Genetic engineering is based on the old theory of genetics which thought that each gene is coded for its own single unique protein.
Biologists also estimated that the number of proteins in the human body was 100,000 or more.
However, on June 26, 2000, they were shocked to find out that the actual number tallied was only about 30,000. This figure not only failed to account for the estimated number of proteins, but also in explaining the vast quantity of inheritable traits.
Moreover, WEEDS have as many as 26,000 genes! Given the one protein – one gene theory, a human really should have more genes than a weed!
But then, maybe it does show once again that our mothers knew more than scientists when she told everyone that her child was “growing like a weed”!
Not only did scientists have to realize that the vast majority of genes do not encode for a unique protein, they had to come to grips with the fact that some genes can actually make many proteins.
The current record is set by a single gene from a fruit fly, which can generate up to 38,016 different protein molecules.
In humans, however, nearly all genes are theoretically able to make two or more proteins. The number of human genes capable of coding for only a single trait can be counted on your hands.
The fact that a gene creates multiple proteins may explain the erratic behaviour of genetic engineering. As a result of so many still unknown factors and the unpredictability of the combinations, it should come as no surprise to anyone that things can go wrong.
Things That Can Go Wrong – and Will
The following is a list of some of those things that can, and do, go wrong according to Jeffrey M. Smith in his book, Seeds of Deception:
Code Scrambling: DNA uses its unique genetic code to write orders for RNA so that it is able to create and assemble amino acids according to the prescription. Amino acids form protein; but sometimes before RNA can fill an order, code scramblers come along that rearrange and then reassemble but instead, make a new RNA with entirely new prescriptions and creating an entirely new protein.
Code scramblers can create hundreds and even thousands of different proteins from a single gene. As long as scientists were absolutely sure that a single gene created one and only one possible protein, they could confidently insert a new gene into a new species and be sure that only one protein would result.
But when they found out they had been wrong all this time, they had to start back at square one. For instance, when engineers first put the Bt gene into plants, it produced very little protein. To increase production, biologists attached signal beacons. These not only enabled scrambling, it actually sped up protein production.
Rather than doing a careful analysis to verify that unintended proteins were not being created, the manufacturers of GE crops decided to stay with their original assumptions – a blatant case of see no evil! Worse yet, code scramblers are not the only things found in a cell that can make an inserted foreign gene change its characteristics.
Hitchhikers: Even if a foreign gene gets past the code scramblers, hitchhiker molecules can cause a problem.
The Salk Institute of Biological Studies found that the effect that a particular protein on a plant or animal can be modified by adding such molecules as phosphate, sulfate, fats, or sugars.
For instance, the same protein found in both the liver and brain can pick up entirely different hitchhikers which will have entirely different effects on the body. Scientists simply do not know at this point just how much a hitchhiker can affect a plant or a human.
Chaperones: A newly constructed protein is a molecular ribbon that must be folded into a precise, organized manner.
In the 1980s, it was discovered that some proteins can misfold, remaining biochemically inactive unless they have a special type of chaperone protein that folds them properly.
Since chaperones have never come in contact with that particular protein before, it is anyone’s guess as to whether or not it will do its job correctly.
A misfolded protein can be the cause of diseases. Prions, responsible for mad cow disease and the human form called Creutzfeld-Jacob disease, are examples of such dangerous misfolded proteins.
Host DNA Problems: Since genetic engineering requires blasting foreign genes into a DNA molecule, the impact of a gene-coated shard flying at hundreds of miles an hour can understandably result in some structural damage.
It stands to reason that when foreign genes take up residence in an equally foreign DNA molecule, drastic and unpredictable effects take place. For instance, genes blasted into a molecule can destroy their activity or massively increase it. Genes can also be inserted the wrong way or multiple copies made.
Rogue toxins may be produced or existing ones amplified. Such a change to the host’s DNA is called insertion mutation.
In human gene therapy, studies have verified that insertion mutation can lead to leukemia in children. Such an effect is so widely recognized that there is even a term to describe it – insertion carcinogenesis.
In plants, such disruptions are similarly dangerous, producing unpredicted toxins.
Horizontal Gene Transfer and Antibiotic Resistance: In order for scientists to know if genes actually end up inside a DNA molecule, a marker is placed on the gene.
