Did you know that none of the genetically modified (created via rDNA technology) seeds which are available on the market (including the ones you describe growing in your garden) have been through the proper long term full spectrum toxicological tests involving the whole plant which are required to ensure they are safe for human consumption ?
The FDA’s own scientific experts, when charged with originally assessing the possible risks to the public before allowing GMOs onto the market, stated very clearly that these novel organisms posed the potential for unprecedented safety issues as they are the result of methods that are radically different than any traditional means of hybridizing, breeding or grafting.
It all started back in the 1990-s, the FDA established a scientific task force with experts from all the relevant disciplines, to aid in developing its policy on GE (rDNA) foods. The majority of the expert scientific staff (including the head of biological and organic chemistry, the director of the center for veterinary medicine, the biotechnology coordinator, and even their own compliance officer) at the FDA concluded that extensive testing was required before said products were declared as safe, and extreme caution should be exercised in their release into the environment. Here’s a short list of some of the other FDA experts who demanded further testing before market release: microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl, Dr. E. J. Matthews of their toxicology group, and Dr. Carl B. Johnson the additives evaluation branch). Their professional opinions were ignored by their non-scientist superiors in administrative roles for purely economic and political reasons. FDA administrators subsequently suppressed and denied the scientific consensus of their own experts. They then deliberately censored their expert opinions when issuing their final report by leaving out that the majority stated there was not sufficient data to consider GMOs as “G.R.A.S.” (Generally regarded as safe). This represents an illegal and fraudulent action and they were taken to court for that very reason. Much of the ensuing legal proceedings were documented in a book called “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven M. Druker.
While the proponents of the GE food venture have claimed that anyone who is concerned about the safety of GMO food is anti-science, the truth is the venture itself is anti-science. Druker comments on this saying, “Besides enabling the imposition of great potential harm on consumers and the environment, the delinquencies of the scientific establishment have inflicted concrete harm on science – and the harm has been major.”. Further, Patrick Brown, a professor of plant sciences at the University of California, Davis has observed “ to date many in the scientific community have been unwilling to rationally consider the concerns surrounding the current GMOs and have wrongfully considered that a defence of GMOs is a prerequisite to protect the science of plant biotechnology. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Druker expands on this by saying, “But instead of facing the truth about the wrong-headedness of trying to protect science by protecting the image of GE crops, their scientist proponents have significantly effaced the truth about how these crops are created, how they differ from traditionally bred crops and how extensive evidence has cast doubt on their safety. And in striving to manage (and censor) the flow of information to the public, they’ve suppressed the free flow of ideas within the scientific community, which is the life blood of scientific progress.” He adds,“ the scientist proponents of GE foods have been inconsistent in the way they have relaxed scientific protocols, doing so in a biased manner that has created a double standard under which any study reporting problems with these products is subjected to far stricter requirements than those purporting not to find any. Through such a duplicitous set up, rigorous studies published in peer reviewed journals are pilloried or even forced into retraction if they have detected ill effects while shoddy ones that couldn’t qualify for publication in such journals have been treated as authoritative as long as they claim reassuring results. This gross degradation of scientific standards is an important part of the GE food fraud because proponents have created the illusion that science has been assiduously upheld when, in reality, it has been systematically subverted in order to make the products of bioengineering appear safe.” In commenting on this deplorable phenomenon, Dr. Philip Regal, professor at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognized biosafety expert has noted, “Traditionally scientists regarded intellectual honesty as part of collegiality and there was accountability if one was caught telling lies. Accordingly, liars were blackballed. But since the rise of genetic engineering, the situation in molecular biology has to a significant degree become inverted and when it comes to that technology, one gets blackballed for telling the truth.”
Also worth mentioning is the fact that one of the first ingestible products which was the result of genetic modification was responsible for a deadly epidemic. Eosinophilia – myalgia syndrome (“EMS”) produced flu like symptoms in some, extreme pain, inflammation and paralysis for some, and death for others. It was a severe neurological disorder brought about by the ingestion of toxic by-products of the genetic alteration of a bacteria called Bacillus amyloliquefacien in an effort to increase tryptophan production. The direct link to the GMO batches of this food supplement (being those which caused EMS) vs the non GM batches (which did not) was well established by rigorous scientific and medical investigation. The facts surrounding these findings were down played, misrepresented, and clouded intentionally by the FDA, bio-tech corporations and those molecular biologists who had a vested interest in the profits and growth of said companies/industries.
There is now much scientific data which suggests the potential for gene splicing (rDNA tech) to precipitate the creation of unknown and undetectable novel substances which could be toxic or allergenic in nature is not only likely, but an inevitable flaw of the technology itself. Some pro GMO people have likened rDNA technology and the transgenic organisms (“bioengineering”) to software engineering and computer programming because they both involve the altering complex information systems, but when some of the world`s most prominent IT (information technology) and software engineering experts who are educated on the subject of rDNA technology were asked how the two stack up their responses showed how rDNA technology (“bioengineering”) is more like “hacking” than software engineering. When asked about how the current practices of “bioengineering” (rDNA tech) compares with software engineering Australian software engineer and information security expert Stephen Wilson said this “It’s like taking a snippet of code from the program of the toaster oven and splicing it into an airline guidance system yet assuming that nothing will be disturbed.”
