Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-18-07 11:31 PM
Original message
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy

Ermakova study on rats and GM soya
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female
rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups .
Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the "GM soy" group. But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of
research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security,
Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.
GM Soy’s Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, “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.”<1> The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as “just a political document” without scientific basis, and warned that industry would “not do the tests that they would normally do” since the FDA didn’t require any.<2> He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,”<3> and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It’s the first of its kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
http://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/msg.jsp?msgid=61821&folder=INBOX&isSeen=false&x=34802974
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe that's why I can't digest that shit
Edited on Sat May-19-07 12:17 AM by undergroundpanther
If I eat soy in any significant amount my gut has a fit,and in 15 minutes my butt is on the john and I am whimpering like a baby and it's leaving undigested.. Soy milk and I hate each other.I also have trouble with digesting most beans.I wonder how much genetic tinkering has been going on with beans. It wasn't always this way with me. Just in the last 3 or so years it has been like this.Pinto beans excepted.Pintos I could never eat alot of those without paying for it.Beano just made for less gas it doesn't stop the reaction.I began feeling wary about food in 1998 .Back than I noticed some strange reactions and appearances,and certain foods that used to last awhile as in shelf life like sweet potatoes began to rot much faster.
BTW one of the groups the fascists are watching for potential threats besides quakers are vegetarians. Coinkidink?

I forgot to say this..
In the 1970's my father took me to Aberdeen proving ground.I was a kid at the time.One fun thing we did was cook hot dogs on long sticks in front of the microwave towers.Also he showed me a genetically modified peach and a genetically modified tobacco plant.The peach was the size of a regular peach but the fuzz on it was like silky long hair about 4-5 inches long it was very soft,it was a shimmery grey pearl color.I never saw a peach like that in my life.I joked that it looked like a tribble from star trek..The tobacco plant I saw ,under normal light looked like any other tobacco plant,until the lights were turned off.It frickin GLOWED in the dark. all along the stems and veins..An eerie whitish yellow slightly greenish glow. I thought it was cool and I said wanted one.The people showing me this said I could not have one.I asked why, they didn't answer me.Fuckers.
I'll never forgot it .So if there were glow in the dark tobacco plants in the 70's what makes you think the food supply HASN'T Been fucked up already?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. are you using organic soy milk?
It should include any GMOs. If so, it's the soy itself not the GMO, I'd think. Otherwise it could be either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. Old Story
"...I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk."

Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.<14> In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by the French.<15> This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins—ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.

Better Link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Remember Tort Reform?
After a decade of marketing GM foods in the U.S., evidence of detrimental effects has been piling — farmers now face setbacks with economic woes (unable to sell GM products on the world market) and new kinds of environmental problems (super weeds and natural crop fields contaminated with GM seeds blown in by the wind); diminishing number of common field insects; and human health problems related to food have dramatically soared (obesity, allergies, diabetes, and lymphatic cancers). Although no study has ever been made to connect these health problems with GM food, the fact that a growing number of Americans have become unhealthy since the infiltration of GM food on the market in 1994 should make any GM product a suspect.

As for scientific peer-review on drug approval, the recent testimony of Dr. David Graham clearly illustrated the culpability of the FDA — siding with a company’s manipulated drug safety testing results over its own scientists’ warning against a drug's ill effects. Obviously, if the drugs had been approved by the FDA based on sound science, there wouldn’t have been so many lawsuits and recalls of drugs that the White House (under George W. Bush) interceded, pushing for a “tort reform” to relieve the FDA of product liability.

http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/Rfda.htm
"Biotechnology companies can market genetically engineered (GE) foods without notifying the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or obtaining its approval, thanks to regulatory gaps in a system that consumer and environmental groups today asked Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson to fix.... HHS could begin fixing that system, the groups say, by finalizing a rule stalled at the FDA for more than a year. The period for public comment on the rule ended a year ago today. The proposed rule would require premarket notification of bioengineered foods. And while the rule would not require government approval for GE foods, consumer groups say the rule would be a small step in the right direction.... Currently, the FDA only reviews safety data on biotech crops provided by seed companies on a voluntary basis.... 'The public shouldn’t have to rely entirely on the word of a big biotech company when it comes to the safety of food,' 'But under the current rules, companies can bypass the FDA with impunity.'..."
REGULATORY GAP MEANS GE FOODS ARRIVE ON THE MARKET WITHOUT FDA
APPROVAL AND POSSIBLY WITHOUT NOTICE
CSPI Press Release, May 3, 2002

