorium on GMO FOOD 2002

The BMA believes that insufficient care has been taken with regards to public health and the introduction of GM crops to the UK. We believe there is a greater need for more comprehensive risk assessments which include interactions between GMOs and the long term effects on health and the environment before field trials are taken any further.

GM crop trials present us with profound uncertainties. The BMA recommends that a cautious approach be taken. More research is needed to improve our understanding of the issues. Where there is uncertainty the precautionary principle should always be applied. Extension of the current farm-scale trials would be ill advised and potentially irresponsible until the health and environmental impact is fully assessed and in the public domain.

The BMA does not support the argument that GM foods can solve the problems of feeding the starving millions worldwide." endquote (link)

Conclusion: GM Food Should be Banned

Even though genetic modification of food is inherently unsafe, there is no required safety testing or even labeling.  GMO food should be banned.  In many animal feeding studies,  GMO foods render the animals diseased, sterile or dead.  GMO studies in human show diseases such as EMS (Eosinophilia Myalgia), and allergic and toxic reactions to the ingested genetically modified foods.  Current biotech methods are crude and create totally new and unexpected genes and proteins which serve as toxins, allergens and cause diseases in humans and animals.

The Cover-Up, Suppression of Science and Censorship

The animal and human studies which show harmful effects of GMO foods have been suppressed, and the scientists fired and persecuted, such as the case of Arpad Pusztai .

GMO Creates A New Drug

Genetic engineering of plants used as human food, in fact, creates a new drug.  Genetically modified plants, grains, foods are not substantially equivalent to anything and are in fact new drugs, and as such, require the same scrutiny as any other new drug.  FDA procedures already in place mandate process called an IND application, which is an application for an Investigational New Drug.  This involves extensive animal and human safety studies.  Any genetically modified food should be regulated by the FDA as a new drug.

Mandatory Labeling of GMO Foods
 
Already 70% of food in stores is bioengineered, but not labeled as such.  Labeling of genetically modified food (currently NOT DONE) should be mandated.  Consumers have the right to know and need to know which products contain genetically modified foods. 

Supreme Court Ruling Should be Overturned

It was a gross error for the Supreme Court to grant a patent for a living organism in 1980 (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty) for oil eating bacteria, which was then extended to all plant and animal life.  This ruling needs to be re-examined and overturned. 

Congressional Review of Patent Laws for Living Organisms

This 1980 Supreme Court Decision (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty) is a misinterpretation of the patent laws passed by Congress.  Therefore it is imperative that Congress clarify the patent laws by performing a review of previous patent legislation such as the 1930 Plant Patent Act and 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act.  Congress must then pass patent law revisions and/or new patent laws which makes it crystal clear that living organisms cannot be patented.

Although accepted in the United States, Europe and Japan, Canada has rejected patents for higher forms of living organisms. Canada allows single-celled organisms, such as yeasts and bacteria, and GM crops to be patented. It also allows patents for modified human genes and cell lines. (link) (link) (link)

GMO Manufacturers Must be Held Liable for Genetic Pollution of the Environment (link)(link)

Similar to the way chemical companies are held accountable and liable for chemical pollution of the envirmonment, manufacturers of genetically modified plants and animals must be held accountable and liable for genetic pollution of the environment causing far reaching irreversible damage to the environment and economic losses to farmers caused by genetic pollution.  The environmental protection agency and the civil courts must play a role here.  Congress must pass legislation requiring GMO food manufacturers to be held accountable for negligence and genetic pollution. 

Civil Litigation for GMO Food, Reminsicent of Civil Litigation for BAD DRUGS

As discussed in a previous article entitled Protect Your Family From Bad Drugs, lawyers and drug litgation may be our last protection from bad drugs approved by the FDA in error.   This type of  civil litigation serves three important purposes.

1) company documents and genetic studies are released to the public during discovery providing useful information previously held secret.  

2) Many of these bad drugs are ultimately banned.  

3) Provides compensation for damage to victims, and farmers and damage to the environment caused by GMOs. 

