one or more new traits that are not already found in that organism.

Examples of genetically engineered (transgenic) organisms cu

derstood.

subunits represented by the letters A, T, G, and C. The order

habet makes up words using 26 letters, the genetic language
w and live.

le protein. This can be compared to a recipe for making a food dish. A recipe is a set of instructions for making a single dish.

genome can be compared to a cookbook of recipes that makes that organism what it is. Every cell of every living organism has

y can regulate reactions that take place in the cell. Or they can serve as enzymes, which speed-up reactions. Everything you see i

ould be like if all cookbooks around the world were written in

ing. When a gene for a desirable trait is taken from one
rait.

nism and inserting it into another, giving it the ability to express the trait encoded by that gene. It is like taking a single recipe ou
cted. This is called gene cloning.

nism.
transformation. The most common transformation technique uses a bacteria that naturally genetically engineer plants with its ow
coated with copies of the transgene into cells of the recipient organism. With either technique, genetic engineers have no control

istics of the final product. So genetic engineering does not eliminate the need for traditional breeding. It is simply a way to add n

m’s traits, there are some key differences between them.

moves genes through mating, or crossing, the organisms in

er recipe from each into one cookbook. The product is a new
ng of a cross come from each parent.

ng, it does have disadvantages. Since breeding relies on the

at already exist within that species. Genetic engineering, on the
minates the need for mating and allows the movement of genes
ted.

are passed on to the offspring. This may include many undesirable genes for traits that are not wanted in the new organism. Gen

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

‘Genetic engineering’ is the process to alter the structure and nature of genes in human beings,
animals or foods using techniques like molecular cloning and transformation. In other words, it is
the process of adding or modifying DNA in an organism to bring about great deal of
transformation.

‘Genetic engineering’ was thought to be a real problem just a few short years ago. We feared that
soon we would be interfering with nature, trying to play God and cheat him out of his chance to
decide whether we were blonde or dark haired, whether we had blue or bright green eyes or even
how intelligent we were. The queries and concerns that we have regarding such an intriguing part
of science are still alive and well, although they are less talked about nowadays than they were
those few years ago.

However, this does not mean that they are any less relevant. In fact, they are as relevant today as
they ever were. There are a number of very real and very troubling concerns surrounding genetic
engineering, although there are also some very real benefits to further genetic engineering and
genetic research, too. It seems, therefore, as though genetic engineering is both a blessing and a
curse, as though we stand to benefit as well as lose from developing this area of science even
further.

With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve
the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to
see the effect of changes to the genetic code.
–Stephen Hawking
Pros of Genetic Engineering
Although at first the pros of genetic engineering may not be as apparent as the cons, upon further
inspection, there are a number of benefits that we can only get if scientists consider to study and
advance this particular branch of study. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Tackling and Defeating Diseases

Some of the most deadly and difficult diseases in the world, that have so resisted destruction,
could be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. There are a number of genetic mutations
that humans can suffer from that will probably never be ended unless we actively intervene and
genetically engineer the next generation to withstand these problems. For instance, Cystic
Fibrosis, a progressive and dangerous disease for which there is no known cure, could be
completely cured with the help of selective genetic engineering.

2. Getting Rid of All Illnesses in Young and Unborn Children

There are very many problems that we can detect even before children are born. In the womb,
doctors can tell whether your baby is going to suffer from sickle cell anemia, for instance, or
from Down ’s syndrome. In fact, the date by which you can have an abortion has been pushed
back relatively late just so that people can decide whether or not to abort a baby if it has one or
more of these sorts of issues. However, with genetic engineering, we would no longer have to
worry. One of the main benefit of genetic engineering is that it can help cure and diseases and
illness in unborn children. All children would be able to be born healthy and strong with no
diseases or illnesses present at birth. Genetic engineering can also be used to help people who
risk passing on terribly degenerative diseases to their children.
For instance, if you have Huntington’s there is a 50% chance that your children with inherit the
disease and, even if they do not, they are likely to be carriers of the disease. You cannot simply
stop people from having children if they suffer from a disease like this, therefore genetic
engineering can help to ensure that their children live long and healthy lives from either the
disease itself or from carrying the disease to pass on to younger generations.