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, in an
interview with the New York Times, October 25, 1998
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/USfoodcrisis.htm

The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 (Biomaterials Act) offers a high level of protection from liability in products liability actions brought against biomaterials suppliers. Originally part of a comprehensive federal tort reform package in previous sessions of Congress, the Biomaterials Act was enacted in response to a crisis caused by the shortage of biomaterials for medical devices. This shortage was due to the exit of biomaterials suppliers from the market due to the high risk of expensive products liability litigation.
http://www.biolawbusiness.com/vol3num3.asp

Disgusting..
President Bush used a luncheon speech at a biotechnology conference Monday to restate his position against bioterrorism, to criticize European nations for rejecting U.S. genetically modified crops and to call on Congress to pass legislation that would put a cap on medical malpractice lawsuits.
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2003/06/23/daily8.html

Oh but it gets worse...
"On the tort reform side, the numbers tell a story of squandered dollars. The $809 “tort tax” was invented by taking $233 billion, which is what insurance industry consultant Tillinghast-Towers Perrin says is the cost of the tort system, and dividing it by the population of the United States. But those billions represent not only legal expenses but the total cost of running the insurance industry, including executive salaries, advertising expenditures and much else unrelated to lawsuits. The real figure is probably less than half that amount. "
http://www.corpreform.com/news_stories/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. GM is Bioterrorism. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Thank You...Great Reply!
Exactly the problem...not better science, but a serious overhaul of the 'non-science' aspect of the environment. I'm 44 and I have seen the real-time effects of 'terraforming' in my lifetime. Everyone has...

    Deadly virus wipes out birds and poses threat to humans

    HUNDREDS of thousands of birds that once flourished in American suburban skies - including robins, blue jays, bluebirds and crows - have been killed by West Nile virus, according to a new study.

    Populations of several species have had dramatic declines across the continent since West Nile first emerged in the United States in 1999, according to research, which has quantified the effect on bird populations for the first time.

    Scotsman among others...


We are being turn into 'domesticated' animals through our food...some will end up looking like what a Puppy Mill Nazi scraps off the floor of his kennels, and some might end up being acceptable enough to put on TV.

Who the fuck knows where this GM nuke is going? Personally I get the feeling that global warming is a fraud only inasmuch as it takes the lenses off of particular and legal 'man-made' disasters from the past. I have this nightmare that somewhere in the machine, there is a room with actuarial charts and computer simulations that show exactly how we are doomed as a species.

Hate to be a downer...but it's what they used to refer to as 'rain' going on outside my conapt.

:cry:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Link goes to login screen for Earthlink
Edited on Sat May-19-07 05:37 AM by Everybody
and yet you get 11 recommendations. Wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
6. Here's a better link giving the same information
Edited on Sat May-19-07 10:50 AM by glitch
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece
snip:
What the experiment found

Russian scientists added flour made from a GM soya to the diet of female rats two weeks before mating them, and continued feeding it to them during pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were give non-GM soya or none at all. Six times as many of the offspring of those fed the modified soya were severely underweight compared to those born to the rats given normal diets. Within three weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. All of my Grandmother's offspring died.
They didn't eat genetically engineered soy though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-19-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. grandma had RATS? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. Past Studies Show Significant Effects (sorry about the URL)

Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on the liver, the body’s major de-toxifier, showed that mice fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies. <4> This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that organ. Mice also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),<5> which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block nutrient assimilation.<6> And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.<7>

An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems with GM soy,<8> but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.<9> Monsanto used
mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study’s
nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.

The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.

The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn.<10> Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.<11> It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.

The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother’s diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA’s own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations throughout the DNA.

Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready soy. We don’t know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed,
however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled<12> and two additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto’s detection.

Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.<13> And when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.

Ermakova’s research, however, will likely change that. That’s because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable option.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study I presented Dr. Ermakova’s findings, with her permission, at the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board
passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy’s president, said, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a
significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk.”

Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.<14> In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That’s unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t all match those found by the French.<15> This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins—ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.

Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin—created by the GM corn.

These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from a GM crop that has “gone bad” due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.<16>

With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry’s growth in the US. It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova’s findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.

I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM’s request, and fund an immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. Oh, great.....I wonder what category Silk soy milk falls into?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC