Half of the corn and soybean crops in the U.S. are gene spliced with bacteria.

From Dr. Dixon in Britain:

quote:

---

What is Genetic Engineering?
Genetic engineering is the alteration of genetic code by artificial means, and is therefore different from traditional selective breeding.

Genetic engineering examples include taking the gene that programs poison in the tail of a scorpion, and combining it with a cabbage. These genetically modified cabbages kill caterpillers because they have learned to grow scorpion poison (insecticide) in their sap.

Genetic engineering also includes insertion of human genes into sheep so that they secrete alpha-1 antitrypsin in their milk - a useful substance in treating some cases of lung disease.

Genetic engineering has created a chicken with four legs and no wings.

Genetic engineering has created a goat with spider genes that creates "silk" in its milk.

Genetic engineering works because there is one language of life: human genes work in bacteria, monkey genes work in mice and earthworms. Tree genes work in bananas and frog genes work in rice. There is no limit in theory to the potential of genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering has given us the power to alter the very basis of life on earth.

---

And they're doing it to our food. In the USA, the Food and Drug Adminstration has decided that gene spliced foods don't need to be labeled, because they are safe. Yet no studies have been done that proves that they are safe in the short term or the long term. Americans are now being used a guinea pigs to see what happens when they take insect and animal genes and splice them into the food crops. I haven't yet found how Canada is handling this situation, but in Europe there have been riots against the use of GMO foods.

------------------
________________________
Even so come, Lord Jesus
Linda

I have collected quite a bit of information that I want to post on this subject, but here is a little bit of good news.

quote:

---

From: emailmsf@kelloggs.com
To: lrs1952@hotmail.com
Subject: Contact Us Feedback - Morningstar Farms [T2000100100FX]
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:21:51 -0400

To: kelagent@speedymail.com

Thank you for contacting us regarding the ingredients used in our products.

Throughout its 60-year history, Worthington Foods has provided consumers with
the best tasting, highest quality vegetarian and other healthful foods. We will
continue to do so as part of Kellogg Company.

The ingredients we use have been approved by the appropriate regulatory
authorities and all of our products comply with the food labeling requirements
in the markets in which they are sold throughout the world. Nevertheless, we
recognize that consumers of Worthington Foods products may prefer that such
products not include ingredients produced through biotechnology. For this
reason, we have completed a conversion to non-genetically modified soy proteins
in all Morningstar Farms(R), Worthington, Natural Touch(R) and Loma Linda(R)
products.

We are currently purchasing all non-genetically modified soy proteins and have
been using these in production since April 1, 2000. These products have filled
our distribution channels and should be in consumers' homes by this time.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. We appreciate your interest in
Worthington Foods products and look forward to your continued patronage.

Katina
Consumer Affairs
Kellogg Company

---

Kellogg's cereals are not GMO free. They continue to be made with genetically altered corn and soybeans. Keep that in mind the next time you want a bowl of corn flakes for breakfast.

------------------
________________________
Even so come, Lord Jesus
Linda

Yikes. I knew genetic engineering wasn't good but . . .

I am not completely sure what Canada is doing about food labelling. I do know, however, that there is a petition in the health food store I frequent (Vita Health) requesting that genetically engineered foods be listed in the ingredients of foods. Hopefully the petition will win out!

------------------
Sarah Moss
*Prayer Changes Things!*

So, after eating these foods, one of our children or grandchildren, gets sand in their mouth, spits it out, and kills all the insects in a 4 block radius, do you think they will think there is a problem?

------------------
What is popular is not always right.
What is right is not always popular.
Gerry B.

Genetically engineered corn

from Rueters, 12-1999

quote:

---

Dr Guenther Stotzky and researchers at New York University have shown that BT corn — the seed variety which is resistant to corn borer pests — releases an insecticide through its roots into the soil.

The toxin remains in the soil because it is not easily broken down. It retains its insecticide properties, which could help to control pests or promote insects resistant to the pesticide — the scientists aren't sure which.

"Further investigations will be necessary to shed light on what might happen underground," Stotzky and his colleagues said in a report in the science journal Nature.

Their work is the first to show that the toxin from the genetically-engineered BT corn can seep into the soil.

Stotzky said so far there was little evidence that GM technology was potentially harmful but the discovery would add to the confusion about the safety of GM crops.

---

from Rueters, 2000

quote:

---

Gene Used as Pesticide

Bt is short for bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil bacterium that acts as a pesticide. The gene has been inserted into millions of acres of UL.S. corn and cotton plants to repel the European corn borer, bollworms and other pests.

The researchers placed potted milkweed plants in and around Bt cornfields to simulate naturally occurring conditions.

Pollen from Bt crops also drifts onto nearby plants, including those eaten by harmless insects like the Monarch. The orange and black butterflies are at greatest risk within 10 meters of Bt fields, Obrycki said in an interview.

"There exists a good possibility that we will see some mortality of Monarchs in the field," he said. "The level and amount will depend on the timing of when the corn is shedding its pollen and when the Monarch larvae are in the fields."

The Iowa study analyzed the impact on larvae from two types of BB corn developed by Novartis AG and sold under the brand names NatureGard and Attribute. The research built upon work by Cornell scientists who created a stir one year ago when they reported Monarch larvae died when fed relatively large amounts of Bt corn pollen in the laboratory.

Novartis defended the safety of its Bt corn, saying the new study did not duplicate real-world conditions.

"Research conducted outdoors doesn't indicate what happens in a field environment," said Novartis spokesman Rich Lotstein. "The weight of evidence of published and preliminary research indicates that milkweed within one meter of Bt corn fields are highly unlikely to be dusted with toxic levels of Bt pollen."

A dozen university researchers stretching from Canada to the Midwestern corn belt are currently studying Bt corn fields and whether the pollen impacts migrating Monarch butterflies.

University of Illinois scientists said in June they found no ill effects for black swallowtail butterfly caterpillars who ate pollen from a variety of Bt corn developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont Co.

---

------------------
________________________
Even so come, Lord Jesus
Linda

From the statement of James H. Maryanski, Ph. D, Biotechnology Coordinator, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, United States Senate. October 7, 1999

quote:

---

FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
First, let me explain what we mean when we refer to food biotechnology or genetically engineered foods. Many of the foods that are already common in our diet are obtained from plant varieties that were developed using conventional genetic techniques of breeding and selection. Hybrid corn, nectarines (which are genetically altered peaches), and tangelos (which are a genetic hybrid of a tangerine and grapefruit) are all examples of such breeding and selection. Food products produced through modern methods of biotechnology such as recombinant DNA techniques and cell fusion are emerging from research and development into the marketplace. It is these products that many people refer to as "genetically engineered foods." The European Commission refers to these foods as Genetically Modified Organisms. The United States uses the term genetic modification to refer to all forms of breeding, both modern, i.e. genetic engineering, and conventional.

The new gene splicing techniques are being used to achieve many of the same goals and improvements that plant breeders have sought through conventional methods. Today's techniques are different from their predecessors in two significant ways. First, they can be used with greater precision and allow for more complete characterization and, therefore, greater predictability about the qualities of the new variety. These techniques give scientists the ability to isolate genes and to introduce new traits into foods without simultaneously introducing many other undesirable traits, as may occur with traditional breeding. This is an important improvement over traditional breeding.

Second, today's techniques give breeders the power to cross biological boundaries that could not be crossed by traditional breeding. For example, they enable the transfer of traits from bacteria or animals into plants.

In conducting its safety evaluations of genetically engineered foods, FDA considers not only the final product but also the techniques used to create it. Although study of the final product ultimately holds the answer to whether or not a product is safe to eat, knowing the techniques used to create the product helps in understanding what questions to ask in reviewing the product's safety. That is the way FDA regulates both traditional food products and products derived through biotechnology.

---

quote:

---

Judge dismisses GM labeling lawsuit

10/5/2000
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by biotechnology critics who demanded required labeling on foods made with genetically modified crops. The lawsuit was a direct challenge to FDA's policy that considers gene-altered crops to be essentially the same as those produced by conventional breeding methods and thus not subject to the same regulatory controls as food additives.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the biotech foes failed to prove that FDA violated procedural and environmental laws in establishing the policy or that the agency should mandate labeling of the foods. She further wrote in her decision that unless the agency decides biotech ingredients are materially different from conventional products, it "lacks a basis upon which it can legally mandate labeling, regardless of consumer demand."

. . . The FDA is currently finalizing a mandatory review proposal that will be open for public comment in the next few months.

Several anti-biotech organizations, including The Center for Food Safety, and a group of scientists and religious leaders originally filed the lawsuit against FDA in 1998 by. Representatives for the groups said they don't plan to appeal the decision and will instead wait to see what rules FDA's mandatory review proposal suggests.

Edited by Scott Hegenbart
Managing Editor, Food Ingredients Online

---

Tidbits About genetic engineering from different sources.

quote:

---

Using crops genetically engineered to resist weedkillers might harm birds — not because the genetic changes are harmful but because killing weeds means less food for birds, researchers said today.

Some farms where such crops are used could see a 90 percent drop in the number of weeds — a boon to farmers but bad news for hungry birds, Andrew Watkinson of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, said. . . .

Monsanto Corp., which makes the Round-Up Ready soybean genetically modified to resist its herbicide of the same name, was quick to issue a response to the study.

"It is important to understand that this is not an issue of biotechnology," the company, a division of Pharmacia Corp., said in a statement.

"It is an issue of weed control, whether through biotechnology or other methods. This mathematical model, and any conclusions drawn from it, must be viewed with caution because it does not reflect real farming conditions." {This seems to be a favorite retort to any studies showing harmful effects of GM crops}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

With bioengineered crops now in about two-thirds of America's processed foods, there are growing questions about what the government does to regulate them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

With the tools developed from biotechnology, a gene can be inserted into a plant to give it a specific new characteristic instead of mixing all of the genes from two plants and seeing what comes out. Once in the plant, the new gene does what all genes do: It directs the production of a specific protein that makes the plant uniquely different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Modifications have also been made to canola and soybean plants to produce oils with a different fatty acid composition so they can be used in new food processing systems. Researchers are working diligently to develop crops with enhanced nutritional properties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

French genetic researchers created Alba for artist Eduardo Kac. Thanks to genes borrowed from a jellyfish, the albino rabbit glows green when placed under special lighting. . . .

The French scientists created Alba using a process called zygote microinjection. In this process, the scientists plucked a fluorescent protein from a species of fluorescent jellyfish called Aequorea victoria. Then they modified the gene to make its glowing properties twice as powerful. This gene, called EGFG (for enhanced genetic fluorescent gene) was then inserted into a fertilized rabbit egg cell that eventually grew into Alba. As the cell divided, the "green gene" also replicated and made its way into every cell of Alba's body. . . .

Other researchers are working on developing glow-in-the-dark hair mousse, ink and cake frosting. There is even preliminary research underway to produce glow-in-the-dark beer and champagne.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FDA Consumer: Let me ask you one more scientific question. I understand that it is common for scientists to use antibiotic resistance marker genes in the process of bioengineering. Are you concerned that their use in food crops will lead to an increase in antibiotic resistance in germs that infect people?

Dr. Henney: Antibiotic resistance is a serious public health issue, but that problem is currently and primarily caused by the overuse or misuse of antibiotics. We have carefully considered whether the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in crops could pose a public health concern and have found no evidence that it does.

---

"It directs the production of a specific protein that makes the plant uniquely different." The producers claim this is not harmful, but I am reminded of the fairly new disease, spongiform encephalopathy, better known as mad cow disease in cattle, scrappie in sheep, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. This disease is based, not on bacteria, not on viruses, but on protein called prions. How can we be sure that GM foods will not start a chain reaction that could well lead to other similar prion based diseases? Nobody on earth knows.

[This message has been edited by Linda Sutton (edited October 10, 2000).]

I couldn't decided how to cut this down and rewrite it, so I am posting the whole article.

quote:

---

Genetic Engineering Critics Meet to Sound Alarm for India

NEW DELHI (Sept. 30) XINHUA - They have come from different parts of the world and have different professions, but they have one common enemy -- genetically engineered products and one common cause -- to "save" India from the disastrous end of "genetic pollution".

Though dubbed "Genetic Engineering or Organic: Which Future For Agriculture?", the press conference hosted by Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) and International Forum for Agriculture (IFA) here this afternoon turned out to be a gathering of pure critics of the introduction of genetic engineering (GE) in farming and foods.

