The Story of GE Agriculture: Traversing the Transgenic Travesty

In my article I will be exploring the story of The Biotech Industry’s Irresponsible venture into rDNA technology and the exponentially more irresponsible and dangerous decision to subvert science, the law and government. In the following material I will be explaining how they did this in order to push the novel organisms that were the product of that inherently imprecise and hazardous technology onto the market in products intended for human consumption.

Many of us have been told (by people on television, in magazines/newspapers or even by some in certain academic institutions 34 and governments) that food products that are derived from genetically modified organisms (transgenic organisms that are the result of rDNA technology) are completely safe to eat, but as someone who has always questioned and been weary of those who make unfounded claims without presenting any evidence to support them (and someone wanting to know what exactly I would be putting in my body), I decided to do my own research. After several years of talking with scientists, farmers, and reading a lot of literature pertaining to molecular biology, gene splicing, toxicology, biological and organic chemistry, (as well as looking into the work of specialists in pathogens, ecology, botany) I have come to the disturbing conclusion that not only is there no scientific evidence to show “GMO food” is safe for long term consumption, 23, 24, 25, 40 there is a multitude of scientific evidence that indicates the inherent hazards of rDNA technology are great 49, 50, 51 ( and the risks posed to humans (or any other organism) ingesting the transgenic organisms it produces as a food source are severe.1, 2, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 45, 46, 47, 48

Before I get into the science surrounding the hazards of the technology itself (and the dangers of ingesting the organisms it produces) let’s take a look at some of the Pro-GMO arguments to see if they have any validity.

Many of the proponents of rDNA technology claim the products it produces are necessary to address the ‘world hunger crisis’, but after over two decades of GMO foods being widely available on the market worldwide it has yet to live up to its claim. It`s also important to keep in mind that the entire basis of a pro transgenic agriculture argument being about solving world hunger is irrelevant even IF rDNA technology was able to live up to its unfounded claim that it can increase agricultural production. In reality we currently globally produce enough food for 10 billion people it`s just that the world wastes a significant portion of the food it produces (in the U.S. 40% of the food it produces is wasted). 7, 8 This egregious waste is the true culprit behind starvation not scarcity, and in light of these facts it becomes clear that a “pro-GMO argument” based on “addressing world hunger” is a moot point. The reason people go hungry is not because we don’t have enough food to go around and need to produce more, the reason is the unfair distribution of resources due to apathy, greed, ignorance, wasted food and the fact that the core motivation that drives large scale agricultural developments is profit and who will pay the most, not addressing those in need. The proponents of GMO crops argue that they can engineer plants to put out higher nutritional value and greater crop yields, yet in direct contrast to their claims the nutritional value of crops that switched to GMO seeds have in fact decreased and on top of that the yields are also down due to the extensive damage the GMO associated herbicides have done to the beneficial ecology in the soil (insects, microbes and symbiotic fungi). 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 The continued use of excessive amounts of highly toxic chemicals that are used in conjunction with GMO farming practices has left the soil depleted, 15,16 dead and desolate requiring the introduction of large amounts of petroleum based fertilizers annually in order for the land to continue producing crops. These practices are not only doing grievous damage to human and animal health in the present, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 they are also destroying the living soil and surrounding interconnected ecology of the farm land and in doing so directly threatening future generation’s ability to be self-sustaining and /or grow healthy food for themselves. 17. Not only has the Biotech industry failed to solve the world hunger crisis it claimed it had the solution to, GMO crops and agricultural developments diminish genetic diversity while also contaminating the existing natural genetic integrity of ecosystems (including but not limited to crop producing plants). That’s not even to mention how reckless and tragic it is to encourage farmers in third world countries to abandon their ancient traditional seed saving practices with false promises to get them to sign a deal with GMO seed companies with talk of a better more drought resistant bug resistant yield, when what they really are doing is throwing out thousands of years of genetic diversity and crop resilience that was acquired through the natural selection of the seeds they save having adapted to the local conditions creating many different varieties of the crop they grow. This genetic diversity means that if one variety falls to a disease, there will likely be others which are immune, which is not the case for GMO crops. Therefore GMO farming practices actually endanger the long term stability of the food supply due to depending on a seed variety with limited resistance and hardiness to certain diseases and conditions which could arise and wipe out an entire strain of a certain GMO crop (something that would not affect all traditional varieties as long as there is genetic diversity present in the given crop.

Another flagrantly deceptive claim of pro GMO spokes persons I discovered is that “GMO farming will do less damage to the environment than other methods of farming “. That argument is completely false and not based in reality. Many GMO agricultural practices involve the spraying of copious amounts of toxic chemicals on the plants, on the land and into the ground water. 15, 16, 17 (Ex. “Round up”). Even without the spraying of the GMO specific pesticides and herbicides the genetically altered plants themselves are engineered to produce toxic compounds that seep into the ground water damaging trees and poisoning insects (both “pests” and beneficial insects alike) which in turn carry this toxic material up the food chain to poison larger animals. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Some other commonly “regurgitated PR lines” of the biotech industry you will hear are “there has been a scientific consensus that GMO food is safe” 23, 24, 25, “if you are anti-GMO you are anti-science” 36, 37, 38, 39 and “rDNA technology and the transgenic organisms it produces are just a form of accelerated selective breeding” 52, 53. All of those claims couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only has there never been a scientific consensus among scientific experts in regards to their considering transgenic organisms safe to eat, before the ‘biotech propaganda’ became widespread, there was in fact a consensus about GMO foods in the community of experts in relevant fields, but in stark contrast to popular belief it was not pro-GMO, the consensus was that the potential risks and dangers of the technology were such that extensive testing should be done before its products were released onto the market. 26, 27 ,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 Unfortunately that scientific consensus was ignored by our governments for purely economic and political reasons, and no such proper testing has been carried out to date.40 Steven M. Druker said it well when he stated, “(the)parading of unfounded opinion in the guise of solid science has been a constant feature of the GE food venture- and one of its deepest and most enduring deceptions.”

