Consumer health concerns

• Toxic reactions in digestive tract
• Liver and other organ damage
• Reproductive failures and infant mortality
• Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
• Allergies
• Pesticide-producing GM crops
• Increased herbicide use
• Why don't we see more human problems?

Pesticide-producing GM crops

Pesticide-producing GM crops may cause allergies
In addition to herbicide tolerant crops, the second major trait in GM crops is built-in pesticide production. When bugs take a bite of such a GM plant, the toxin creates holes in their stomach and kills them.

The fact that we consume that same toxic pesticide is hardly appetizing. But biotech companies tell us that the pesticide, called Bt-toxin, has a history of safe use, is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and wouldn't react with humans or mammals in any event. Research tells a different story.

Bt-producing crops dangerous to humans
For years, organic farmers and others have used solutions containing natural Bt bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis) as a method of insect control. Used as a spray by organic farmers, Bt degrades easily in the soil. But in Bt crops, the Bt doesn't degrade; every cell of the plant (and food) exudes the Bt pesticide all the time at full potency.

Studies verify that natural Bt-toxin is not fully destroyed from digestion and does react with mammals. Mice fed Bt-toxin, for example, showed an immune response as potent as cholera toxin, and become immune sensitive to formerly harmless compounds.^28,29

Moreover, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions — mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms.^30,31

Farm workers and others also report serious reactions.^{32,33,34,35,36} Authorities have long acknowledged, "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."³⁷

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is "vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry."³⁸ GM plants produce about 3,000 to 5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays, which also are designed to be more toxic than natural varieties.³⁹ Like the protein in GM soy, properties of Bt protein fail the WHO criteria designed to prevent allergenic GM crops from being approved.

Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions
In 2005, a medical team reported that hundreds of agricultural workers in India are developing allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton, but not to natural varieties.⁴⁰ Their symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt (see table).

	Upper respiratory	Eyes	Skin	Overall
Bt Spray	Sneezing, runny nose, exacerbations of asthma	Watery, red	Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling	Fever, some in hospital
Bt cotton	Sneezing, runny nose	Watery, red	Itching, burning, eruptions, red, swelling	Fever, some in hospital

Bt corn pollen may cause allergies
Bt-toxin is produced in several varieties of GM corn. The toxin can be eaten intact or even breathed in from pollen. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people was stricken by mysterious skin, respiratory, and intestinal reactions. The symptoms appeared progressively from those living closest to the field to those further away.

Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to Bt-toxin — supporting, but not proving, a link. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas — only during the time of pollination.

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group; it warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.⁴¹

If Bt genes transfer to human bacteria, either in the lungs or, as confirmed in the soy study above, in the intestines, the microorganisms may be converted into living pesticide factories, possibly producing Bt-toxin inside of us year after year.

This section on Consumer Health Concerns from genetically modified food crops is derived entirely from the work by Jeffrey M. Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and author of “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods” and “Seeds of Deception.” www.responsibletechnology.org

References

28. Vazquez et al, "Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice," Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897-1912; Vazquez et al, "Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice," Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147-155.
29. Vazquez et al, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant," Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
30. Washington State Department of Health, "Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program," (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
31. M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848-852.
32. M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, "Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray" (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).
33. A. Edamura, MD, "Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture," (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
34. J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, "Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide," J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)", Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)
35. M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848-852.
36. A. Edamura, MD, "Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture," (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
37. Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)," Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).
38. Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, "Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their quote was: G. Stotzky, "Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis," found in Deborah K. Letourneau and Beth E. Burrows, Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002), 187-222.
39. See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea," Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441-7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, "Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)," Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2-3 (2004): 175-183.
40. Ashish Gupta et. al., "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh)," Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005.
41. N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF's Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, "Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants," http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64-68).