The issue of environmental crop damage will be addressed by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and by global farmers in class action suits.  A class action lawsuits by farmers against Bayer Liberty Link Rice is underway at present.(link)

There are two types of injury from GMO food. One is the injury to the individual victim who suffers an adverse health event after eating the GMO food, and the other is the economic injury to global farmers from transgenic contamination of their crops.

August 2004, Aventis settled a class-action lawsuit and paid farmers 110 million dollars for genetic contamination of farmers fields with the Aventis Starlink Corn. A separate settlement paid 9 million dollars to consumers who had heath problems from consuming the genetically modified Starlink corn. (link)(link)  The courts considered the GMO Starlink Corn a "public niusance", and this ruling was enough to cause Aventis to abandon its next GMO product, the Liberty Link™ Soybean.

I predict that class action liability litigation against GMO Foods will increase, and become the next great bonanza for lawyers. 

FederL Court Strikes Down USDA Approval for GMO Food as Illegal

Federal Court rules in three cases that GMO foods were illlegally approved by USDA, violating the endangered species act and environmental policy act.  Past approvals were ruled illegal.

1) in Hawaii, a federal district judge in Hawaii ruled in August 2006 that the USDA violated the Endangered Species Act as well as the National Environmental Policy Act in allowing drug-producing GM crops to be cultivated throughout Hawaii, without even an impact study.  The USDA illegally approved GMO release into the wild without an environmental impact study on effect of horizontal gene transfer on  endangered plant species.

2) February 2007, federal judge Harold Kennedy ruled that the USDA must halt approval of all new field trials until more rigorous environmental reviews are conducted. USDA's past GMO approvals was ruled illegal.

3) Feb 2007, a Federal Court ruled  that Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa had been approved for commercial release illegally, because there had been no Environment Impact Statement.

Using Science for Piracy and Robbery:

Patents for Living Organisms Based on Erroneous Supreme Court Ruling

A patent means that the patent holder has ownership rights and the right to collect royalties.  Patents on living organisms were illegal until 1980 when an unprecedented US Supreme Court decision (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty) allowed a patent for a genetically modified bacteria used to clean up oil spills.  Lawyers and judges are not trained in science and have limited understanding, so it is not surprising that this Supreme Court ruling was a mistake and a result failure to understand the science.  This unprecedented ruling is a disaster and should be overturned as soon as possible.  Perhaps a better approach would be for Congress to pass new patent laws which clearly state unequivocally and with no exceptions, that living organisms cannot be patented. 

Inalienable Right to Use the Natural World for Survival

There can be no patent for life because Life is not an invention of man, Life is an invention of the  Creator given to man as an unalienable Right according to the Constitution of the United States. 

The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The term inalienable rights(or unalienable rights) refers to a set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of our human survival.

Food is life, so therefore, included in these inalienable rights to life is the right to sustain life by planting and harvesting crops for food.  In order to fully exercise these inalienable rights, and as a basic necessity for survival, the individual has the inalienable right to the free and open use of the natural plant and aniimal world (also known as farming).  Patents grant corporate ownership of seed stock and living organisms, and in essence, revokes from the individual this inalienable human right to life and grants it to multi-national corporations like Monsanto.  This is unethical and immoral, and this ruling must be overturned.

No Patent Ownership of Second Generation Seeds from Fields

Make no mistake on this, there can never be patent protection granted for the reproduction of a living organism, no matter what the modification or alteration.  It is axiomatic that things that exist in nature cannot be patented.  The reproductive process of a living organism is the epitome of a natural process, and therefore can never be patented.   Of course, the manufacturing process itself can and should be patented.  This is allowed. The process and technique of inserting genes or modifying genes can be patented, but this does not extend to the reproductive offspring of these modified plants or animals.  Reproduction can never be patented.  This court ruling was a glaring error and should be re-examined and overturned.  The court must overturn this ruling and revoke Monsanto's right to collect royalties on GMO seeds it does not manufacture, and are in fact the result of natural reproduction.  Second generation seeds from the fields are the result of natural reproduction, not the result of Monsanto.

Monsanto and Ownership of the Food Supply

This erroneous Supreme Court patent ruling makes it possible for one company (Monsanto) to control the entire food supply of the earth and destroy all the small farmers in the process.