3. Potential to Live Longer

Although humans are already living longer and longer – in fact, our lifespan has shot up by a
number of years in a very short amount of time – because of the advances of modern medical
science, genetic engineering could make our time on Earth even longer. There are specific,
common illnesses and diseases that can take hold later in life and can end up killing us earlier
than necessary. With genetic engineering, on the other hand, we could reverse some of the most
basic reasons for the body’s natural decline on a cellular level, drastically improving both the
span of our lives and the quality of life later on. It could also help humans adapt to the growing
problems of, for instance, global warming in the world. If the places we live in become either a
lot hotter or colder, we are going to need to adapt, but evolution takes many thousands of years,
so genetic engineering can help us adapt quicker and better.

4. Produce New Foods

Genetic engineering is not just good for people. With genetic engineering we can design foods
that are better able to withstand harsh temperatures – such as the very hot or very cold, for
instance – and that are packed full of all the right nutrients that humans and animals need to
survive. We may also be able to make our foods have a better medicinal value, thus introducing
edible vaccines readily available to people all over the world

Cons of Genetic Engineering

Perhaps more obvious than the pros of genetic engineering, there are a number of disadvantages
to allowing scientists to break down barriers that perhaps are better left untouched. Here are just
a few of those disadvantages:

1. Is it ‘Right’?

When genetic engineering first became possible, peoples’ first reactions were to immediately
question whether it was ‘right’? Many religions believe that genetic engineering, after all, is
tantamount to playing God, and expressly forbid that it is performed on their children, for
instance. Besides the religious arguments, however, there are a number of ethic objections. These
diseases, after all, exist for a reason and have persisted throughout history for a reason. Whilst
we should be fighting against them, we do need at least a few illnesses, otherwise we would soon
become overpopulated. In fact, living longer is already causing social problems in the world
today, so to artificially extend everybody’s time on Earth might cause even more problems
further down the line, problems that we cannot possibly predict.

2. May Lead to Genetic Defects

Another real problem with genetic engineering is the question about the safety of making
changes at the cellular level. Scientists do not yet know absolutely everything about the way that
the human body works (although they do, of course, have a very good idea). How can they
possibly understand the ramifications of slight changes made at the smallest level? What if we
manage to wipe out one disease only to introduce something brand new and even more
dangerous? Additionally, if scientists genetically engineer babies still in the womb, there is a
very real and present danger that this could lead to complications, including miscarriage (early
on), premature birth or even stillbirth, all of which are unthinkable.

The success rate of genetic experiments leaves a lot to be desired, after all. The human body is so
complicated that scientists have to be able to predict what sort of affects their actions will have,
and they simply cannot account for everything that could go wrong.

3. Limits Genetic Diversity

We need diversity in all species of animals. By genetically engineering our species, however, we
will be having a detrimental effect on our genetic diversity in the same way as something like
cloning would. Gene therapy is available only to the very rich and elite, which means that traits
that tend to make people earn less money would eventually die out.

4. Can it Go Too Far?

One pressing question and issue with genetic engineering that has been around for years and
years is whether it could end up going too far. There are many thousands of genetic scientists
with honest intentions who want to bring an end to the worst diseases and illnesses of the current
century and who are trying to do so by using genetic engineering. However, what is to stop just a
handful of people taking the research too far? What if we start demanding ‘designer babies’,
children whose hair color, eye color, height and intelligence we ourselves dictate? What if we
end up engineering the sex of the baby, for instance in China, where is it much more preferable
to have a body? Is that right? Is it fair? The problems with genetic engineering going too far are
and ever present worry in a world in which genetic engineering is progressing further and further
every day.

