1. What’s the Harm in Genetically Modified Foods?
Lori B. Taylor, MA/MS
Registered Dietitian
South Whidbey Tilth – January 2015

2. Experience Dietitian for 15 years
Formerly molecular biologist, educator
Natural and conventional medicine training
Whidbey General Hospital –
Clinical Dietitian
Sustainability Coordinator
Consult privately for writing and speaking
Instructor for MS in Integrative & Functional Nutrition program, Saybrook University

3. Education BA Biochemistry, UC Berkeley, High Honors
MA Education, (Science Emphasis), Stanford University
MS Nutrition, Bastyr University
RD Internship, University of N Colorado
Permaculture Design Certificate – Regenerative Design Institute, Bolinas CA
Ecology of Leadership - RDI

4. Why do I care?
Permaculture ethics: people care, planet care, fair share
Public and environmental health issue
Health care has been relatively silent and needs to be involved
Need to sort science from ideology
Debate needs to be recast from technology to herbicides and pesticides to gain traction

5. Focus of this Talk Not on GM technology, but its use Approval process
Proteins and pesticide residues
Nutritional effects
Yield
Environmental effects
What you can do

6. For more info: GMO Myths and Truths, 2nd Ed.
What’s Left Out
Differences between natural breeding and GMO techniques
Genetic contamination/drift
Horizontal gene transfer to other organisms
Food sovereignty / seed freedom
Differences in US/European approval
For more info: GMO Myths and Truths, 2nd Ed.

7. The Ideology Criticism of GMO is unscientific
Quacks, bad science, conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hats, corporate haters, hippies
Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe
Anti-GMO folks are against science, progress, profit
No recorded injury to humans, millions of meals served, means foods are safe
GMOs will feed the world, deal with climate change, are more sustainable

8. Galileo and GMOs
Heliocentrism was branded as heretical by the Spanish Inquisition and books were burned.
Galileo was tried and condemned by the Catholic church – early 1600s
Vindicated scientifically, but not acknowledged by the church until 1992

9. Galileo and GMOs Fast-forward 400 years
Patent holders restrict GM material for research
Industry suppression of unfavorable results, legal threats
Harassment, loss of data files, research funding, academic position for researchers
Papers pulled from journals without sufficient cause
Critics branded as “un-scientific”
This time, specific corporations are pushing back
When scientific ideas threaten the power structure, science can be suppressed, and critics are labeled heretical
Persecution does not imply rightness – but we have seen this before

10. Science is Inclusive All evidence must be considered and weighed
“In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.”
ptions.php

11. Where the science is lacking
Restriction of base materials and research suppression
No labels, therefore no human studies
If it’s not being measured, no one can study it
Latest USDA study – very few pesticide residues, but
Glyphosate (RoundUp) not studied this year or last – and it is most heavily used pesticide in US
A USDA spokesman who asked not to be quoted said that the test measures required for glyphosate are "extremely expensive... to do on an regular basis”
Monsanto asked EPA for another increase in allowable food residues for glyphosate – and received it. Much higher in animal feed

12. Ethics Not taught routinely in science majors
Just because we can, does that mean we should?
How do we assess risks for new technologies?

13. Precautionary Principle
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
-Science and Environmental Health Network
Shifts burden of proof to showing an activity is safe, rather proceeding based on lack of evidence about harm
Best used when technologies are new
This principle has not been used with respect to GMOs.

14. Substantial Equivalence
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - trade group – 1993
“should demonstrate that the [genetically modified] food is as safe as its traditional counterpart”
FDA- 1992: adopted SE with direction
Compare toxicants, allergens, bioavailability, macronutrients, safety of novel proteins

15. Problems with SE Not a scientific concept No specifications for tests
No accepted reference foods
No quantifiable definition of substantial
Can’t predict biological effects from chemical makeup – consider prions vs proteins
Can’t forecast outside known allergens
Allergy analysis looks at expression in bacteria, not in plants
More accurate testing (genetic profiling) is in development – 23 years later

16. Privatized profits and socialized losses
SE is an Oxymoron
Same for regulatory purposes
Different for patentable purposes
Provides financial benefit to the developer
Patented seed and chemical factor
Transfers risk to the consumer
Privatized profits and socialized losses

17. Generally Recognized as Safe?
FDA considers to be substantially equivalent
Therefore – GRAS
Requires no pre-market testing or labeling
FDA consultation voluntary
Data submitted comes from GMO producer
Shield or omit negative results
In Europe only found through lawsuits

18. Substantial Equivalence Is Not
GMO corn and soy substantially non-equivalent
Nutrients outside published ranges
Very different protein productions
Field grown and herbicide-treated GMO soy
High levels of glyphosate (RoundUp) and breakdown products
Compositionally could sort out conventional, organic and GM varieties

19. How Prevalent are GMOs? 93% of soy crops 90% of corn crops Other foods
Soy protein, soybean oil, soy lecithin
90% of corn crops
Dried corn, high fructose corn syrup
Other foods
Sugar beets, canola oil
Papaya, yellow squash, zucchini
Alfalfa (animal feed), cotton
Likely prevalent in every processed food
Likely prevalent in almost all animal feed

