Re: [pf] 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

by Tom Wheeler

19 December 2000 15:13 UTC

From: David A <davidnh@visto.com>

>Just a quick glance at the first few
>items in this list shows that many are urban legends.

>#1 is one of the more frequently seen. There's been no evidence that the
>L-tryptophan's contamination was GM-related. Both the FDA and the CDC
>have reported they believe GM was not at fault. (McHughen, Pandora's
>Picnic Basket: the risks and hazards of genetically modified foods,
>Oxford University Press (2000), pp 116-118).

>#2. No bean has ever been produced with the Brazil nut gene. Pioneer
>Hi-Bred, which revived earlier research in this gene while looking at
>the potential for animal feed, and did their own tests (published) that
>showed the gene caused allergenicity. They killed the project. (McHughen
>pp 119-121).

http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/gmintro.htm

Q&A w/geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, and Prof Joe Cummins, Professor
Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario on L-tryptophan
and the soya bean engineered with a gene from a brazil nut.

Q: Isn’t GM just an extension of traditional breeding practices?

A: No - GM bears no resemblance to traditional breeding techniques. The
government’s own Genetic Modification (Contained Use) Regulations admit this
when it defines GM as "the altering of the genetic material in that organism
in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination or
both".

Traditional breeding techniques operate within established natural
boundaries which allow reproduction to take place only between closely
related forms. Thus tomatoes can cross-pollinate with other tomatoes but not
soya beans; cows can mate only with cows and not sheep. These genes in their
natural groupings have been finely tuned to work harmoniously together by
millions of years of evolution. Genetic engineering crosses genes between
unrelated species which would never cross-breed in nature.

Q: Could this be dangerous?

A: Potentially, yes. In one case, soya bean engineered with a gene from a
brazil nut gave rise to allergic reactions in people sensitive to the nuts.
Most genes being introduced into GM plants have never been part of the food
supply so we can’t know if they are likely to be allergenic.

More seriously, in 1989 there was an outbreak of a new disease in the US,
contracted by over 5,000 people and traced back to a batch of L-tryptophan
food supplement produced with GM bacteria. Even though it contained less
than 0.1 per cent of a highly toxic compound, 37 people died and 1,500 were
left with permanent disabilities. More may have died, but the American
Centre for Disease Control stopped counting in 1991.

The US government declared that it was not GM that was at fault but a
failure in the purification process. However, the company concerned, Showa
Denko, admitted that the low-level purification process had been used
without ill effect in non-GM batches. Scientists at Showa Denko blame the GM
process for producing traces of a potent new toxin. This new toxin had never
been found in non-GM versions of the product.
>
>Since these two top the list, I'm quite dubious about the research that
>went into preparing it or the care the author took to look below the
>surface of these accusations.

Sounds like how most folks feel about some of your absurd accusations!

>Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible to forward such a list before at
>least checking it out. This issue has become far too polemical for it to
>be solved by press release wars, and this kind of thing only makes it
>worse.

Not only are we all ignorant, now we're "irresponsible." Sheesh. - Tom