An ARM (antibiotic resistant marker) is typically attached so that the cell will be invincible to a normally deadly dose of antibiotics. Many scientists are concerned that when humans and animals eat GE foods, the ARM genes will transfer into the bacteria normally found in the digestive system.
This process of genes transferring from one species to another is called horizonal gene transfer and could result in new and dangerous antibiotic-resistant diseases.
The British Medical Association stated that this was one of the reasons it called for an immediate moratorium on GE foods. In typical fashion, biotech companies refute this saying that such genes cannot survive digestion (but then, they said that about other things that we now know DO survive the digestive process, as does BST).
As technology advances, scientists are indeed finding out that DNA not only survives digestion, it can be found in the blood, intestinal walls, liver, spleen, and feces.
It can also remain intact in the digestive system for more than five days! Bt corn contains an ARM gene that is resistant to ampicillin – which just may explain why ampicillin is becoming less effective for human infections.
Position Effects: When a foreign gene does enter into the DNA, there is no predicting where along the strand it will end up. The inserted gene could disrupt any number of expressive traits. These location-specific changes are called position effect – a kind of genetic Russian roulette.
Gene Silencing: One common position effect is that either the foreign gene or the native genes in their vicinity will shut off and will no longer be able to produce their protein. This is called gene silencing.
One way a native gene can become permanently disabled is if the foreign gene ends up right in its middle. This happened in one experiment when mice caused the embryos to die. Silencing native genes can result in all manner of unpredictable outcomes.
Environmental Influences: Changes in gene expression have been noted in scientific experiments that could not be explained in any other manner than their link to environmental changes.
Turning on Genes: Normally, a gene in one cell will pump out its protein while in another cell, that same gene just sits quietly until its protein is needed. Take the pigment in eye colour for example.
The gene whose protein makes the eyes blue or brown is activated while, at the same time, the same gene in the whites of the eyes relaxes. If it did not, the entire eye would turn colour. How do these genes know what to do and when to do it?
When genetic engineers put an insecticide gene into the DNA of corn, the corn cell had no previous experience so did not know what to do with it. To compensate, scientists sent in a new gene containing a switch (a promoter) that is permanently turned on and set to a high intensity.
The selection of the genetic material used in the promoter presents a dangerous challenge in that the cell normally protects DNA from foreign invaders.
However, there are certain highly aggressive genetic invaders that can by-pass a cell’s defense – most notably, viruses, some of which are cancer-causing and can create havoc on the DNA and the entire host organism.
Biologists have taken a light switch from one of these viruses, since it works in the DNA of all types of plants. Called the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter, it is designed to bully a plant cell’s natural defensive devices so that the foreign DNA will not be expressed.
Scientists warn that the energy and resources that an organism requires to keep a gene switched on round the clock in every cell will ultimately pay the price in the health of that entire plant or animal (humans included).
The potential danger of the CaMV promoter is far greater. Scientists all over the world are calling for its immediate ban, fearing that this promoter may be one of the reasons why GE foods are so unstable.
Numerous studies are showing that the CaMV promoter not only turns on the foreign gene to which it is attached, but other native genes as well, including those that are supposed to stay dormant.
This would be like the blue-eye genes and the whites of the eyes both producing their proteins against the wishes of the cells. The CaMV promoter may turn on native genes over long distances up and down the DNA strand and in different chromosomes. There is simply no way to turn it off or even adjust the volume!
Hot Spots: GE promoters can create hotspots in the DNA, causing the whole DNA section or chromosome to become unstable. This instability has the same impact as a heavy dose of gamma radiation.
Waking Sleeping Viruses: Some scientists believe this is the greatest threat from GE crops. Laboratory research has demonstrated that the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops creates new and highly virulent viruses.
Since only about 1% of a human’s DNA has been identified as genes, scientists have always believed the rest to be ‘useless junk DNA’. (Once again, we have reason to fear scientific wisdom.)
Shooting foreign genes into sections of junk DNA has always been considered a safe zone; but in reality, the opposite may be true.
The CaMV promoter, used in nearly all commercialized GE crops, could very well be reactivating viruses. In addition to waking viruses in the DNA of corn, soybeans, and other GE crops, scientists are concerned that the promoters might move between organisms through horizontal gene transfer.