Genetic engineering is one of the topic that causes a lot of controversy. Altering the DNA of
organisms has certainly raised a few eyebrows. It may work wonders but who knows if playing
with the nature is “really safe”? Making yourself aware of all aspects of genetic engineering can
help you to form your own opinion.
Most people don't realize they may be eating foods from genetically engineered (GE) crops. The
FDA does not require labeling. (I wonder why?). More than 30 GE crops are now approved for
sale in the US. From 60% to 80% of foods in grocery stores (mostly processed foods) contain at
least some GE ingredients such as soft drinks, candy bars, aspartame, canola oil, veggie burgers,
tortilla chips, tacos, milk, cheese, tomato paste, berries, papaya, yellow squash, potato chips, and
more. Genetically modified (GM) soy and corn are frequently used in livestock feed.

Genetic modification occurs by transferring genes from one organism to another by processes
that do not occur in Nature. It is not a simple matter of selecting a gene that produces a desired
trait and neatly inserting it into the target plant, animal, or microorganism. In reality, all current
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are extremely complex constructions with DNA
segments of bacterial, viral, or insect genes and/or antibiotic-resistant markers. Direct insertion
is not yet possible, so a "shotgun approach" is used. Either genetic material is shot into target
cells after the cell membrane is weakened by an electric shock or chemical, OR a modified
microorganism is used to infect the target cell with the new gene. It is never known where the
new gene lands or if it will work. A common way to determine if the new gene will work
involves the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes from antibiotic resistant bacteria. The
marker genes are attached to the gene with the desired trait and shot into the target cells. The
cells are then cultured and an antibiotic is added. The cells that survive have adopted the new
gene. When the cells grow into a plant, every part of that plant contains antibiotic-resistant
genes which, in as little as two hours after consumption by either animal or human, can be
transferred to human gut bacteria.

When foreign DNA is inserted into a target cell, one of three defensive mechanisms occurs:
Usually the foreign DNA is digested and used as amino acids and energy. It may also be
rejected. Or, the cell may enclose the foreign DNA and deactivate it. Whichever the response,
the cell will not have the desired trait from the new gene. To overcome this natural protective
process, a construction with a virus section (e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus) is built along with the
new gene and the antibiotic-resistant marker gene. The virus provides the signal that activates or
promotes the new gene, ensuring that the gene is active and the desired trait works in the new
plant. Every current GMO plant is part virus.

There is concern that recombination of viruses in GMOs with other viruses may produce highly
virulent viruses. Since GM constructs are designed to cross species barriers and invade genomes
(complete sets of chromosomes), they are likely to transfer horizontally, increasing the
opportunity for genetic recombination. The cauliflower mosaic virus, for example, is unstable
within chromosomes of GM plants. Later generations of the plants become unstable and variable.
The virus moves from one part of a chromosome to another, activating the gene next to it. It
randomly causes genes within the plant to work in ways that would not normally occur. This can
lead to future problems including reduction or imbalance of beneficial phytonutrients. GM
constructs can escape into wild relatives of the plants or contaminate non-GMO crops as has
occurred with canola, corn, and soybeans. Additional "unexpected" DNA has been discovered in
GM soybeans. In other words, GMOs make up a large-scale uncontrolled experiment.

Scientists are manipulating Nature without really knowing what they are doing or what the
outcomes will be. This is not a mere refinement of natural selection or breed improvement.
Nature does not splice genes in a laboratory or insert genetic materials from one species to
another such as fish genes into strawberries or human genes into pigs. There is much too much
NOT known about mix-and-match gene play. "The more rearranging and changing you do to a
gene, the more likely you'll get unexpected effects." It is impossible to manipulate a gene and
not have some radical effect on protein formation, structure, or behavior. Different types of
proteins can be produced; "funny" proteins that might measure well in lab tests but fail
biologically.

It does not take a big change in genetics to create toxins or aberrant chemistries. Potential
dangers are real. It may sound good to increase the disease resistance or protein content of a food
crop. But if the crop creates allergies or disrupts the normal biochemical balance or if its pollen
confuses bees or poisons butterflies or infects nearby crops, the ecology (Nature's inter-
connectedness) suffers. It is similar to the medical viewpoint of killing bacteria with an
antibiotic, numbing an arthritic knee with a powerful masking drug, or poisoning a tumor. What
about the impact on the rest of the body? The synergy, the intricate interactions of the whole are
ignored, often with disastrous effects. And the cause of the original problem is bypassed and
only the symptom is treated.