"We are trying to form an international coalition against GE products, which are being introduced across the world," said Dr. Vandana Shiva, director of RFSTE, an India-based environment activist group.

They might sound a bit radical and biased, but one after hearing their stories would surely feel they are not worrying for nothing.

"Five years ago, genetically engineered rape seeds were introduced in our region, which were claimed to be more nutritious with better yields and less use of chemicals. But now they have turned out to be less yielding and less nutritional and the chemical cost goes up 6 times more than originally thought," said Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Saskatchewan, Canada.

Moreover, Schmeiser, who claimed to have spent 15 years developing his own rape seeds and have chosen not to use the GE seeds, was sued by Monsanto, the world's leading GE seeds distributor, for "intellectual theft" as the GE seeds crossed into his land from his neighbors' fields.

"I was forced to launch a counter-suit against Monsanto for developing a 'super-weed' they themselves cannot control," said Schmeiser, who is still fighting the legal battle.

Revealing a more appalling story, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a nutritional scientist from Scotland, claimed that studies he and his colleague conducted on animals showed genetically engineered potatoes "interfere with" the normal development of internal organs, tissues and immune system of young rats, thus having "a potential harmful effect" to health.

As soon as he released his report, he found himself against the "whole scientific establishment" and faced enormous pressure from the biotechnology industry, said Pusztai, adding that "some scientists are also genetically modified by the genetic modification industry".

Ellen Hickey, one of the founders of the U.S.-based Genetic Engineered Food Alert Organization, said that contrary to the impression that GE food is warmly welcomed in America, many consumers have no idea what the supermarkets are selling to them, and that "once they learn the truth, their reaction range from sorrow to anger".

While consumers in rich countries are rejecting GE foods and forcing the authorities to recall them from store shelves, developing nations like India are "being flooded with untested unlabeled genetically engineered foods", said a leaflet distributed by the RFSTE.

Genetically modified seeds and crops could also infuse toxins in the soil, contaminate genes of native plants and reduce bio- diversity, heighten the financial burden of poor farmers and lead to agricultural monopoly by multinational bio-tech corporations, said participants of the press conference, some of them also from Peru, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

"We are seeking a 10-year moratorium on commercialization of genetic engineering in food and farming in the country," said Vandana Shiva. She was echoed by Glenda Lindsay from South Africa, who is also heading a coalition in her country seeking a five-year freeze on GE products.

Dr. Pushba Bhargava, former director of India's Central Council of Microbiology, said that efforts should be made to prompt the government to strengthen testing of GE products and educate the farmers not to sign "blind contracts" while purchasing seeds.

However, all the opponents of GE products should know exactly what a mighty enemy they are fighting with, especially when there are still so many governments and so many people in the world that view genetic engineering as a fruit of hi-tech revolution and a propeller to agricultural production, in both quantity and quality.

Will Allen, a farmer from the United States, claimed that he and his fellow cotton growers had no other choice but genetically modified seeds, although such seeds had caused yield losses in all 18 U.S. southern states.

"We were forced by banks and seed companies to do so," said Allen, adding that while he and other farmers voluntarily formed a research group on organic farming, they could get no money from either the government or research institutes.

In India, Agriculture Minister Nitish Kumar has stated that it is imperative to adopt genetic engineering in Indian agriculture because of increase in productivity. The minister, however, also called for a debate on biotechnology.

In the southern state of Karnataka, state Chief Minister S M Krishna has bluntly called opponents of GE "quacks who spread rumors about the ill effects of biotechnology" and accused them of conspiring to "curb India's growing power". The state had formally started field trials of Biotech cotton from September 20.

Still, Shiva, Allen and their fellows believe they have every reason to be optimistic.

"We have great chance to win the battle," said Allen, who claimed that more and more farmers are joining his group and one day they will force the bank to allow them to go back to the track of organic farming.

Shiva noted that the Indian government has started bio-technology training for officials in relevant departments since four years ago and has also imposed strict procedure for GE products import clearance.

What's more important, she said, people across the world are becoming more cautious with their bio-safety awareness enhanced, as indicated by the fact that the use of genetically engineered seeds was down by 25 percent last year.

---

For more information, I am adding some website URLs in the Some Helpful Websites topic in this same forum.

------------------
________________________
Even so come, Lord Jesus
Linda