Left Image Crop Circle expressing dissatisfaction with Monsanto

A New Form of Human Ownership and Modern Slavery

The logical extension of patent protection for genetically modified living organisms is the application of patents to human cloning and human gene modification.  This will ultimately lead to corporate ownership of the genetically modified human sperm and eggs, and by current definition, ownership of the human offspring of these people, and the demand for royalties payments for each child born, a new form of indentured servitude.  

In fact, this has been done:

"On October 29, 1991, the PTO granted patent rights to human stem cells, and later human genes. A United States company, Biocyte was awarded a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborn babies. The patent extended exclusive rights to use the cells without the permission of the donors.

Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands. Baylor essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals.

Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea. Thus the Chakrabarty ruling evolved within the decade from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes to virtually all terrains of life on Earth." 

quoted from link  http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm .  50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion.  2000 Nathan B. Batalion, Published by Americans for Safe Food. Oneonta, N.Y.

Where does this all end? The logical extension of patents for living organisms a patent for segments of the human genome.  Theoretically, this then gives the patent holder a right to demand royalty payments from humans born with patented genes.  Obviously, this creates a form of indentured servitude and financial enslavement of the population, a new form of human ownership and modern slavery on a global scale.

Do Not Buy GMO Foods, Consumer Sentiment Will Result in a Ban

Consumer Sentiment in Europe was enough to ban GMO foods.  The more people who know about genetic modification, the more concern, and avoidance of GMO foods.   This consumer sentiment pressures food industry which then stops buying GMO products.  For example, if consumer sentiment causes a 5% drop in market share, the food industry will not use GMO.  For example, Gerber's Baby Food has already taken GMO out of baby food.

Spread the Word

Buy Jeff Smith's book, 

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating

Avoid Buying GMO Foods

Eat Organic. Organic is OK, it is non-GMO.  Avoid Soy, Corn, Cotton Seed and Canola which are all GMO.
Fructose corn syrup is GMO. Aspartame is GMO.

Articles with Related Interest:

GMO Food Scandal, Part Two

Jeffrey Dach MD
7450 Griffin Rd Suite 180/190
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-792-4663
Facebook
Blog


Links and References

Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Food

1) http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion.  2000 Nathan B. Batalion, Published by Americans for Safe Food. Oneonta, N.Y. Quote Below:

"Overall the revolution that is presently trying to overturn 12,000 years of traditional and sustainable agriculture was launched in 1980 in the US. This was the result of a little-known US Supreme Court decision Diamond vs. Chakrabarty where the highest court decided that biological life could be legally patentable.  Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a microbiologist and employee of General Electric (GE), developed at the time a type of bacteria that could ingest oil. GE rushed to apply for a patent in 1971. After several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional doctrine that life forms are not patentable. GE sued and won. In 1985, the PTO ruled that the Chakrabarty ruling could be further extended to all plants, seeds, and plant tissues - or to the entire plant kingdom.

Scouring the world for valuable genetic heritage, W.R. Grace applied for and was been granted fifty US patents on the neem tree in India. It even patented the indigenous knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree (what has since been called bio-piracy). Furthermore, on April 12, 1988, the PTO issued its first patent on an animal to Harvard Professor Philip Leder and Timothy A. Stewart. This involved the creation of a transgenic mouse containing chicken and human genes. On October 29, 1991, the PTO granted patent rights to human stem cells, and later human genes. A United States company, Biocyte was awarded a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborn babies. The patent extended exclusive rights to use the cells without the permission of the `donors.' Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands. Baylor essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea. Thus the Chakrabarty ruling evolved within the decade from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes to virtually all terrains of life on Earth.

Certain biotech companies then quickly moved to utilize such patenting for the control of seed stock - including buying up small seed companies and destroying their non-patented seeds. In the past few years, this has led to a near monopoly control of certain commodities, especially soy, corn, and cotton (used in processed foods via cottonseed oil). As a result, nearly 2/3rd of such processed foods showed some GM ingredient. Yet again without labeling, few consumers in the US were aware any of this was pervasively occurring. Industry marketers found out that the more the public knew, the less they wanted to purchase GM foods. Thus a concerted effort was organized to convince regulators not to require such labeling." endquote

Jeff Smith Videos - A4M Meeting Summary 2008

Jeff Smith -- The effects of genetically modified foods - A4M Meeting

2) //www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7rXIujvXGc

February 08, 2008 Over the last 20 years Jeff Smith has worked with over 30 scientists to collect all of the known health risks of genetically modified foods. Studies have produced thousands of sick, sterile and dead laboratory animals; thousands of people linking toxic and allergic type reactions to these foods and damage to virtually every system in the laboratory animals studied. Despite this alarming evidence 70% of the foods in our supermarkets have genetically modified organisms in them.