In biochemistry there is a specific limitation to the kinds of molecules that are compatible in a
single cell. Proteins made in living organisms are a very narrowly selected group of molecules
from among the various types of proteins that could be made. Scientists are now synthesizing
proteins that are NOT normal, proteins with amino acid sequences that no one has ever seen in a
living cell. Proteins are not only specialized sequences of amino acids; they are also folded or
convoluted in innumerable specific ways. Genes, the proteins they make, and other components
involved do not work in isolation, but function in cooperative groups, "the complexity of which
we are only just beginning to appreciate." Genes in their complex groupings are "finely tuned"
to work harmoniously. Boundaries have been established by Nature so reproduction takes place
normally only between closely related forms or species. Now humans are clumsily tinkering
with this intricate system. Pigs have been implanted with spinach genes in an attempt to make
"healthier" pork. Efforts to put wax-producing genes in corn are being made to create cornflakes
that do not get soggy in milk. Claiming that moving DNA from one species to another as a
natural thing to do is absurd. If one part is inserted, there is no way of knowing what will happen
when it confronts other parts that were carefully and delicately arranged by Nature. GE is an
unnatural and very perilous process.
Plants contain 20,000 to 80,000 genes. Animals and humans have an estimated 80,000 to
150,000 genes. In spite of glowing reports of scientific advances, the gene "maps" for plants,
animals, and humans are still extremely incomplete; only a few percent of all the genes are
known. Even less is known about how genes are switched on as an integrated whole to produce
correct combinations of proteins in the correct place, time, and quantity. An overt trail of dead
bodies has not yet appeared, but then proteins act slowly. There are thousands of protein
molecules within a cell and all of them will not change quickly nor at the same time. Slow,
harmful changes may be taking place already. "This is inherently a very unpredictable,
dangerous process." i

AGRICULTURE & ENVIRONMENT

THEORETICALLY, GE crops mean g

reater yields, less pesticide use, little or no plowing with reduced soil runoff, better meat, more
milk, and other impressive outcomes. What is the truth about these claims?

Fewer toxic chemicals? It is claimed (who, the manufacture?) that GE crops reduce the need for
intensive use of chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Yet many GE crops are
designed to be MORE resistant to these chemicals so more can be used! Weed resistance to
Roundup is increasing on Roundup- Ready crops like soybeans, corn, and cotton. There is
"sometimes" less success with weed control on herbicide-tolerant crops than on conventional
varieties. Farmers spray MORE weed killer, not less. GE crops designed to kill pests are
causing MORE pests. Larvae of some insects grow bigger and faster fed GE crops than do
larvae fed non-treated crops. Insects attack and consume unhealthy plants. GE plants attract
more pests and that means more pesticide use. Insect pests are developing resistance to GE
crops much faster than expected. Tests confirm the need for a refuge - planting at least 20% of
fields with a non-GE crop variety -- to harbor susceptible pests. But migration of GE genes
increases the rate of pest resistance. Scientific reports say that farmers who grow GE crops may
need additional pesticide sprayings AND different combinations of pesticides in order to
maximize yields. Since 1996 when GE crops made their big debut, pesticide use has increased
by about 50 million pounds. More pesticide use means more pollution of air, water, and soil.
The impact on wildlife has "yet to be determined."

Roundup applications change the microbial composition of soil. Major colonization of several
distinct types of fungi is one consequence. So is soil sterilization. Roundup remains in the soil
for as long as three years. Bt bacteria seeps into the soil through roots and stays there at least
seven months, depressing soil microbes that help plants grow. "Monoculture of genetically
homogenous crops can increase vulnerability to pests and disease." If reducing the use of
pesticides and other toxins was a real goal, why not encourage the time-tested, poison-free,
environmentally safe choice: organic agriculture?

