Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What’s the Harm in Genetically Modified
Foods?Lori B. Taylor, MA/MS
Registered Dietitian
South Whidbey Tilth – January 2015
Experience
Dietitian for 15 yearsFormerly molecular biologist, educator
Natural and conventional medicine training
Whidbey General Hospital – Clinical DietitianSustainability Coordinator
Consult privately for writing and speaking
Instructor for MS in Integrative & Functional Nutrition program, Saybrook University
Education
BA Biochemistry, UC Berkeley, High Honors
MA Education, (Science Emphasis), Stanford University
MS Nutrition, Bastyr University
RD Internship, University of N Colorado
Permaculture Design Certificate – Regenerative Design Institute, Bolinas CA
Ecology of Leadership - RDI
Why do I care?
Permaculture ethics: people care, planet care, fair share
Public and environmental health issue
Health care has been relatively silent and needs to be involved
Need to sort science from ideology
Debate needs to be recast from technology to herbicides and pesticides to gain traction
Focus of this Talk
Not on GM technology, but its use
Approval process
Proteins and pesticide residues
Nutritional effects
Yield
Environmental effects
What you can do
What’s Left Out
Differences between natural breeding and GMO techniques
Genetic contamination/drift
Horizontal gene transfer to other organisms
Food sovereignty / seed freedom
Differences in US/European approval
For more info: GMO Myths and Truths, 2nd Ed.
http://www.EarthOpenSource.org
The Ideology
Criticism of GMO is unscientificQuacks, bad science, conspiracy theorists, tinfoil
hats, corporate haters, hippies
Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe
Anti-GMO folks are against science, progress, profit
No recorded injury to humans, millions of meals served, means foods are safe
GMOs will feed the world, deal with climate change, are more sustainable
Galileo and GMOs
Heliocentrism was branded as heretical by the Spanish Inquisition and books were burned.
Galileo was tried and condemned by the Catholic church – early 1600s
Vindicated scientifically, but not acknowledged by the church until 1992
Galileo and GMOs
Fast-forward 400 years Patent holders restrict GM material for research Industry suppression of unfavorable results, legal threats Harassment, loss of data files, research funding, academic
position for researchers Papers pulled from journals without sufficient cause Critics branded as “un-scientific” This time, specific corporations are pushing back
When scientific ideas threaten the power structure, science can be suppressed, and critics are labeled heretical
Persecution does not imply rightness – but we have seen this before
Science is Inclusive
All evidence must be considered and weighed
“In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.”
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
Where the science is lacking
Restriction of base materials and research suppression
No labels, therefore no human studies
If it’s not being measured, no one can study it Latest USDA study – very few pesticide residues, but Glyphosate (RoundUp) not studied this year or last – and
it is most heavily used pesticide in US A USDA spokesman who asked not to be quoted said that
the test measures required for glyphosate are "extremely expensive... to do on an regular basis”
Monsanto asked EPA for another increase in allowable food residues for glyphosate – and received it. Much higher in animal feed
Ethics
Not taught routinely in science majors
Just because we can, does that mean we should?
How do we assess risks for new technologies?
Precautionary Principle
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
-Science and Environmental Health Network
Shifts burden of proof to showing an activity is safe, rather proceeding based on lack of evidence about harm
Best used when technologies are new
This principle has not been used with respect to GMOs.
Substantial Equivalence
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - trade group – 1993
“should demonstrate that the [genetically modified] food is as safe as its traditional counterpart”
FDA- 1992: adopted SE with directionCompare toxicants, allergens, bioavailability,
macronutrients, safety of novel proteins
Problems with SE
Not a scientific concept
No specifications for tests
No accepted reference foods
No quantifiable definition of substantial
Can’t predict biological effects from chemical makeup – consider prions vs proteins
Can’t forecast outside known allergens
Allergy analysis looks at expression in bacteria, not in plants
More accurate testing (genetic profiling) is in development – 23 years later
SE is an Oxymoron
Same for regulatory purposes
Different for patentable purposes
Provides financial benefit to the developerPatented seed and chemical factor
Transfers risk to the consumer
Privatized profits and socialized losses
Generally Recognized as Safe?
FDA considers to be substantially equivalent
Therefore – GRAS
Requires no pre-market testing or labeling
FDA consultation voluntary
Data submitted comes from GMO producerShield or omit negative results In Europe only found through lawsuits
Substantial Equivalence Is Not
GMO corn and soy substantially non-equivalentNutrients outside published rangesVery different protein productions
Field grown and herbicide-treated GMO soyHigh levels of glyphosate (RoundUp) and breakdown
productsCompositionally could sort out conventional, organic
and GM varieties
How Prevalent are GMOs?
93% of soy crops Soy protein, soybean oil, soy lecithin
90% of corn crops Dried corn, high fructose corn syrup
Other foods Sugar beets, canola oil Papaya, yellow squash, zucchini Alfalfa (animal feed), cotton
Likely prevalent in every processed food
Likely prevalent in almost all animal feed
Why Genetically Modify?