__________

Jeff Smith Videos - The Dangers of GMO FOODS, and the Cover-Up

This is a lecture by Jeffrey Smith, in which he summarizes the contents of this book, seeds of deception.
Introduction by Craig Winters, Campaign to Label GMO Foods

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods  PART 1
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=94d-KVorSHM

The Health Dangers of genetically modified food, pt. 2
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=710tmYMxsyY

The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods, pt. 3
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggtAzd8HMj0

The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods, pt. 4
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyzu5NEWCTE

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElKHbNAETME
The Health Dangers of genetically modified food, pt. 5

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4UmYU7cCkE
The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods pt. 6

BT toxin introduced into corn and cotton. Farmers report that cows prefer not to eat GM corn.
Round-up ready soybeans. Rats were fed a tomato and they did not eat it.  They force fed the rats and they developed stomach lesions. 7  of 40 dies. Tomatoes were approved by FDA anyway.  Aspartame ( nutrisweet) is in fact GMO.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Home/index.cfm
Institute for Responsible Technology

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?

http://www.relfe.com/GMOs.html
Genetically Engineered Organisms (GMOs): The Greatest Threat Ever to Humans and Animals

http://www.westonaprice.org/federalupdate/aa2003/actionalert_072403.html
July 24, 2003 Shopping List for GMO-Free Foods The Final Word

The World According to Monsanto Video

http://youtu.be/JJiIuQyStr4


http://youtu.be/N6_DbVdVo-k

The World According to Monsanto Video March 2008  by French journalist Marie-Monique Robin - A documentary that Americans won’t ever see. The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-world-according-to-monsanto-a-documentary-that-americans-wont-ever-see-full-video/
The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won’t ever see (video)

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/video-the-world-according-to-monsanto/
Video: “The World According to Monsanto” April 14, 2008

Árpád Pusztai and Genetically Modified Potatoes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai
Árpád Pusztai. Below is quoted from Wikipodia:

"Between 1995 and 1998 he performed a series of experiments on some genetically modified potatoes which had been developed by an English biotech company, Cambridge Agricultural Genetics, later called Axis Genetics. They had been field-grown at Rothamsted, and were intended for commercialisation. The potatoes were the widely grown desiree red variety, modified with a gene taken from snowdrop (Galanthus) plants, that caused the potatoes to express snowdrop lectin, a protein which Árpád Pusztai had previously shown to be toxic to insects but harmless to mammals.

Initially Pusztai and his team observed a lack of correlation between levels of the lectin in the potato leaves and their toxicity to insects. Subsequently they experimented by feeding rats on raw and cooked genetically modified potatoes, using Desiree Red potatoes as controls. One of the controls was unmodified desiree red potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. The rats fed on the genetically modified potatoes showed lower intestine damage and harm to their immune systems. These effects were not observed in rats fed on unmodified potatoes, or unmodified potatoes mixed with snowdrop lectin. The team concluded that the effects observed were a result of the genetic modification, not the snowdrop lectin.

The following paragraph was taken from an interview of Dr. Pusztai, "We had two kinds of potatoes - one GM and the other non-GM. I had expected that the GM potato, with 20 micrograms of a component against the several grams of other components, should not cause any problems. But we found problems. Our studies clearly show that the effects were not due to that little gene expression, but it depended on the way the gene had been inserted into the potato genome and what it did to the potato genome."[4]

On 10th October, the day that the documentary was due to be broadcast he was invited onto an early morning television debate, but informed beforehand by the Rowett Institute that he was not permitted to discuss details of the experiment. That morning, the Rowett Institute received two phone calls from 10 Downing Street. [5] According to Professor Robert Orskov OBE, who worked at the Rowett for 33 years and is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. The phone calls went from Monsanto, the American firm which produces 90% of the world's GM food, to Bill Clinton and then to Tony Blair, and then to Rowett direcor Philip James.[6]

'Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James,' says Professor Orskov.

