Re: Long Range resuls of ingesting genetically engeered foods

The consumption of genetically engineered food by humans and the short-term 
and long-term effects are very controversial.  You can find people who will 
argue either side of the issue.  Here are two opinions:


First, the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. 
jane henney, is quoted in an interview published by the FDA Consumer:

(the web site address is:  http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdbioeng.html)


FDA Consumer: Do the new genes, or the proteins they make, have any effect 
on the people eating them?

Dr. Henney: No, it doesn't appear so. All of the proteins that have been 
placed into foods through the tools of biotechnology that are on the market 
are nontoxic, rapidly digestible, and do not have the characteristics of 
proteins known to cause allergies.

As for the genes, the chemical that encodes genetic information is called 
DNA. DNA is present in all foods and its ingestion is not associated with 
human illness. Some have noted that sticking a new piece of DNA into the 
plant's chromosome can disrupt the function of other genes, crippling the
plant's growth or altering the level of nutrients or toxins. These kinds of 
effects can happen with any type of plant breeding--traditional or biotech. 
That's why breeders do extensive field-testing. If the plant looks normal 
and grows normally, if the food tastes right and has the expected levels of
nutrients and toxins, and if the new protein put into food has been shown 
to be safe, then there are no safety issues.

FDA Consumer: You mentioned allergies. Certain proteins can cause 
allergies, and the genes being put in these plants may carry the code for 
new proteins not normally consumed in the diet. Can these foods cause 
allergic reactions because of the genetic modifications?

Dr. Henney: I understand why people are concerned about food allergies. If 
one is allergic to a food, it needs to be rigorously avoided. Further, we 
don't want to create new allergy problems with food developed from either 
traditional or biotech means. It is important to know that bioengineering
does not make a food inherently different from conventionally produced 
food. And the technology doesn't make the food more likely to cause 
allergies.

Fortunately, we know a lot about the foods that do trigger allergic 
reactions. About 90 percent of all food allergies in the United States are 
caused by cow's milk, eggs, fish and shellfish, tree nuts, wheat,
and legumes, especially peanuts and soybeans. 

To be cautious, FDA has specifically focused on allergy issues. Under the 
law and FDA's biotech food policy, companies must tell consumers on the 
food label when a product includes a gene from one of the common 
allergy-causing foods unless it can show that the protein produced by the 
added gene does not make the food cause allergies.

We recommend that companies analyze the proteins they introduce to see if 
these proteins possess properties indicating that the proteins might be 
allergens. So far, none of the new proteins in foods evaluated through the 
FDA consultation process have caused allergies. Because proteins resulting
from biotechnology and now on the market are sensitive to heat, acid and 
enzymatic digestion, are present in very low levels in the food, and do not 
have structural similarities to known allergens, we have no scientific 
evidence to indicate that any of the new proteins introduced into food by
biotechnology will cause allergies.


Second, here is what the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group has 
to say:
(their web address is:  http://www.cfra.org/MSAWG-GE.htm)


Health concerns that arise with genetic engineering include the potential 
for increased allergenicity, decreased efficacy of antibiotics and 
increased cancer risks.

   1.Increased allergens and toxins in the food system. 

     GE [genetic engineering] has the potential to increase allergens in 
the food system through the introduction of known allergens to a new food 
host where the allergens cannot be readily identified. The process of GE 
could create new toxins and increase the prevalence of allergens and toxins 
in the food system.

     A well-known example of the transference of a known allergen is 
Pioneer’s use of GE to insert a gene from the Brazil nut into soybeans to 
increase their protein level. Although the transferred Brazil nut gene is a 
known allergen, the soybean had passed animal tests and was considered safe 
for consumption. A study at the University of Nebraska revealed that people 
who were allergic to Brazil nuts also reacted to the transgenic 
soybeans.

     This situation revealed some glaring deficiencies in regulatory 
procedures. First, it was the Nebraska study that kept the product off the 
market, not regulatory procedures. (Pioneer voluntarily kept the soybean 
off the market once the Nebraska study was published). Second, genetically 
engineered foods are not labeled, and people with Brazil nuts allergies 
would not be able to identify products containing the GE soybeans. Third, 
although Brazil nut allergiesy areis currently rare, adding the gene to 
soybeans could increase exposure and, most likely, reactivity.

     Another unintended and unpredictable consequence of genetic 
engineering is the creation of new allergens or toxins. Even if the 
transferred gene itself is not allergen producing, it may cause an 
imbalance in the chemistry of the new genome and create new "bioactive 
compounds or change the concentration of those normally present."20 As Dr. 
Marion Nestle points out in The New England Journal of Medicine, "Genes 
encode proteins; proteins can be allergenic."

   2.Loss of effectiveness of antibiotics. 

     Many GE crops contain genes that code for resistance to antibiotics as 
well as the genes that code for agronomic traits. Antibiotic resistance is 
used during the development process as a "marker" to identify plants that 
have successfully incorporated the new traits. However, these antibiotic 
resistant genes may be inadvertently transferred to micro-organisms. This 
transfer could reduce the efficacy of existing antibiotics by creating 
resistant strains of bacteria. If more antibiotics lose their effectiveness 
due to resistant bacteria, consumers with antibiotic allergies have fewer 
safe choices and the chances of bacterial diseases becoming untreatable 
increases.

   3.Increase in exposure to hormones and antibiotics. 

     Many consumers choose not to purchase products that increase their 
exposure to hormones and antibiotics. A case in point is the GE hormone 
that is used to increase milk production in cows. Studies show that cows 
injected with this GE hormone, known as recombinant bovine growth hormone 
(rBGH or Rbst), have increased susceptibility to mastitis and other health
problems.22 Because of these bovine health problems associated with rBGH 
more antibiotics are often used to improve the health of the cows. 
Consumers have expressed concern over conflicting scientific evidence about 
the residue levels of rBGH, antibiotics, and Insulin Growth Factor –1 (a 
hormone known to increase risk of cancer in some humans when found in   
elevated levels) in dairy products from cows treated with rBGH.23 As a 
result of consumer demand, some dairy manufacturers are labeling their 
dairy products as  rBGH-free. Canada banned the use of BGH in 1999. Several 
studies were undertaken as part of the  decision-making process on whether 
or not to ban rBGH in Canada. One of these studies, the "Gaps Analysis" 
found that insufficient evidence on oral absorption of  rBGH and IGF-1 and
procedural and data gaps were found which failed to properly address 
the human safety requirements of rBGH.24 The United States remains the only 
developed country permitting the use of rBGH.