Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:31 AM
Subject: Food For Thought: John Robbins Warns on GM Foods
News Update
From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
Dear Health Freedom Fighters,
Posted below is an excellent article from Monday's Vancouver Sun (Canada) that discusses John Robbins concerns over genetically engineered foods.
John Robbins' latest book, The Food Revolution, contains four excellent chapters about genetically engineered foods. John Robbins is a member of The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods' Advisory Board. The Food Revolution is available on The Campaign's web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/books.htm
The Vancouver Sun article begins by discussing the potential environmental disaster that could have developed from the release of a genetically modified version of a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticula. John Robbins discusses this in his book. It is very significant information that points out the giant experiment that is taking place to the global environment from genetically engineered crops.
The genetically engineered Klebsiella planticula bacteria was tested at Oregon State University. The woman who directed that research is Dr. Eileen Ingham. I had the opportunity to be on a panel discussion about genetically engineered foods with Dr. Ingram at the Bioneers Conference last October. What could have happened if the genetically engineered Klebsiella planticula bacteria was released into the natural environment is very disturbing. The biotech industry has aggressively attacked Dr. Ingham's research. They tried to discredit her after a couple errors were made in submissions to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. But Dr. Ingham stands firm in her belief that the release of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticula bacteria into the environment could have serious implications for human life on earth.
Posted after the Vancouver Sun article about John Robbins is a letter by Dr. Eileen Ingham. Her letter, written last year, was in response to a number of attacks on her findings after the submission to the New Zealand Royal Commission. (A link is included that leads to the abstract for the scientific journal that discusses the Klebsiella planticula research, Applied Soil Ecology 11: 67-78.)
It is great that John Robbins' book, The Food Revolution, and the information about the potential disaster that could have taken place from genetically engineered Klebsiella planticula bacteria is getting attention in the press. Researchers like John Robbins and Dr. Eileen Ingham need to heard by a much larger audience.

Craig Winters
Executive Director
Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
The Campaign
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049
Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:label@thecampaign.org
Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States."

Food For Thought : John Robbins Warns on GM Foods
The Vancouver Sun | By Mia Stainsby | January 7, 2002