Phone calls to Árpád Pusztai's office were diverted, and Árpád Pusztai was suspended and legally gagged, along with his wife and colleague Susan Bardocz. His data was confiscated and his team were disbanded. The potatoes were subsequently destroyed, along with all details of their modification (a commercial secret of Cambridge Agricultural Genetics, which subsequently ceased business).

Initially the Rowett Institute claimed that they were not doing any research on GM crops. Later the Rowett Institute claimed that Árpád Pusztai had voluntarily retired, and apologised for his "mistake". According to this version of the story, the experiments had never been performed and a student had accidentally confused control data with experimental data. It was claimed that Pusztai had modified the potatoes with toxic Jack Bean lectin. Sir Robert May told Radio 4's Today programme: "If you mix cyanide with vermouth in a cocktail and find that it is not good for you, I don't draw sweeping conclusions that you should ban all mixed drinks." Similar statements were also made by the Agriculture Minister Jack Cunningham the Rowett Institute also announced that they were publishing Árpád Pusztai's data online so that the public could draw their own conclusions, but omitted much of the data making the remainder statistically meaningless.[7]

In 1999 Árpád Pusztai and Stanley Ewen published their results in The Lancet (link below). An unamed member of the Royal Society allegedly put strong pressure on The Lancet not to publish, including a threatening phone call to The Lancet editor.[8]" end quote

http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
Welcome to Árpád Pusztai's Homepage

REFERENCES on Árpád Pusztai's Homepage

Birch, N. et al. (1999) 'Tri-trophic interactions involving pest aphids, predatory 2-spot ladybirds and transgenic potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin for aphid resistance', Molecular Breeding 5: 75-83.

Disinformation syndrome afflicts Federal Government scientists (2005) http:www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=554

Doerfler, W. et al. (1997) ‘Integration of foreign DNA and its consequences in mammalian systems’, Tibtech 312: 401-406.

Doerfler, W. and Schubbert, R. (1998) ‘Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the gastrointestinal tract and placenta as portals of entry’, Wien Klin. Wochenschr 110: 40-44.

Editorial (1999) ‘Health risks of GM foods’, The Lancet 353: 1811.

Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999a) ‘Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine’, The Lancet 354: 1353-1354.

Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999b)  Authors’ reply.  The Lancet 354: 1726-1727.

Flynn, L. and Gillard, M.S. (1999) ‘Pro-GM food scientist “threatened editor”’, The Guardian, 1 November.

Hardell, L. (2006). Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine; http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113451325/ABSTRACT

Horton, R. (1999A) ‘GM foods: “absurd” concern or welcome dialogue?’, The Lancet 354: 1314-15.

Horton, R. (1999b). Editor’s reply.  The Lancet 354: 1730

Krebs, J. (2000) Report on OECD conference, ‘GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties and Assessment’, http://www.oecd.org/subject/biotech

Levin, S. (2006) Pressure for success often lures researchers to fudge truth
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, , March  19, 2006 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06078/672956.stm

Netherwood, T. et al. (2004). Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotech. 22, 204-209.
 
Pusztai A. and Bardocz S (2006). GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540.

Rothschild Report (1971) The Organization and Management of Government Research and Development, Cmnd 4814, London: HMSO.

Royal Society (1998) Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use, London: Royal Society,  http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

Schubbert R. et al. (1994) ‘Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the blood stream of mice’, Molecules, Genes and Genetics 242: 495-504.

Schubbert R. et al. (1998)  ‘On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission in the fetus’, Molecules, Genes and Genetics 259: 569-576.

Wadman, M. (2005). One in three scientists confesses to having sinned. Nature 435, 718-719.

Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith 

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
Seeds of Deception, the explosive exposé by Jeffrey M. Smith, documents significant health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods and the intense industry influence and political corruption that allow them on the market. Hailed as the best book on the topic, many believe that the revelations in this book can topple an industry.

