Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease

Our regulators are ignoring the precautionary principle, manipulating and corrupting science, sidestepping the law, and helping to promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the face of massive public opposition and damning evidence piling up against the safety of genetically modified (GM) food and feed. GM nightmare unfolds Female rats whose diets were supplemented with genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soybeans gave birth to many severely stunted pups, with over half of the litter dead by 3 weeks, and the surviving pups were sterile (1). This is the first investigation into the effects of unprocessed GM feed on reproductive function and fetal and postnatal development, in an experiment lasting more than 90 days, a period set by the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) (2), and the GM soya has been commercialized worldwide for food and feed since 1996. These findings came from the laboratory of senior scientist Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The results have been published in Russian (3 5), and in several conference proceedings in English (6 9). These results are not an isolated case. They top a growing stack of evidence from all over the world, indicating that GM food and feed may be inherently hazardous to health (see Table I) (10 24). Genetic modification and/or the artificial transgenic DNA to blame? Many varieties of GM crops with different transgenes, fed to rats, mice, cows, sheep, chickens, or human beings, resulted in illnesses and deaths. The obvious suspect is the GM process and/or the artificial transgenic DNA used. It is worth noting that transgenic DNAs are constructs that are entirely new to evolution. The synthetic genes are considerably altered from their natural counterparts, combining copies of sequences from many different sources. For example, MON863 maize is described on the AGBIOS Database as follows (25): ‘The introduced DNA contained the modified cry3Bb1 gene from B. thuringiensis subsp. kumamotoensis under the control of the 4-AS1 promoter (CaMV 35S promoter with 4 repeats of an activating sequence), plus the 5? untranslated leader sequence of the wheat chlorophyll a/b binding protein (wt CAB leader) and the rice actin intron. The transcription termination sequence was provided from the 3? untranslated region of the wheat 17.3 kD heat shock protein (tahsp17). The modified cry3Bb1 gene encodes a protein of 653 amino acids whose amino acid sequence differs from that of the wild-type protein by the addition of an alanine residue at position 2 and by seven amino acid changes.’ The coding sequence for cry3Bb1 was also modified with numerous codon adjustments to compensate for codon bias in plants as opposed to bacteria. There are nine bits of DNA from different sources including the coding sequence, which has been substantially altered from the natural gene. The many homologies to different genomes including those of bacteria and viruses, the presence of recombination (fragmentation) hotspots such as the Correspondence: Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 51885, London NW2 9DH, UK. E-mail: www.i-sis.org.uk Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007, 1 12, iFirst article (Received 13 March 2007; accepted 16 March 2007) ISSN 0891-060X print/ISSN 1651-2235 online # 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/08910600701343781 D ow nl oa de d By : [ in fo rm a in te rn al u se rs ] A t: 12 :3 1 7 Ju ne 2 00 7 CaMV 35S promoter, and the general structural instability of transgenic DNA, are all factors that would greatly enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating new pathogens. We have spelt out the potential dangers of the GM process in numerous publications (see Table II) based on extensive reviews of the scientific literature, especially highlighting the hidden dangers arising from unintended horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA (26 35). ‘GM food is safe’? Regulators have been assuring the public that ‘GM food is safe’ because people have been eating GM food since its first release in 1994 and no one has been found to fall ill or die from it. However, there has been no labelling in countries like the United States where GM food and feed are most available, and many GM products are ‘deregulated’ and hence not known or traceable as such. There has been no post-release monitoring, although research at the Centers for Disease Control suggested that foodrelated illnesses went up 2 10-fold in 1999 compared with a survey done just before GM food was commercially released in 1994 (36,37). GM food and feed may be linked to chronic illnesses such as autoimmune disease from bacterial DNA or indeed any novel transgenic DNA (38 41), slow viruses or cancer (see Table II), which may be difficult to detect. Finally, animal feed accounts for up to half the world’s harvest (42), so most of the GM produce so far has probably gone in animal feed after being processed for seed oil, corn starch and syrup, and increasingly, ethanol and biodiesel (43,44). Processing will remove or destroy at least some of the toxic metabolites, proteins and transgenic DNA. Thus, GM produce is seldom eaten directly by either animals or human beings so far, except in Argentina, with dire consequences for health (45). In Argentina, GM soya has been promoted as a staple food, especially for the poor, which has no precedent in the world, and it is impossible to separate effects due Table II. Potential hazards of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Synthetic genes and gene products new to evolution could be toxic for humans and other animals or provoke serious immune reactions The uncontrollable, imprecise process involved in making GMOs mutate and scramble genomes and can generate unintended toxic and immunogenic products; this is exacerbated by the instability of the transgenic DNA Endogenous viruses that cause diseases could be activated by the transgenic process The synthetic genes in GMOs, including copies of genes from bacteria and viruses that cause disease as well as antibiotic resistance genes, may be transferred to other species via pollen, or by direct integration into other genomes in horizontal gene transfer Disease-causing viruses and bacteria are created by horizontal transfer and recombination, and genetic modification is nothing if not facilitated and greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination Transgenic DNA is designed to invade genomes, including those of animals and human beings, and its strong synthetic promoters may trigger cancer by activating cellular oncogenes Herbicide-tolerant GM crops accumulate herbicide and herbicide residues that could be highly toxic to humans and animals as well as plants Table I. Accumulating evidence on the health hazards of GM food and feed. 1. Between 2005 and 2006, scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups and more than half of the litter dying within 3 weeks, while the surviving pups are completely sterile (main article). 2. Between 2004 and 2005, hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers in Madhya Pradesh, India, suffered allergy symptoms from exposure to Bt cotton containing Cry1Ac or both Cry1Ac and Cry1Ab proteins (10). 3. Between 2005 and 2006, thousands of sheep died after grazing on Bt cotton crop residues in four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh in India (11). 4. In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra Australia tested a transgenic pea containing a normally harmless protein in bean (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1), and found it caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other proteins in the diet (12,13). 5. From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM-soya fed to young mice affected cells in the pancreas, liver and testes (14 18). 6. In 2003, villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid containing Cry1Ab protein came into flower; antibodies to the Cry1Ab protein were found in the villagers, there have been at least five unexplained deaths and some remain ill to this day (19). 7. In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier showed that rats fed MON863 GM maize containing Cry3Bb protein developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities (20) (see main text). 8. Between 2001 and 2002, a dozen cows died in Hesse, Germany after eating Syngenta GM maize Bt176 containing Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac plus glufosinate-tolerance; and more in the herd had to be slaughtered from illnesses (21). 9. In 1998, Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining twice as thick as controls (22). 10. Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the gut of mice fed Bt potato containing a Cry1A protein (23). 11. The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had developed small holes in their stomach (22). 12. In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls (24). 2 M-W. Ho et al.