Much like hackers, genetic engineers are people who don`t understand the “source code” of the programs they attempt to alter. In both hacking and bioengineering (by use of rDNA tech) the inserted segments of foreign code act very much like a virus, impairing the programs performance. Steven M Druker illuminated the parallels between hacking, bioengineering and the behavior of viruses concisely by saying, “They both gain entry by breaching the program`s defenses against foreign incursions, and once inside, they operate independently of, and inimical to, the aims of the invaded system – while commandeering its resources in order to do so.”
Steven explained further on the topic by saying “..Bioengineers are not engaged in the primary activity of software engineers, nor could they even attempt to be. That activity comprises the design and creation of complex information programs; and the bioengineers who develop new varieties of edible plants and animals are utterly incapable of designing and creating the information systems of the higher organism they deal with – systems that crucially contribute to the generation of living cells, guide their development into complex organisms and enable those organisms to conduct a multitude of finely tuned and intricately coordinated operations through which they sustain their lives and successfully interact with immensely variegated environments. Instead, they merely make alterations to those systems: systems that were not (and could not have been) created by humans. … Because genetic engineers know so much less about the programs they alter actually operate than do software engineers, and because the associated risks are so high, one could reasonably expect them to exercise not merely the same degree of caution as do the latter, but substantially more. And this expectation is even more justified in light of the fact that their operations are far less precise than those of software engineers. They cannot control where in the DNA strand the inserted genes end up, nor can they configure them to act in harmony with the myriad doing of the target cell. Instead, these intrusive genetic sequences operate outside the cell’s intricate regulatory system in an exceptionally unruly and potentially disruptive manner. Yet although compared to software engineers, their vision is critically restricted and their acts inexact, the bioengineers have operated with far less precaution.”
Thus, given the how extreme its innate unpredictability is, and the technology’s inherent high risk nature, “bioengineering” doesn’t deserve to be classified as a form of engineering at all.
In order to illustrate just how risky, imprecise and dangerous rDNA technology is, I will give a brief overview of the specific methods that are utilized in the biotech industry to create a transgenic organism (aka “GMO”).
Creating transgenic organisms via rDNA technology involves using restrictive enzymes to cut DNA, reattaching the foreign matter to other organisms which they use to ‘piggyback’ the gene and force it to bond with and express itself in the target organism. Some of their delivery mechanisms for these foreign fragments of genetic material include something called a ‘gene gun’ (aka biolistic transformation) and “viral promoters” like the Cauliflower mosaic virus, as well as “agrobacteria” such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens, (the ‘gene gun’ or biolistic transformation being the most imprecise of them all). The fragments of foreign DNA enter the target genome in an essentially random manner; and research indicates that they usually disrupt the DNA of the regions into which they wedge. According to Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine, “this gene transfer process is known to introduce hundreds or even thousands of additional mutational defects in the DNA, with potentially devastating consequences on the global host gene function”. The other two most commonly used methods of creating GMOs involving an aggressive pathogen/’viral promoter’ or a parasitic bacteria/”agrobacteria” pose serious hazards as well. These viruses and parasitic bacteria force the target organism to accept the fragments of genetic material and express them in conjunction with their own genes. Due to the aggressive nature of these pathogens and parasitic bacteria gene expression of the inserted material isn’t just forced, it’s forced to express copiously and constantly, creating novel amino acids and toxins in levels that are dangerous to humans ingesting these GMOs. These new proteins made within GMOs can have detrimental consequences. According to molecular biologist and protein chemist, David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute “We know that such modifications can render an otherwise harmless protein toxic or allergenic, we don’t know enough to predict how and when such malefic modifications will occur.” Schubert also says, “The complexity of insertional effects is compounded by the fact that each cell type of the organism tends to respond differently… the disruptive potential is amplified by the presence of the 35S promoter in each haphazardly placed fragment. Because this viral-derived booster is so powerful, it can induce erratic expression of some native genes – or activate biochemical pathways that are ordinarily inactive. Each of these outcomes could spur the production of unintended toxins or induce damaging imbalances. Moreover, due to their “always-on” promoters, the transplanted genes act independently of the host organism’s intricate control systems, as do the genes of an invading virus, in contrast to the harmonious coordination that exists among native genes. Consequently, not only is every cell of the organism forced to produce substances that have never been in that species, it’s forced to produce them in an unregulated manner – which can disrupt complex biochemical feedback loops (and induce unintended toxins).” As a direct result of such potential hazards (mentioned above) one of the first ingestible products (which was produced via genetic modification) was responsible for a deadly epidemic (Eosinophilia – myalgia syndrome aka “the EMS outbreak”).
In light of this information, it becomes clear that the belief that transgenic food and rDNA technology is safe is a matter of faith or opinion and not science. It’s obvious that genetically modifying life, patenting living organisms for profit (or “growing them for fun”) and feeding them to our selves and our loved ones without any proper testing on the potential long term health risks or environmental risks is irresponsible. As long as groups who are driven by profit margins are at the driving seat of genetically modifying plants that we are having put in our food without labelling or testing, there is a very real reason for serious concern and caution for any responsible person.
To anyone who has done their homework it becomes clear that the industry which has built up around rDNA technology (through its carelessness, fraud and deceit) has been involved in the subverting of science and the cause of substantial damage to human life all in the name of profit and politics. The fact is that the methods (rDNA tech) and practices of the biotech industry (have been and continue to be) unscientific and irresponsible. There is a substantial amount of evidence to show that food which is derived from GMOs is unsafe , and zero legitimate evidence that has proven its safety for long term consumption by humans.