L-Tryptophan Story

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm
Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic  by William E. Crist

Farmers Commit Suicide

http://www.navdanya.org/publications/seeds-of-suicide.pdf
Seeds of Suicide, The Ecological and Human Costs of Globalisation of Agriculture
Dr Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE)
A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi – 110 016, INDIA

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html
Rough Cut, Seeds of Suicide, India's desperate farmers July 26, 2005

Dirty Tricks

http://www.gmwatch.eu/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia
The fake persuaders. Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet
George Monbiot The Guardian, Tuesday May 14 2002 Article history

Monsanto 

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear. Vanity Fair Article. by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele May 2008.

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover “a live human-made microorganism.” In this case, the organism wasn’t even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Photo: No thanks: An anti-Monsanto crop circle made by farmers and volunteers in the Philippines. By Melvyn Calderon/Greenpeace HO/A.P. Images.

Australia Calls for Ban on GMO Food 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/754/38977
AUSTRALIA WA premier calls for GM product ban Annolies Truman 7 June 2008

GMO Bananas and Hepatitis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
^ Kumar, G. B. Sunil; T. R. Ganapathi, C. J. Revathi, L. Srinivas and V. A. Bapat (October 2005). "Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants". Planta 222: 484–493. doi:10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. 

Golden Rice

http://biotech.cas.psu.edu/articles.htm
As more genetically modified foods reach the U.S. marketplace, what does the future hold?
y Krista Weidner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Golden rice and co-creator Professor Ingo Potrykus on the cover of TIME magazine, 2000-08-07

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html
THE "GOLDEN RICE" HOAX  - When Public Relations replaces Science by Dr. Vandana Shiva
"Golden Rice": A technology for creating Vitamin A deficiency. Penn State College of Agriculture, writer
While the complicated technology transfer package of "Golden Rice" will not solve vitamin A problems in
India, it is a very effective strategy for corporate take over of rice production, using the public sector as a
Trojan horse.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold.pdf
Greenpeace. 2005. All that Glitters is not Gold: The False Hope of Golden Rice

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php
The 'Golden Rice' - An Exercise in How Not to Do Science
In conclusion, the ‘golden rice’ project was a useless application, a drain on public finance and a threat to health and biodiversity. It is being promoted in order to salvage a morally as well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry, and is obstructing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can truly improve the health and nutrition especially of the poor in the Third World. This project should be terminated immediately before further damage is done.

References on Golden Rice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Golden rice

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10634784
Science. 2000 Jan 14;287(5451):303-5.Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm.Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I. Institute for Plant Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. University of Freiburg, Center for Applied Biosciences, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,98034,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997586,00.html

Grains of Hope Time MAgazine Monday, Feb. 05, 2001 By J. MADELEINE NASH
At first, the grains of rice that Ingo Potrykus sifted through his fingers did not seem at all special. But once their dark, crinkly husks were stripped away and the interiors polished to a glossy sheen, Potrykus could behold the seeds' golden secret. At their core, these grains were not the pearly white of ordinary rice but a very pale yellow?courtesy of beta-carotene, the nutrient that serves as a building block for vitamin A.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/potrykus.html
Experience from the Humanitarian Golden Rice Project: Extreme Precautionary
Regulation Prevents Use of Green Biotechnology in Public Projects
BioVision Alexandria 3-6 April 2004 By Ingo Potrykus Professor emeritus Plant Sciences, ETH Zuerich, Switzerland

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis37.php
Redeeming Science from Corporate Corruption (SiS 37), studies performed by, or on behalf of, companies claiming to show GM food is safe, and accepted by government regulators as such, do nothing of the kind.
We are faced with a corporate corruption of science in which every level of the corporate structure is complicit: the scientific establishment, journal editors and big government held to ransom by the biotech industry. 

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/138.pdf
interview with Jeffrey Smith  Documents made public from a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists was that GM crops were inherently unsafe and could create hard-to-detect, unpredicted toxins,allergens, new diseases, and nutritional problems and had, in fact, urged their superiors to... Self-propagating genetic pollution will outlast, theoretically, the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. We have never had an experience like this before in our history.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm
The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate. This section summarizes the health risks of genetically modified foods and serves as a forum for a global discussion and debate. It is organized around the 65 main point summaries presented on the left side of the two-page spreads in Part 1 of Genetic Roulette.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=94d-KVorSHM&feature=related -
The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods,
with jeffrey M. Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception"  - Part 1
 
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=710tmYMxsyY&feature=related - Part 2 of above.
 