For example, if the CaMV promoter from a kernel of GE corn wanders off inside the human stomach and reattaches to the DNA of a dormant virus, instead of promoting the intended insecticide gene, it may now be switching on a virus.
Cancer: One of the CaMV switch consequences may be cancer. Many scientists are now seeing that this promoter could affect the stomach and colonic linings by causing a growth factor effect, thereby hastening the development of abnormal cells.
Breathing Genetically Modified DNA: Since no research is being done to verify the possibility that harm could be generated from breathing in GE pollen, there is only an expressed concern about such a possibility. We cannot continue to believe the biotech industry since it has proven to be untrustworthy up to this point in time.
Without the evidence of experiments, the industry is making claims that the CaMV promoter does not function in animals, only in plants. If it did, they say, simply eating a vegetable with its natural viruses would create problems. But, according to concerned scientists, there is a vast difference between the CaMV in vegetables and the CaMV promoter used in GE foods.
The viruses in vegetables are protected by a protein coat wrapped around the DNA. This prevents it from entering the cells of mammals. The promoter, on the other hand, is a naked viral DNA with no such restrictions, which means it can be activated in animals.
Synthetic Genes: The main assumption of GE scientists is that foreign genes will act the same way in a new host organism. However, most foreign genes used in GE crops are not natural. They are synthetic and only assumed to be the equivalent of the natural genes.
Since plant and bacterial genes use different sequencing to describe certain amino acids, the codes of bacterial genes have to be altered so they will act correctly in the plant. Differences between the natural genes and altered genes have been ignored, especially the bacterial genes used in Bt and Roundup Ready crops.
Genetic Disposition: For reasons not yet understood, inserting the same gene into different varieties of the same plant species can have widely varying results.
It is also possible that certain varieties of the same species may be more prone to unwanted and potentially dangerous side effects when implanted with a new gene.
Scientists simply do not know because they do not have a full grasp on how a particular plant’s genetic disposition dictates the results of genetic engineering. Furthermore, safety testing procedures do not concern themselves with the variation either.
Unpredictable Complex Interactions: When a foreign gene is inserted, the whole metabolic process is changed, and not just the one thing on which that particular scientist is concentrating. Each change will impact other pathways. Genes influence each other as do proteins. Altered proteins can activate or de-activate genes. With each change comes a new interaction which sets off even more changes.
This type of unpredicted chain reaction may have produced the toxin responsible for the deadly, nationwide EMS (eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome) epidemic in 1989. Patients were suddenly being struck with mysterious debilitating symptoms, including pain greater than any doctor had ever seen before.
Other symptoms included skin hardening, cognitive problems, headaches, extreme light sensitivity, fatigue, heart problems and in the worst cases, paralysis. Finally, a doctor in New Mexico noticed something in the blood – the white blood cell count (eosinophils to be exact) was off the charts at over 10,000.
The culprit that was finally found was L-tryptophan. Named as the cause of thousands of cases of illness and about forty deaths, the supplement was quickly banned. After an investigation, it was found that only one manufacturer out of six seemed to be the ultimate source.
Showa Denko KK was Japan’s fourth largest chemical manufacturer and largest US supplier of L-tryptophan. The contaminant responsible for this outbreak was eventually found to be the GE bacteria used to increase yields of their product dramatically.
However, the GE bacterium was also producing other dangerous alterations. Consequently, the public was never told the real reason for the ban on L-tryptophan.
Instead, the industry called on the FDA to put a stop to any idea that GE was responsible. One agency had known for months that the contaminated L-tryptophan was created by GE bacteria, but withheld that information.
Passed off as a ‘health food fraud’, L-tryptophan (like hemp years before) was labeled as a dangerous substance by GE conglomerates.
Rearranged Codes: Sometimes during the process of genetic engineering, the result is a rearranged sequence of genetic information. Although the cause is not clear, it may be associated with the effect of the gene gun combined with the cell’s attempt to repair the wounds. When codes are rearranged, so is the final outcome.
Gene Stacking: The opportunity for unpredicted interactions increases dramatically when GE crops are engineered with not just one foreign gene, but with multiple ‘stacked’ genes.
For instance, Monsanto’s New Leaf potato was stacked with eight different traits, including creating its own pesticide, resisting diseases, tolerating herbicides, increasing its own weight, and reducing bruising.