Food For Thought: In his latest book, John Robbins warns that genetically modified foods not only don't provide adequate nutrition, but might also lead to the bankruptcy of poor farmers and irreversible environmental damage.
A few years ago, a German biotech company genetically modified a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticula, to enable it to break down vegetative waste and produce ethanol. It seemed like a huge accomplishment -- ethanol could be used as a gasoline alternative and the rest of the biomass as compost for farming.
Hopes were high and it was field-tested at Oregon State University. But when the genetically modified bacterium was added to living soil, the seeds planted in the soil (to produce the vegetable matter to be broken down) sprouted but then died. The genetically modified Klebsiella was a feisty little guy, knocking out a fungus that plants need to extract nutrients from the soil. Without it, plants can't survive.
More frightening, the genetically modified bacteria persisted in the soil. Had it been released, it could have become virtually impossible to eradicate, says author John Robbins in his newest book The Food Revolution (Conari Press, $28.95).
"It could have ended all plant life on this continent," geneticist David Suzuki says in the book. "The implications of this case are nothing short of terrifying."
"That's how close we came," Robbins says during a phone interview from his home in Santa Cruz. To him, genetic engineering in the food industry spells potential disaster to our health and environment. His first book, Diet for a New America, made us aware of animal cruelty in farm factories and awakened us to the environmental and health impacts of eating meat and dairy products. The Food Revolution addresses his present concerns about food production. He writes about the problems of fish farming, declining wild fisheries, and the political, corporate, health and environmental intrigues of large-scale meat production in North America. But his biggest worry is genetically modified food and its potential to alter our food supply and health. "It's utterly in the hands of corporations seeking private profit," he says. Globally, about 100 million acres are currently planted in genetically modified crops, with 72 per cent in the U.S., 17 per cent in Argentina and 10 per cent in Canada.
"Basically, the rest of the world is saying they don't want to be guinea pigs. They're actively, specifically, directly, rejecting it. I'm sorry, but Canada isn't one of them," says Robbins. Heir to the Baskin Robbins ice cream empire, Robbins rejected his sizable inheritance. He lived on Vancouver Island and Salt Spring Island from 1969 to 1984. According to Health Canada, 48 GM crops so far have been approved in Canada. A third of the corn and two-thirds of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. "I have to assume it's a similar proportion in Canada," says Robbins.
Seventy per cent of modifications involve the Bacillus thuringiensis gene (Bt), which is spliced into the plant, usually corn or cotton, so it can withstand applications of a specific herbicide and resist insects. The U.S. department of agriculture tripled the allowable residues of active ingredients in the herbicide Roundup to make the GM technique commercially viable with soy crops, says Robbins. It allows farmers to kill weeds with Roundup without killing the Roundup-resistant crop. "But people are eating weedkiller," he says.
The Vancouver office of Earthsave Canada says it's difficult to pin down numbers on how many GM foods end up on supermarket shelves. "Soy, canola and corn are widely genetically modified," says spokesperson Dom Repta. Robbins says Monsanto's own tests show Roundup Ready soybeans have lower nutritional values. Another problem is Monsanto's
"terminator technology," in which seeds are rendered sterile after one planting. Currently 80 per cent of crops in developing countries use saved seeds, but with this new technology seeds must be purchased each year. Robbins says another company has patented a genetic process that makes seed germination and growth dependent upon repeated doses of the company's own chemicals. Yet another patent turns off the genes plants depend on to fight viral and bacterial infection -- only the company's own chemicals will turn the genes back on. Experiments in the biotech food industry have included inserting flounder genes into tomatoes, human genes into salmon, and rat and bacteria genes into broccoli. Labs around the world are researching splicing genes into fish from chickens, humans, cattle and rats. When genes shuttle between a wide variety of species, they can take with them genetic parasites such as viruses, usually kept in check by species barriers, Robbins says. "It's deeply troubling." He worries about the long-term effects of genetically manipulated Bt. "People are eating a substance which is very toxic to caterpillars but we don't know if it's toxic to people. We're guinea pigs," says Robbins. To add insult to injury, if GM foods do cause health problems, epidemiologists won't be able to trace them back because they're not labelled.
Many countries are saying no to GM foods. Europe, Robbins says, has been leading the charge in rejecting GM foods and embracing organic farming. By 2010, a third of total farmed area in the European Union will be organic. In comparison, Canada is lagging behind with 1.3 per cent 1999) and the U.S. is worse, with 0.2 per cent. Meanwhile, Brazil's largest soybean-growing state declared itself a GM-free zone. India has banned the testing of GM crops. The governments of France, Italy, Denmark, Greece and Luxembourg have moved to block any approvals of new varieties of GM crops in the European Union.
The Union's seven largest grocery chains have made a public commitment to go GM-free. Unlike Canada and the U.S., the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Mexico require mandatory labelling of GM foods. Robbins says organic farming can yield the same returns as non-organic when costs of chemicals are factored in. "The yield is down by 10 per cent, but with a modest reduction in meat consumption, we could convert our entire nation's agriculture to organic, sparing the environment and future generations the dangers of pesticides and genetic engineering," he says. Canada is a little ahead of the U.S. -- despite huge pressures from Monsanto, Canada refused to allow bovine growth hormone to be injected into dairy cows. Labelling of GM foods has been a battle, but Canada is getting close to acceptance. In October, a required mandatory labelling bill was defeated 126 to 91 in Canada. "It got defeated this time, but it's not going away."
"To me," says Robbins, "the measure of a great civilization is the quality of lives it leaves to future generations. Going organic and going vegetarian, even if not totally, would be a big step in that direction."

http://www.foodrevolution.org

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
INGHAM DEFENDS POSITION
"ENGINEERED BACTERIUM COULD HAVE SERIOUS IMPLICATION FOR HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH"