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggtAzd8HMj0&feature=related - Part 3 of above.
 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912 -
Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease
 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/01/
genetically-modified-organisms-are-a-looming-threat.aspx - Genetically Modified Foods- What to Know Before You Eat Them (from Mercola.com)

http://www.thecampaign.org/
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/may2004/articles/apusztaigm.htm
THE SINISTER SACKING OF THE WORLD'S LEADING GM EXPERT - AND THE TRAIL THAT LEADS TO TONY BLAIR AND THE WHITE HOUSE  (followed by Dr. Pusztai's submission to the Scottish Parliament 3.12.2002) .by Andrew Rowell  The Daily Mail, July 7 2003
http://www.medialens.org/ 

http://www.rense.com/general79/hero.htm
The Heroic Scientist Who Tried To Stop GM Insanity 12-15-7
How Monsanto, Clinton & Blair Blocked GM Truth
World Renowned Scientist Lost His Job When He Warned About GE Foods

The GM Potato Controversy - A Case With Disturbing Implications For Present Day Science 
By Dr. Arpad Pusztai 12-15-7

http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Brown-Journal-article%20-%20Arpad%20Pusztai.pdf
GENETIC ENGINEERING - GENETECHNOLOGY IS IT SALVATION OR CURSE FOR THE 21th CENTURY? Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., FRSE Aberdeen, Scotland UK

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/info/ArpadPusztai.pdf
proliferative hyperplastic growth of the rat small intestine leading to crypt enlargement and a part of the stomach enlargement was not a GNA lectin effect but was probably either due to some other component of the gene vector used for the genetic modification and/or the disruption caused by the incorporation of the vector in the plant genome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Golden rice

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10634784
Science. 2000 Jan 14;287(5451):303-5.Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm.Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I. Institute for Plant Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. University of Freiburg, Center for Applied Biosciences, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany.

http://www.biotech-info.net/conway_greenpeace.pdf
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION January 22, 2001 Dr. Doug Parr Greenpeace Canonbury Villas London N1 2PN England Peter Melchett wrote suggesting that it would be useful if I responded to the report by Dr. Vandana Shiva entitled "The Golden Rice Hoax". I am pleased to do so and I am also enclosing background information on Vitamin A deficiency disorders and the Foundation's role in the development of Golden Rice that you may find informative. First, it should be stated that we do not consider Golden Rice the solution to the vitamin A deficiency problem.

http://leifgrunseth.com/?p=129
GENETIC ROULETTE: Part 1
Posted in Baby/Children's Health, Digestion, GMO Food  by admin The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods Part 1 of 3 By: Crusador Interviews Jeffrey SmithSource:
www.healthtruthrevealed.com
CRUSADOR Interviews Best-Selling Author Jeffrey Smith

"The only human feeding study ever conducted and published showed that the genes that were inserted into soybeans to cause them to be herbicide tolerant transferred into human gut bacteria and was integrated stably into the DNA.  This means that long after you stop eating a genetically engineered food, your own gut bacteria may be producing these foreign proteins, including the possibility of producing the Bt toxin - a pesticide.  This means that eating a GM corn chip could theoretically turn your intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, possibly for the long-term. "

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm
"The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that genetically engineered genes from soy transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract.
(The biotech industry had previously said that such a transfer was impossible.)

The World Health Organization, the British and American Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the "antibiotic resistant marker genes" used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create super-diseases that are immune to antibiotics.59-60

More worrisome is that the "promoter" used inside GM foods could get transferred to bacteria or internal organs. Promoters act like a light switches, permanently turning on genes that might otherwise be switched off. Scientists believe that this might create unpredictable health effects, including the potentially pre-cancerous cell growth found in the animal feeding studies mentioned above."