20. Why Genetically Modify?
Herbicide tolerance
Glyphosate, 2,4-D (agent orange ingredient), dicamba, glufosinate
Internal pesticide production
Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Bt)
Different from external Bt sprays – does not break down with light or exposure to water
Produced by all parts of the plant – per acre production and our consumption much greater
Stacked traits – two (or now more) traits expressed in same time

21. Why Genetically Modify?
Note that we are modifying to support monocropping and crop-pesticide packages
GM foods are only solving problems created by the agriculture industry
Similar to antibiotic use in feedlot animals – supports unsustainable models of agriculture

22. Glyphosate Biological Effects
Endocrine disruptor at 800x lower than what is in food: human cell lines
3x birth defects and childhood cancers in areas of intense airborne spraying: humans
Malformations in vertebrate embryos
Adjuvants in RoundUp increase toxicity by 1000x: human cell lines
Kills beneficial GI bacteria: cattle and poultry
Liver and kidney damage: mice

23. Glyphosate Possible Connections
Chronic kidney disease of unknown origin in Global South
Glyphosate use in hard water farming areas
What’s behind rash of anencephaly cases in WA Central Valley?
Glyphosate heavily used for weed suppression in water ways
Malformations in vertebrate embryos similar as glyphosate interferes with vitamin A
I predict will be worse than DDT when the data is finally in

24. Other Sources of Glyphosate
Crop staging in non GMO crops
Facilitates dessication/dying for faster harvest, “last gasp” production of grain
Being used in wheat and sugar cane
May explain increase in wheat intolerance

25. Bt Biological Effects
Severe tissue changes in liver, kidney, spleen, small intestine and testis: rats
GI tract damage: fish and mice
Immune changes and increased inflammation: mice
Resistance to digestion: in vitro
Transfer to human fetus: Bt found in
Blood of 93% of pregnant women
80% of cord blood samples

26. Nutritional Significance
Liver and kidney damage – chronic disease
Gut immune function – new food allergies?
Endocrine disruptors – obesity, hormone-related cancers, in-utero effects
GI tract damage and dysbiosis – autism, food-borne illness, IBS, Crohn’s?
Bt lyses insect GI tracts – could it affect humans and alter gluten tolerance?

27. We’ll never know
Without labeling, impossible to study the health effects in humans.
So when industry says food is safe, no one has been harmed by GM foods, there is no way they can support that statement

28. No nutritional benefits
GMOs often nutritionally inferior
Organic soy more nutritious than GMO or conventional counterpart
Golden Rice with added vitamin A
Not a panacea; equivalent to 1 oz cooked spinach
Doesn’t address cause (lack of F/V, breastfeeding)
Won’t help 1/3 with deficiency who don’t eat rice
Doesn’t address rice-predominant diets
Unclear whether malnourished kids can assimilate the fat- soluble vitamin

29. Monocropping and Deficiency
GMO industry leading worldwide push to monocropping
Reliance on handful of staple crops, primarily carbohydrates (starches, sugars)
Lack of variety/biodiversity in diet – nutrient deficiencies
Excessive carbohydrates – diabetes and obesity

30. No Overall Yield Improvements
USDA’s own 15 year study: no yield improvements in varieties developed
no increase in intrinsic yield
But 60-79% of farmers adopted for this reason
No yield benefit with herbicide tolerant crops; often yields lower
Some improvement in operational yield due to fewer pest losses
Fading as insects become resistant
GMO foods not going to solve world hunger

31. Environmental Damage
More insecticide produced per acre with GMO Bt and more consumed
Bt toxicity to non-target beneficials
Ladybugs, bees
Increase in herbicide use
Due to increased weed resistance
Decline in monarchs due to loss of food source

32. Environmental Damage Increased weed resistance
22 glyphosate resistant super weeds
Increased tillage
Pesticide/herbicide treadmill
New and different herbicides applied
Will lead to resistance again
Forecast to increase herbicide use by 50%
Cross-pollination with non-GM varieties

33. Post-Publication Updates
USDA approval of 2,4-D and dicamba-resistant varieties of cotton and soy
Monsanto moving forward on RNA-interference technologies to silence insect genes
Published research that regulation misses risk- assessment
More scientists speaking out - ENSSER

34. News Sources Organic Consumers Association Food Democracy Now
Center for Food Safety

35. What Can You Do? Don’t eat them Don’t grow them
Buy organic or NonGMO project labels
Avoid non-organic corn and soy
Avoid anti-labeling funders: Pepsi, Coke, Nestle
Don’t grow them
Safe seed resource list: Council for Responsible Genetics
Save seed
Non-GMO Sourcebook:
Plant for beneficial insects
Keep bees!
Buy from and promote small holdings – local whenever possible

36. What Can You Do?
Recast the argument to be about pesticide/herbicide use and effects
Educate!
Health care professionals
Family/friends
Support labeling
Donate, volunteer, phone bank, write
$20.8 MM from industry to fight Oregon 92 ($1K from individuals)
Weigh in on regulatory events
Speak to Rick Larsen especially
Divest from agro-chemical corporations
Divest from supporters (Gates Foundation)

37. “Save Your Plate Before It’s Too Late!”

38. Questions
Paper available at: ExZQWs/view?usp=sharing Or

39. Thank You
Lori B. Taylor, MA/MS, RD, CD Clinical Dietitian