Better for the environment? Plants engineered to produce proteins with pesticidal properties,
such as Bt toxin (from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), can have direct and indirect effects
on "non-target species." For example, toxins from Bt primarily target certain beetles, butterflies,
and moths such as the European corn borer. Yet effects can occur on "nonpest species" in these
insect groups. For example, Bt corn fed to larvae of green lacewings (a beneficial insect that is a
major predator of corn pests) doubles its death rate. GMOs indirectly impact populations of
species that depend on the "pests" trying to be controlled for their reproduction and survival.
Control of weeds by herbicide-tolerant crops can mean less food available for various species.
Some GE crops are already known to affect soil ecosystems, impact soil fertility, reduce species
diversity of soil microorganisms, and lower crop diversity and productivity above ground.

Pollen from Bt corn was found to kill monarch caterpillars, imperiling the safety of the monarch
butterfly, a "nonpest" insect. There "may be a slow and chronic effect" on larvae of lacewings
and monarchs as well as other species of insects, birds, and animals. What happens to Bt-corn
pollen if rain washes it off the fields and into streams? Is the aquatic food chain also in jeopardy?
In spite of the fact that several studies demonstrated the increased mortality of monarch
butterflies feeding off Bt-contaminated plants, the Environmental Protection Agency decided (in
2000) that there is little danger to the butterflies or any other animal. Bt toxin seeps into the soil
and, binding to clay particles and humic acids, making them not available for normal bacterial
breakdown. It can stay active for at least 234 days. Pollen falling on the ground and cornstalks
plowed back into the soil adds more Bt into soil. Long-term effects of Bt toxin and other GE
toxins on soil and soil organisms are not entirely understood, mostly due to lack of research (by
the companies that manufacture and profit from these poisons). Effects of Bt corn fed to
livestock are unknown (same reason?). Genetic pollution will eventually place the entire
environment at risk.

"Weeds" may be considered undesirable, yet all of them are necessary. Some are therapeutic
herbs, wildflowers, important sources of fodder, attractions for beneficial insects or
microorganisms, sources of soil nutrients or toxin removers, etc. Others are native plants needed
by animal species for survival. Genetic contamination of conventional and organic crops or
related wild plants by pollen of GM crops will eventually result in ecological disturbances,
permanent adulteration of seed stocks, "superweeds," and possibly even infertile seeds.
Raise healthier meat and milk animals? Bovine somatotropin (BST or bovine growth hormone)
is a natural protein produced by cattle. A GE version, recombinant bovine somatrotropin (rBST)
is used to boost milk output in dairy cows. Over 30% of herds are affected so far. Use of rBST
on cattle has produced severe mastitis and other problems for the animals. The milk has elevated
levels of insulin-like growth factor which some researchers believe puts consumers at risk for
problems such as cancer. Another use of biotech for milk is the enzyme chymosin, a GE-derived
rennet substitute used in more than 50% of US cheese production.

Human genes have been inserted into animals to try to create giant pigs and sheep. A growth-
regulating gene of cattle has been inserted into pig embryos with the hope of creating a leaner,
larger variety of pig. The "Macro-Chicken" carries a growth gene of cows. GE salmon grow
twice as fast as normal salmon; if they escape and mate, the wild population will be wiped out.
A GE chicken will produce antibiotics in its own eggs. Then there are low-cholesterol eggs,
vitamin-enhanced meat, or meat with reduced fat content. Numerous transgenic animals have
been or are being created. Most embryos do not survive. Those that do live grow into creatures
which often suffer ill health and many die. Growth hormone from extra genes, for example, can
adversely affect the liver, kidneys, skeleton, immune system, and heart - but since the animals
grow quickly, they are ready for slaughter before severe problems develop. Then humans eat the
meat or eggs. In 2003, 386 piglets that were offspring of transgenic parents "may have entered
the food supply" inadvertently(?).

GM crops for livestock feed supposedly increase and speed up production as well as lessen
pollution and disease resistance. But modern "intensive livestock production" - raising animals
in unnatural, unhealthy, distressing conditions - are the real causes of the underlying problems in
the first place! GM crops fed to animals are creating even more problems. Hogs raised on GE
corn have birthing problems which disappear when farmers revert back to regular corn. Use of
Bt corn feed is a quick way to kill cows according to farmers. Numerous cases are reported in
which cattle refuse to graze Bt-corn stubble, hogs go off feed when GE grains are included in
their rations, cattle stop eating when given GE silage, the rate of weight gain drops when feed is
switched to a GE type, and cattle ignore available GM crops but mow down non-GE plants.