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/disadvantages_GM_food_health.php
Study shows disadvantages of GM foods to human health.  British scientific researchers demonstrated that genetically modified DNA from crops can find its way into human gut bacteria, raising possible health concerns. This is because antibiotic-resistant marker genes are inserted with GM material, which could cause a person to be resistant to antibiotic medicines.

The study was conducted at Newcastle University on seven human volunteers who, in the past, had their lower intestine removed and now use colostomy bags. After eating a burger containing GM soy, researchers compared their stools with 12 people with normal stomachs. They found "to their surprise" that "a relatively large proportion of genetically modified DNA survived the passage through the small bowel." None was found in people who had complete stomachs. To see if GM DNA might be be transferred via bacteria to the intestine, they also took bacteria from stools in the colostomy bags and cultivated them. In three of the seven samples they found bacteria had taken up the herbicide-resistant gene from the GM food at a very low level.

Michael Antonio, a senior lecturer in molecular genetics at King`s College Medical School, London, said that the work was significant because the researchers demonstrated that you can get GM plant DNA in the gut bacteria, which was previously considered to be not possible. Antonio said the research suggests that antibiotic marker genes could spread around the stomach and compromise antibiotic resistance. If this were to happen, a person could be immune to beneficial antiobiotic medicines.

Marker genes are inserted into GM plants to allow identification of GM cells or tissue during development. The House of Lords has called for them to be phased out as swiftly as possible. The research was conducted at the request of the UK's Food Standards Agency, which released a statement saying the research, "concluded that the likelihood of functioning DNA being taken up by bacteria in the human or animal gut is extremely low." Source: The Guardian (August 2002) endquote

http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/gmnewcastlereport.pdf
Netherwood, T., Martin-Orue, S.M., O’Donnell,A.G., Gockling, S., Gilbert, H.J., and Mathers,
 J.C. “Transgenes in Genetically Modified Soya Survive Passage Through the
Human Small Bowel but are Completely Degraded in the Colon.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14730317
Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O'Donnell AG, Gockling S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ.
School of Cell and Molecular Biosciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.

The inclusion of genetically modified (GM) plants in the human diet has raised concerns about the possible transfer of transgenes from GM plants to intestinal microflora and enterocytes. The persistence in the human gut of DNA from dietary GM plants is unknown. Here we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists (i.e., individuals in which the terminal ileum is resected and digesta are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag). The amount of transgene that survived passage through the small bowel varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma of one individual. The transgene did not survive passage through the intact gastrointestinal tract of human subjects fed GM soya. Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments. 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506822
Agric Food Chem. 2006 Mar 8;54(5):1699-709.
Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in digesta and tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal.Sharma R, Damgaard D, Alexander TW, Dugan ME, Aalhus JL, Stanford K, McAllister TA.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centres, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/06-272-005.pdf
Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Feb;22(2):204-9. Epub 2004 Jan 18.
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract.Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O'Donnell AG, Gockling S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ.
School of Cell and Molecular Biosciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.

The inclusion of genetically modified (GM) plants in the human diet has raised concerns about the possible transfer of transgenes from GM plants to intestinal microflora and enterocytes. The persistence in the human gut of DNA from dietary GM plants is unknown. Here we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists (i.e., individuals in which the terminal ileum is resected and digesta are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag). The amount of transgene that survived passage through the small bowel varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma of one individual. The transgene did not survive passage through the intact gastrointestinal tract of human subjects fed GM soya. Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments. 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.

Technical Report on the Food Standards Agency Project
G010008. “Evaluating the Risks Associated with Using GMOs in Human Foods,”
University of Newcastle. Available at:

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Transgenes-Human-Gut1feb04.htm
The Fate of Transgenes in the Human Gut JOHN HERITAGE Nature Biotechnology v.22, n.2, 1feb2004
Gut microbes that cannot be recovered in artificial culture may acquire and harbor genes from genetically modified plants.

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/debate/Newcastlereport.pdf
Technical report on the Food Standards Agency project G010008
“Evaluating the risks associated with using GMOs in human foods” –University of Newcastle

http://www.uspirg.org/uploads/h2/c7/h2c7fdGhH7uoszDFnGppnw/WeirdScience2003.pdf
The Brave New World of Genetic Engineering U.S. PIRG Education Fund October 2003