On the topic of how radically different rDNA technology is from traditional forms of breeding Nobel Laureate and Professor of Biology Emeritus at Harvard University George Wald said “Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms. Such an intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms. It is the biggest break in nature that has occurred in human history.”

What I discovered in my research was that any person who uses any of the “pro-GMO arguments” described above is either purposely attempting to deceive you by giving you a gross misrepresentation of the facts, or they are significantly ignorant to the science involved in creating a transgenic organism (aka “GMO”). 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.26, 27 ,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. 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.36, 37, 38, 39. 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.” 34, 35. 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. 41, 42, 43, 44 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.”

Most people are not aware that one of the first ingestible products which was the result of genetic modification was responsible for a deadly epidemic. 45, 46, 47, 48 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. 49, 50. 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”).

The genetic rearrangement that occurs through conventional breeding (sexual reproduction) provides genetic diversity allowing the organism to remain robust and take on the most resilient traits of the parents in a manner that doesn’t disrupt or imbalance the organism. When the natural recombination of genetic material occurs in sexual reproduction it includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes in each gametes (sperm or egg cells) break at corresponding points and then exchange complimentary sections of DNA. In this way all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of only from one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequence in which they’re positioned. This means the integrity of the genome stays intact. The natural recombination of DNA augments diversity while maintaining stability. This process sharply contrasts with genetic engineering. Although the gene that is transferred via this technology is known, not only is it impossible to predict all its unintended effects, there’s no sound basis for assuming they’ll be safe.50 In essence when one looks at the hard data and fairly compares the two processes it is bioengineering that is random and risky. The inserted cassettes of genetic material are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA. They create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion. The overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances and the result cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.54

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 not science. It’s obvious that genetically modifying life, patenting living organisms for profit and feeding them to our children without any proper testing on the potential long term health risks or environmental risks is irresponsible.33 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.

In conclusion; it is 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 54 that has proven its safety for long term consumption by humans or livestock.

References:

1: http://www.gmoseralini.org/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-seralini-study/

2: http://www.gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralinis-study-was-so-badly-designed-that-no-conclusions-can-be-drawn-from-it/

3: http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/03/claims-gmo-yield-increases-don-t-hold

4: http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/5-gm-crops-impacts-farm-environment/210-2/

5: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html#.V6jLaPkrK70

6: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/vilsack-mistakenly-pitche_b_319998.html

7: http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts

8: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/one-third-of-global-food-supply-wasted-un/article14240931/

9: http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

10: http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

11: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies

12: http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/5-gm-crops-impacts-farm-environment/210-2/

13: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/#1adaecb6a371

14: http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-corn-increased-pesticide-use-by-300-us-government-agency-claims-exact-opposite-to-protect-biotech-industry/5462402

15: http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html

16: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-glyphosate-pollution-idUSTRE77U61720110831

17: http://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-roundup-found-in-75-of-air-and-rain-samples-1881869607.html

18: http://detoxproject.org/1321-2/

19: http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

20: http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin?lang=en

21: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesmaam/pages/774/attachments/original/1396803706/Glyphosate__Final__in_the_breast_milk_of_American_women_Draft6_.pdf?1396803706

22: http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf

23: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

24: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

25: http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-is-no-scientific-consensus-on-the-safety-of-genetically-modified-organisms-gmo/5428272

26: http://responsibletechnology.org/fraud/the-big-gmo-cover-up/

27: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-genetically-modified-food-agriculture-health-ngbooktalk/

28: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-impacts-of-genetic-engineering-not-science-just-lies-and-propaganda-the-massive-fraud-behind-gmos-exposed/5434910

29: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/vilsack-mistakenly-pitche_b_319998.html

30: http://www.anh-usa.org/gmo-fraud-revealed/

31: http://www.psrast.org/fdalawstmore.htm

32: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.htm

33: http://www.biointegrity.org/WhyFDAPolicyIrresponsible.htm

34: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-gmo-debate-one-students-experience-of-pro-gmo-propaganda-at-cornell-university/

35: http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/05/27/how-the-national-academy-of-sciences-misled-the-public-over-gmo-food-safety/#.V6jZzPkrK70

36: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0049-2

37: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/05/25/think-the-anti-gmo-movement-is-unscientific-think-again/

38: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/usda-censoring-anti-gmo-science

39: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/gmos-biggest-fraud-in-the-history-of-science/

40: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/systems-biology-group-international-center-for-integrative-systems-gmo-soy-accumulates-formaldehyde--disrupts-plant-metabolism-suggests-peer-reviewed-study-calling-for-21st-century-safety-standards-300112959.html

41: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/usda-censoring-anti-gmo-science

42: http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/retraction-double-standards#.V6jbCPkrK70

43: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0049-2

44: http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-food-corporate-power-grab-gmos-are-safe-the-propaganda-spin-of-the-pro-gmo-lobby/5432777

45: http://www.psrast.org/demsd.htm

46: http://responsibletechnology.org/resources/conclusion/

47: http://www.globalresearch.ca/potential-health-hazards-of-genetically-engineered-foods/8148

48: https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/ge/disaster090105.php

49: http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm

50: http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-2-myth-genetic-engineering-precise-results-predictable/

51: http://psrast.org/wanho.htm

52: http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-1-myth-truth/

53: http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=492860&als[itemid]=507856

54: http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/2-science-regulation/2-1-myth-gm-foods-strictly-tested-regulated-safety/