Genetic drift. Although the public was assured (by whom?) that transgenic plants would stay put,
the spread of GE heritage across the countryside occurs by ubiquitous gene drift. From 20% to
50% of farm acreage is required to be planted with non-altered crop varieties to preserve a buffer
zone. One reason is to preserve some diversity in crop varieties for the environment's sake. But
it is not working. Cross pollination occurs over large distances. Pollen travels much farther than
anticipated and remains at the same level, not decreasing exponentially with distance. Canada's
canola crop, for example, has been "hopelessly contaminated" by GMOs. Weeds may acquire
traits from herbicide-resistant plants. Herbicide-resistant genes have been found in 63% of
surrounding fields tested. Standard seed stocks of crops like corn, canola, and soybean have
been compromised. Test results indicate that "broad corruption" of crops must be assumed. The
presumption that seeds of traditional varieties of crops are free of GE elements has been
shattered. Biodiversity has already suffered serious impacts. This will continue unabated.

Seeds that are supposedly non-GMO may be unintentionally tainted. GE DNA was found in at
least half of tested corn and soybean seeds, and 83% of canola seeds. Organic food crops may
become inadvertently contaminated. If discovered, harvested organic crops cannot be sold as
"certified organic". GMOs can pass newly altered genes into the environment, permanently
changing genetic codes of other organisms. Gene tampering may annihilate the gene pool of
heirloom varieties of crops that are capable of taking up a wide spectrum of nutrients. Genetic
drift will create more havoc than chemical drift with potentially irreversible effects. GMOs,
once let loose, cannot be recalled. Biopharm crops are food crops engineered to produce
pharmaceutical (drug) ingredients. A GE rice modified to produce an antimicrobial and anti-
diarrheal, for example, if grown in quantity, will no doubt contaminate the food supply. "No one
wants drugs in their food," but these types of crops carry that very real potential. "Goofs" such
as when a GE crop designed to produce a pig vaccine was found to have contaminated
commercial crops, 500,000 bushels of soybeans had to be destroyed. How many other "goofs"
have not been caught?

Feed the hungry? A 1998 USDA study found that 66% of GE seeds produced no significant
differences in crop yield. A 1999 study showed that, of more than 8,200 field trials, Roundup
Ready soybean seeds produced lower yields than non-GE seeds. GE seeds are more expensive
and often yield less than traditional seeds. For example, indigenous varieties of rice are hardier
than GE varieties. "Contrary to the promise made by the biotech corporations, the reality of the
last ten years shows that the safety of GM crops cannot be ensured, that they are neither cheaper
nor higher quality and that they are not the magical solution to solve world hunger." Food
production may be reduced. Biotechnology creates dependency with monoculture as a
byproduct. Twice as much food is already produced than needed to feed all 6 billion people on
earth. It is trade policies, wars, drought, or floods that cause famine, not low productivity. ii

HUMAN HEALTH

Since GE foods entered the marketplace in 1996, the number of foods in the supermarket
containing GM ingredients has grown. For example, many bottled salad dressings and vegetable
oils contain canola, a seed crop that is now mostly a transgenic type containing an enzyme that
makes it immune to the herbicide Roundup. The public is told that canola oil is perfectly safe to
eat. But critics point out that it was never tested for human safety and its animal testing "was
woefully short and inadequate." Many researchers believe this and other GMOs have the
potential to cause health problems in people - from hormonal disruptions, allergies, and toxicity
to poisoning, birth defects, and cancer.

Allergic reactions. Genetic engineering can transfer new and unidentified proteins from one type
of organism into other organisms used as foods. How does a person's body cope with a new,
foreign protein? People with or who develop allergies can react, sometimes violently, to the GE
variety. For example, in the mid-1990s, a type of GM soybean containing a gene from the Brazil
nut caused reactions in people allergic to Brazil nuts. Even those not allergic to the food from
which a gene was inserted may have a reaction.