Herbicide tolerance Glyphosate, 2,4-D (agent orange ingredient),
dicamba, glufosinate
Internal pesticide production Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Bt) Different from external Bt sprays – does not break
down with light or exposure to water Produced by all parts of the plant – per acre
production and our consumption much greater
Stacked traits – two (or now more) traits expressed in same time
Why Genetically Modify?
Note that we are modifying to support monocropping and crop-pesticide packages
GM foods are only solving problems created by the agriculture industry
Similar to antibiotic use in feedlot animals – supports unsustainable models of agriculture
Glyphosate Biological Effects
Endocrine disruptor at 800x lower than what is in food: human cell lines
3x birth defects and childhood cancers in areas of intense airborne spraying: humans
Malformations in vertebrate embryos
Adjuvants in RoundUp increase toxicity by 1000x: human cell lines
Kills beneficial GI bacteria: cattle and poultry
Liver and kidney damage: mice
Glyphosate Possible Connections
Chronic kidney disease of unknown origin in Global SouthGlyphosate use in hard water farming areas
What’s behind rash of anencephaly cases in WA Central Valley?Glyphosate heavily used for weed suppression in
water waysMalformations in vertebrate embryos similar as
glyphosate interferes with vitamin A
I predict will be worse than DDT when the data is finally in
Other Sources of Glyphosate
Crop staging in non GMO crops
Facilitates dessication/dying for faster harvest, “last gasp” production of grain
Being used in wheat and sugar cane
May explain increase in wheat intolerance
Bt Biological Effects
Severe tissue changes in liver, kidney, spleen, small intestine and testis: rats
GI tract damage: fish and mice
Immune changes and increased inflammation: mice
Resistance to digestion: in vitro
Transfer to human fetus: Bt found inBlood of 93% of pregnant women80% of cord blood samples
Nutritional Significance
Liver and kidney damage – chronic disease
Gut immune function – new food allergies?
Endocrine disruptors – obesity, hormone-related cancers, in-utero effects
GI tract damage and dysbiosis – autism, food-borne illness, IBS, Crohn’s?
Bt lyses insect GI tracts – could it affect humans and alter gluten tolerance?
We’ll never know
Without labeling, impossible to study the health effects in humans.
So when industry says food is safe, no one has been harmed by GM foods, there is no way they can support that statement
No nutritional benefits
GMOs often nutritionally inferior
Organic soy more nutritious than GMO or conventional counterpart
Golden Rice with added vitamin ANot a panacea; equivalent to 1 oz cooked spinachDoesn’t address cause (lack of F/V, breastfeeding)Won’t help 1/3 with deficiency who don’t eat riceDoesn’t address rice-predominant dietsUnclear whether malnourished kids can assimilate
the fat-soluble vitamin
Monocropping and Deficiency
GMO industry leading worldwide push to monocroppingReliance on handful of staple crops, primarily
carbohydrates (starches, sugars)
Lack of variety/biodiversity in diet – nutrient deficiencies
Excessive carbohydrates – diabetes and obesity
No Overall Yield Improvements
USDA’s own 15 year study: no yield improvements in varieties developed no increase in intrinsic yield
But 60-79% of farmers adopted for this reason
No yield benefit with herbicide tolerant crops; often yields lower
Some improvement in operational yield due to fewer pest losses Fading as insects become resistant
GMO foods not going to solve world hunger
Environmental Damage
More insecticide produced per acre with GMO Bt and more consumed
Bt toxicity to non-target beneficialsLadybugs, bees
Increase in herbicide useDue to increased weed resistanceDecline in monarchs due to loss of food source
Environmental Damage
Increased weed resistance22 glyphosate resistant super weeds Increased tillage
Pesticide/herbicide treadmillNew and different herbicides appliedWill lead to resistance againForecast to increase herbicide use by 50%
Cross-pollination with non-GM varieties
Post-Publication Updates
USDA approval of 2,4-D and dicamba-resistant varieties of cotton and soy
Monsanto moving forward on RNA-interference technologies to silence insect genes
Published research that regulation misses risk-assessment
More scientists speaking out - ENSSER
News Sources
Organic Consumers Association
Food Democracy Now
Center for Food Safety
What Can You Do?
Don’t eat them Buy organic or NonGMO project labels Avoid non-organic corn and soy Avoid anti-labeling funders: Pepsi, Coke, Nestle
Don’t grow them Safe seed resource list: Council for Responsible Genetics Save seed Non-GMO Sourcebook: http://www.nongmosourcebook.com/
Plant for beneficial insects Keep bees!
Buy from and promote small holdings – local whenever possible
What Can You Do?
Recast the argument to be about pesticide/herbicide use and effects Educate! Health care professionals Family/friends
Support labeling Donate, volunteer, phone bank, write $20.8 MM from industry to fight Oregon 92 ($1K from individuals)
Weigh in on regulatory events Speak to Rick Larsen especially
Divest from agro-chemical corporations
Divest from supporters (Gates Foundation)
“Save Your Plate Before It’s Too Late!”
Questions
Paper available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7iPNuYZiz7kS0tldThZVExZQWs/view?usp=sharing
Or
http://tinyurl.com/m4am4eq
Thank You
Lori B. Taylor, MA/MS, RD, CD
Clinical Dietitian
831-402-9321