GE crops can also accidentally acquire additional foreign genes through cross-pollination.
One such example was when Canadian canola plants ended up with foreign genes from two different companies, each conferring tolerance to its own brand of herbicide.
Stacked genes and their proteins may interact in dangerous ways. Traditional pesticides illustrate this when they are mixed with other pesticides or chemicals which cause a multiplication of their strength.
In fact, scientists have found that the Bt toxin created by varieties of GM corn, cotton, and canola becomes more deadly to insects when mixed with very small amounts of a naturally occurring antibiotic – a byproduct of bacteria.
However, since no tests have been done to determine if this enhanced toxicity is dangerous to humans or wildlife, there is only speculation until someone works up nerve enough to find out for sure.
Nutritional Problems: Any change in the DNA, whether intended or accidental, will influence a plant’s nutritional content. Studies have already pointed out numerous differences in the composition of GE corn and soy compared to their natural counterparts.
It is becoming clear that altered nutrition can lead to a multitude of side effects, commonly known as diseases and disorders. For example, cows fed GE Roundup soy produce milk with an increased fat content, opening the door to the already known host of health concerns caused by increased use of improper fats.
Allergens: GE can transform a harmless food into one containing a potentially deadly allergen in at least three different ways:
- the level of the naturally occurring allergen might be increased;
- a gene taken from one type of food might transfer allergic properties when inserted into another food,;
- unknown allergens may result from foreign genes and proteins never before being a part of the human food supply.
Human Error: Humans are involved in a number of things that can happen either intentionally or by accident. They are also known to work with obsolete theories and limited understanding in fields where there is ample room for error. Some errors are caught while others are missed. For instance:
- One that was missed was reported in the UK in 1999. Apparently, whether by accident or by design, Monsanto mixed up crucial information about a foreign gene that was inserted into herbicide-tolerant corn, and the incorrect data was submitted for a safety assessment so it could be approved. This led to all sorts of accusations of misrepresentation and sloppy research which was far below the required minimum standards. Even more shocking was that the mistake had already gotten past regulators in the US where the corn had already been approved.
- Another type of error was discovered. Nearly 400 pigs used in US biotech research accidentally got into the food supply when they were sold to a livestock dealer instead of being destroyed. A similar thing occurred when GE piglets had been accidentally ground into poultry feed.
- There have also been numerous incidences of unapproved crop varieties ending up in the food chain in the US. StarLink corn is the most famous example. GE crops modified to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals have also contaminated nearby crops through pollen transfer or accidental mixing. (But, do not worry, the offending farmer will be sued for his carelessness in allowing insects to fly or the wind to blow such contamination onto his land!)
- Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans had already been on the market for seven years when it was revealed in May of 2000 that the previously held assumption that only a single foreign gene (along with its CaMV promoter) was inaccurate. Two additional gene fragments had been inserted ‘accidentally’. This only served to reaffirm that genetic modification is a clumsy process and not as precise a science as people are led to believe. There is no control over how many genes, in what order, or where they are inserted. Later, Belgian scientists published their discovery that adjacent to one of those rogue inserted gene fragments was a sequence of DNA (534 bases) that was not part of the Roundup gene and was not natural soybean DNA either. Whatever the reason for it being there, the abnormal DNA was large enough to produce a totally new protein that was potentially harmful.
These episodes certainly dwarf any concern the US had over one mad cow that may have come from Canada!!
Experiments That Have Gone Wrong
The following are just a few examples of what has gone wrong. Keep in mind that this is just the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg.
In 1985, pigs were engineered with a human gene that produced the human growth hormone. One of the first litters born revealed that a female piglet had no anus or genitals. Some were too lethargic to stand. Others had arthritis, ulcers, enlarged hearts, dermatitis, vision problems, and renal disease.
Scientists engineered tobacco to produce a particular acid; but, instead, the plant also created a toxic compound not normally found in tobacco.
Monsanto engineered two types of cotton: one was to withstand Roundup Ready applications and the other was to produce its own pesticide called Bt. The plants were not supposed to have any other novel attributes. However, in the first year that the cotton was planted, tens of thousands of acres malfunctioned. In Missouri, plants dropped their cotton bolls, while others died on contact with the herbacide they were engineered to tolerate. In Texas, 50% of the Bt cotton failed to provide the predicted level of insecticide and numerous farmers had problems with germination, uneven growth, lower yields, and other problems.