Trypsin inhibitor (an allergen with anti-nutritional effects) is 26.7% higher in Roundup Ready
soybeans. A 2000 study found a dramatic 50% increase in the incidence of soy allergy. This
does not prove that the increase in GM soy production caused the rise in soy allergies, but it was
the first time soy was among the top 10 allergenic foods. Due to innumerable unknown proteins
created during genetic manipulations, there are no tests for assessing the allergen potential of GE
foods.

StarLink, a Bt corn, was approved for use as a food for animals only, not for humans. In 2000,
the FDA recalled over 300 kinds of tacos and related corn products found to contain StarLink
corn. Pollen drift evidently contaminated corn grown for human consumption. The Bt organism
is heat stable and resistant to degradation in gastric juices - significant indicators for allergenicity.
Virtually an entire village of 39 people living adjacent to a large field of Bt-maize was stricken
by a disease with respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions as well as fever. Tests indicated an
immune reaction to GM-maize pollen. What effect will eating the meat or milk of animals fed
Bt corn have on consumers? Only time will tell. When the Bt bacterium is inserted into
vegetable cells, it is always present. Constant exposure can cause pre-allergy immune changes.
Even tiny amounts of Bt in foods can trigger an allergic reaction. The more one eats such foods,
the more likely an allergy will develop. About 70% of farm workers directly exposed to the Bt
toxin develop an allergic response within three months. What of people increasingly exposed
through their food? Bt releases a toxin in low-acid environments; how about people who take
antacids or have low hydrochloric acid production?

Health damage. In 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his colleagues developed a type of GM potato
that made its own pesticide. The pesticide was a lectin considered safe for consumption. Rats
fed the lectin-producing GE potatoes showed damage to the immune system, thymus, kidneys,
spleen, gastrointestinal tract (including precancerous cell growth); poor brain development; and
smaller brains, testicles, and livers. The adverse effects were apparently NOT caused by the
lectin or by the transferred gene, but by the PROCESS of genetic engineering. Such problems
apply not only to the potatoes, but to ALL transgenics using the same technology. After making
these results public, Dr. Pusztai was fired and gagged with legal threats. However, his findings
were confirmed in subsequent studies by scientists from 13 countries. A few years later, 22
leading scientists signed a full-page ad in The New York Times stating that GE foods contribute
to immune suppression.

The potential for GM food crops to produce a protein that is potentially dangerous to humans is
"very real". A "scrambled section of DNA" was found in GM soybeans that had no relationship
to soybeans. The injected gene had produced an "unexpected" protein. When genes from a
different organism are injected, they "disrupt the contextual relationship that exists between the
gene and the rest of the cell." Foreign proteins that have never been in human foods are now
being consumed. "I worry about GMOs being hormone disruptors and in that respect perhaps
being carcinogenic," says one scientist. Harmful effects may not be apparent for years, making it
difficult to establish a direct association between exposure and disease.

GMOs survive passage through the digestive tract, albeit in degraded form. Fragments of
foreign genes inserted into foods were detected in the brain cells of baby mice. Scientists
wonder whether genetically-altered foods could pose genetic hazards for humans. The genome
is specific to each species and appears to contain a fixed number of genes. The addition of extra
genes from a different species may disrupt the natural gene balance. Inserted genes may transfer
to other cells and parts of plants or animals. Cells may react to the foreign invader genes by
producing known or unknown toxins, which GE yeast did in the case of L-tryptophan some years
ago. Most US milk products come from cows injected with rBGH), a GE hormone. The milk
contains elevated levels of IGF-1, a growth regulator that can accelerate cancer growth. GM
bacteria may transfer their antibiotic-resistant genes to bacteria in the human digestive tract. If
normal, healthful intestinal bacteria are destroyed (as in antibiotic therapy, for example), the
transfer rate of normal bacteria to antibiotic-resistant bacteria can increase tenfold.

