注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

蒋高明的博客

中国科学院植物研究所研究员,从事植物生态学研究

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

联合国教科文组织人与生物圈中国国家委员会副秘书长、中国科学院植物研究所首席研究员、博士生导师、山东省人民政府泰山学者、中国科学院研究生院教授、联合国教科文组织人与生物圈计划城市组委员、中国生态学会副秘书长、中国生物多样性保护基金会副秘书长、中国环境文化促进会理事、中国植物学会植物生态学专业委员会委员、北京植物学会常务理事、青年工作委员会主任、中国生态系统研究网络生物分中心学术委员、中国科学院植物研究所学位委员会委员、

网易考拉推荐

[转载]Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engine  

2014-01-08 22:30:56|  分类: 环保呐喊 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats AteGenetically Engineered Soy
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Most-Offspring-Died-When-Mother-Rats-Ate-Genetically-Engineered-Soy-October-2005

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seedsof Deception

The Russian scientist planned a simpleexperiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influenceoffspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten amulti-billion dollar industry.

Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at theInstitute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academyof Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats.Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet begantwo weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy andnursing.

Ermakova's first surprise came when herpregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite abit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared toabout 6% from the other groups (see photo below).

http://responsibletechnology.org/images/content/122.jpghttp://responsibletechnology.org/images/content/123.JPG 

 

Photo oftwo rats from 
the Russian study, 
showing stunted growth—
the larger rat, 19 days old, 
is from the control group; 
the smaller rat, 20 days old,
is from the "GM soy" group.

But the real shock came when the ratsstarted dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soygroup died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44(6.8%) from the non-soy controls.

Ermakova preserved several major organsfrom the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organanalysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptlyran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for ayear. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposiumorganized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote"PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her paper. She presented it onOctober 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.

Her findings are hardly welcome by anindustry already steeped in controversy.

GM Soy's Divisive Past

The soy she was testing was Monsanto'sRoundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soyplant to survive applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brandherbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soyderivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority ofprocessed foods sold in the US,many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.

The FDA does not require any safety testson genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declaretheir foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for thishands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that states,"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived bythese new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniformway."[1] The statement, itturns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years laterrevealed that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different andmight lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritionalproblems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies,but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently,Monsanto's former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDAmicrobiologist described the GM food policy as "just a politicaldocument" without scientific basis, and warned that industry would"not do the tests that they would normally do" since the FDA didn'trequire any.[2] He was correct.

There have been less than 20 published,peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials—inspite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canoladaily. There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology, tissuepathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and animalfeeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductiveproblems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova's researchparticularly significant. It's the first of its kind.

Past Studies Show SignificantEffects

Other studies on Roundup Ready soy alsoraise serious questions. Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier,showed that mice fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellularanomalies.[4] This indicatesincreased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to thatorgan. Mice also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in theproduction of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which couldinhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin,which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one studyshowed that GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancerfighting.[7]

An animal feeding study published by Monsantoshowed no apparent problems with GM soy,[8] but theirresearch has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto usedmature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy upto 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had hugevariations in starting weights. The study's nutrient comparison between GM andnon-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydratecontent, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsantoresearchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences,which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published papershowed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while therecovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy wascooked. This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GMsoy was introduced.

The gene that is inserted into GM soyproduces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens.This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the onlyhuman feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfersinto the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after youdecide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing thispotentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.

The migration of genes might influenceoffspring. German scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice inthe brains of their newborn.[10] Fragments ofgenetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver andkidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clearif the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientistsspeculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it mightimpact offspring.

The health of newborns might also beaffected by toxins, allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. Thesemay be created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. Theprocess of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own naturalgenes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can alsochange the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformedcell into a GM plant through a process called tissue culture can createhundreds or thousands of additional mutations throughout the DNA.

Most of these possibilities have not beenproperly evaluated in Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations oraltered gene expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed,however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that wasscrambled[12] and twoadditional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's detection.

Those familiar with the body of GM safetystudies are often astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, severalscientists who discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concernsabout the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities,or censured.[13] And when problemsdo arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developedpotentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles,damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions inthe livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems withtheir blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in thedeath rate. (See Genetically Engineered Foods May PoseNational Health Risk.) None have been adequatelyfollowed-up or accounted for.

Ermakova's research, however, will likelychange that. That's because her study is easy to repeat and its results are soextreme. A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating thestudy is the only reasonable option.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study

I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, withher permission, at the annual conference of the AmericanAcademy of Environmental Medicine(AAEM) in Tucsonon October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking theUS National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independentfollow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said,"Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are beingconsumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous,independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the populationat risk."

Unfortunately, there is a feature about GMcrops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratoryanalyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Readysoybeans.[14] In each case, thegenetic sequence was different than that which had been described by thebiotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That'sunlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmedthat the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. Butthe sequences discovered in Brusselsdidn't all match those found by the French.[15] This suggeststhat the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It alsomeans that they are creating new proteins—ones that were never intended ortested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore bequite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.

Unstable genes make accurate safetytesting impossible. It also may explain some of the many problems reportedabout GM foods. For example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say thatcertain GM corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have falsepregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany claimsthat a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others tofall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin,respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating.The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination,and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bttoxin—created by the GM corn.

These problems may be due to particular GMvarieties, or they may result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" dueto genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences,however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine cornstudy described above, for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel,even in the same plant.[16]

With billions of dollars invested in GMfoods, no adverse finding has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry'sgrowth in the US.It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. Thatis why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the study holds up, it maytopple the GM food industry.

I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM'srequest, and fund an immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding isnot forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise themoney. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.


Click here for 
press release on Russian rat study.

Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of EnvironmentalMedicine.

Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team ofinternational scientists to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He isthe author of Seeds of Deception , the world'sbestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers inKids' Meals.

from October 2005 Spilling the Beans newsletter
? Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith

Permission is granted to publishers and webmastersto reproduce this article. Please contact column@responsibletechnology.org tolet us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.




本文引用地址:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-475-757203.html 
  评论这张
 
阅读(43)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017