Scientists were genetically modifying yeast to increase fermentation when they were shocked to discover that it also increased levels of a naturally occurring toxin by up to 200 times. The scientists also found that their yeast, which had not been inserted with foreign genes, but rather with multiple copies of the yeast’s own genes, was not substantially equivalent to normal yeast, as it is assumed by many governments GMO policies.
Oxford University scientists, who were attempting to suppress an enzyme in a potato, accidentally boosted its starch content. Although not necessarily a health hazard, the point is, when something is genetically engineered, the outcome simply cannot be predicted despite claims to the contrary. Not only that, but time and time again, scientists express shock in their creating something altogether different from their original intention.
Safety Assessments
In the June 2002 issue of Science magazine, an extensive search of scientific journals revealed only eight articles that had studied the safety of GE foods. Of these, only four involved feeding trials and three of those were conducted by Monsanto. Yet biotechnology companies are allowed to claim their GE foods are subjected to more scientific and regulatory scrutiny than any foods in history!
The claim by GE proponents is that “no one has ever become sick from eating them”. How could they possibly know this for fact? Several scientists have repeatedly expressed concern over the potential health risks of introducing virus genes into GE plants, particularly ones known to be infectious. For example, the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus could increase the risk of colon and stomach cancer, in addition to being an infectious agent. Since disease has dramatically increased, especially in North America, the home of GE foods, such an increase should warrant more investigation.
Soybean Safety Measures
Below is a listing of safety measures that are supposed to be carried out on soybeans. To date, none of these safety requirements have been carried out on GE soybeans.
- To make sure that code scramblers do not rearrange the code on foreign genes and create new, unexpected proteins, researchers are required to identify the type and quantity of all the proteins in the soybean, both before and after modification. This is to ensure that the CaMV light switch does not accidentally turn on any native genes in the soy’s DNA. This has not been done.
- To protect against the unintended behaviour of hitchhiker molecules, researchers should make sure that their new protein is devoid of these molecules. In order to do this, they would need to look for them in every part of the plant and in multiple growing conditions. They have not.
- To avoid a misfolding of the new protein by the soybean’s chaperone folders, scientists should compare the shape of their protein with that in its natural state in the bacterium, also under varied conditions. This has not been done.
- Careful inspection of the GE plant’s entire DNA structure should be done to make sure that the process of inserting the gene or the CaMV hot spot does not disrupt any other sequence. Obviously, this has not been done since two fragments of foreign DNA and the mystery DNA sequence were missed for seven years.
- Position effects of the foreign gene as well as other factors can cause gene silencing where native genes are accidentally turned off. Needless to say, this difficult challenge has never been attempted by scientists before presenting GE foods for widespread approval.
- Researchers also have ailed to safeguard against the creation of new viruses, which, theoretically might occur by either activating the host’s sleeping viruses or through horizontal gene transfer.
- Antibiotic resistance is not an issue for Roundup Ready soy, but it is with GE corn. This has not been adequately tested.
- Effects on the environment have been assessed only under very limited conditions. Effects were measured using only a few factors, as crop yield. Thus, such tragedies as the monarch butterfly can easily occur and, in addition to polluting other crops, water, and air. None have been adequately assessed.
- Synthetic genes are considered to be equivalent to natural ones, but any potential differences are not addressed in GE research.
- Very little research has evaluated unanticipated changes caused by complex interactions or to multiple foreign genes, either produced by gene stacking or through cross-pollination.
- Researchers have not even looked for effects caused by the transfer of genetic material via ingested meat or milk, through contaminated water, or by inhaling GE pollen. They assume none of these transfers are possible.
- Concern that the CaMV promoter might lead to cell growth and cancer has not been ruled out through rigorous, or even simplified, studies.
- Although some nutritional studies have been carried out, none have come close to being exhaustive enough to identify the numerous differences that may be present.
- Researchers have also failed to test adequately for potential allergic reactions in the soybean. Although some cursory analysis is said to have been done, there is actually no such test that has been devised!
Therefore, whatever safety measures to which Monsanto and other biotech companies are referring in their propaganda, it appears that they do not even come close to minimum safety standards that should be in place.
Therefore, until there are, consumers should continue to boycott such foods.