Nutrition. Biotech claims that altered foods will bring "improved nutritional profiles," better
nutrient content and improved taste. (A method already exists for doing this: called organic
farming.) An example is "golden rice," a GM variety that contains increased levels of beta
carotene and iron. It also aids iron absorption (by a phytase gene to break down phytic acid that
may hinder iron absorption). But an adult would have to eat almost 20 pounds of cooked rice
daily to get the required amount of beta-carotene. A four-year old child would have to eat 27
bowls of cooked rice. This "kibble" approach to nutrition discounts the other complementary,
synergistic carotenoids, vitamins, trace minerals, and other natural contents, known and
unknown, that accompany beta-carotene and iron in natural, complete, balanced foods. Phytic
acid occurs in seeds (grains, beans, nuts, etc.) for good reason and releases valuable nutrients
when the food is properly processed. Besides, dark leafy greens and other untampered-with
foods already provide carotenes and iron in a wide variety of ways and in complete packages.
Even in poor countries like India, traditional recipes contain greens such as coriander and curry
leaves that contain more carotenoids than "golden rice." Coriander leaves contain 1400 IU beta-
carotene compared to 30 IU in a similar volume of golden rice. Why take risks when Nature has
already done a better job?

Seed oil in a model plant, Arabidopsis, was altered to increase alpha-tocopherol content ninefold.
Though called "vitamin E," alpha-tocopherol is just one small part of the vitamin E complex.
What of the other tocopherols, tocotrienols, selenium, various fatty acids, and other components
that naturally accompany alpha-tocopherol in unaltered foods? What happens to the ecology of
the plant since alteration of one part affects all other parts? A corn plant has been engineered to
produce up to four times the normal amount of "vitamin C" (ascorbic acid). Attempts are being
made to insert a gene into cattle and poultry that would result in beef, milk, and eggs containing
the omega-3 fatty acids found in salmon. In development are a tomato with increased levels of
lycopene and a soybean that will produce an oil containing little or no saturated fat. Other gene-
altered "functional foods" are being readied for market, fortified with vitamins, spliced with
"disease-fighting capabilities," modified to be lower in fat, and so on.

Yet the more foods are engineered, the lower their REAL nutritional value. For example,
concentrations of isoflavones (thought to protect against heart disease and some cancers) are
lower (by 12% to 14%) in GE soybeans than in traditional strains. The nutritional value of GM
tomatoes and other altered foods is also lower. And it is unclear whether humans can properly
absorb or use GE nutrients. In addition to essential vitamins and minerals, plants produce 80,000
of the 100,000 "characterized secondary metabolites" on earth, a myriad of phytochemicals.
Specific phytochemicals are often unique to certain plant species or genera wherein they play
specific roles for the plant or for animals or humans that consume them. The bioavailability of
trace elements and other essential nutrients may be greatly reduced when root mycorrhyza and
other soil micro-organisms are harmed or destroyed by Bt toxin. Destruction of soil
microorganisms and increased herbicide use, lower the vitality, disease resistance, and nutritive
value of plants and the animals that eat them.

GMOs can be more susceptible and less adaptable to unpredictable and uncontrollable
environmental influences such as climatic or temperature changes, fungi, insects, pollution, pH,
nutrient resources, competitive or pathogenic organisms, toxic chemicals, etc. New diseases may
evolve in GM plants or animals and in the humans that consume them. Recombinant DNA can
remain viable after a transgenic plant or animal has died or been consumed, possibly becoming
incorporated into the genome of other organisms. The subject of GMOs is so complex that
scientists cannot predict what they may do to people. The effects may be subtly pervasive and
slowly incremental. Perhaps Nature will limit adverse consequences, but that is not known. To
avoid GE foods as much as possible, obtain foods that are certified organic. Trustworthy local
farmers or food producers may also not be using GM seed, feed, or ingredients. Look at PLU
codes on the sticky labels of fruits and vegetables in stores. GE items have a 5-digit number that
begins with ‘8' (84011 for a GE banana). Organic items begin with number ‘9' (94011 for an
organic banana). Avoid highly processed foods. Be brand loyal to companies that do not use
GM ingredients. Take dietary supplements that are free of GM raw materials, though they will
be more expensive. Iii