I have not been "discredited" by any group of my peers, as least as far as anyone in scientific arena has informed me. Further, I have not been subject to any academic censure. Francis Wevers, in a typically virulent letter using tactics designed to obfuscate the truth, made it sound as if review by my University is a terrible thing. But let me point out that most professors are reviewed each year - it's called an annual review. I believe most people are familiar with the concept. My University reviewed my position, but I was not censured, I have not lost stature at my University. I reported to the New Zealand Royal Commission on the work that a graduate student performed. That information has been published for a number of years. A clarification was submitted to the Royal Commission basically to point out the incorrect reference for the scientific paper. Typographical errors happen. While regrettable, a typographical error does not change the fact that the scientific data are published and in the scientific record. I was very clear in my testimony to the Commission that I had been told by individuals in the U.S. EPA that the work done by Dr. Michael Holmes had been repeated. Dr. Michael Holmes, Dr. Lydia Watrud, and Lynn Rogers, a technician at the EPA at the time, also told me that information. Dr. Holmes heard me repeat his information a number of times. I gave that information to the Commission by saying that I understood that the U.S. EPA had repeated the work. Regardless of whether the EPA did or did not repeat the work, addition of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola to soil has been shown to result in death of wheat plants in laboratory units. This information, published in Applied Soil Ecology, was the work of Dr. Holmes' Ph.D thesis. It was his work that I spoke about to the Royal Commission. I was very careful to say that if you extrapolate the results of the laboratory work to the field, based on the facts that most terrestrial plants cannot tolerate alcohol production in the root system, that this bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol, that this bacterium typically grows in the roots systems of all plants, then there is a clear risk if this bacterium were to be released into the natural environment. This bacterium was being considered for release, and my understanding was that release was mere weeks away when the results of Dr. Holmes' work was given to the EPA.
Dr. Holmes has said that he cannot repeat his Ph.D. research. Why? Because he no longer has the engineered organism in his possession. Does this suggest that his Ph.D. work was inaccurate or poorly done? Does his inability to repeat the work now suggest his Ph.D. is somehow tainted? Not in any way. If he still had the engineered bacterium, he could repeat the work. I did not say in my testimony, or at any other time, that release of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola would end life on earth. That was a fabrication by a newspaper reporter. That this engineered bacterium could have serious implications for human life on earth is something that I would say, however. But it would not end life on earth. After all, the bacterium would survive and happily continue to make alcohol. Other bacteria would happily consume that alcohol, and so on. The web of life could be altered, but would not come to an end. I do not believe that either George Lawton or Acres have suffered because of the publication of the information about Klebsiella planticola. I think that's probably wishful thinking by people who don't want others to consider the implications of putting something that makes alcohol, using the root's own exudates, into the root systems of alcohol-intolerant terretrial plants. Certainly, neither George or any editor from Acres have said anything to me about any negativity. A few rather outrageous blips have appeared that have flamed me, but most people can see through the rhetoric to the facts.
Confused about what is what? Read the scientific paper. Halfway through the abstract, read the line that says: "When SDF20 was added to the soil with plants, the numbers of bacterial and fungal feeding nematodes increased significantly, coinciding with death of the plants." The plants died when the engineered bacterium was added to the soil. The plants did not die when the parent, not-engineered bacterium was added. Why isn't there a title on the paper that screams "addition of GE bacterium kills plants"? Because it is a scientific paper reporting on a series of experiments, not sensationalistic journalism. Klebsiella planticola is merely an example that human beings can engineer organisms that can cause serious problems. This engineered bacterium has never been released into the natural environment, and hopefully, never will be.
You want the facts about the potential Klebsiella planticola has? Read the paper. Check the line on page 73, "However, at the end of the experiment, plants in soil inoculated with SDF20 were chlorotic and wilting, while plants in the uninoculated soil and soil with SDF15 were flowering." SDF20 is the engineered bacterium, and SDF15 is the parent, not-engineered bacterium. Chlorotic and wilting means the plants had no color, and were, mostly, lying dead on the surface of the soil. Make your own decision about whether this engineered bacterium is something that could cause significant impacts on terrestrial systems.
Ignore the rhetoric, read the facts, decide for yourself.
The paper? Holmes, M.T., E.R. Ingham, J.D. Doyle and C.W. Hendricks.
1999. Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat
growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 11: 67-78.

http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/10/63/46/26/29/abstract.html

Sincerely,
Elaine Ingham
President, Director of Research, Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, OR
info@soilfoodweb.com

TOP OF THE PAGE

Greenpeace Exposes Rice with Human Genes
Growing in California

Unbeknownst to the residents of Sutter County, pharmaceutical (pharm) rice is growing in open-air fields in this rice-growing region of northern California. The rice has been genetically engineered with human genes to produce human proteins for drug production. The biotech company, Applied Phytologics, which is responsible for the rice drug, was field testing the pharm crop within a few hundred feet of conventional rice.

Neither the USDA nor the state of California has any regulations on the production of these pharmaceutical crops, putting the environment and food supply at risk.

Read the full article online: http://www.truefoodnow.org/inside_scoop/index.html#pharmarice

TOP OF THE PAGE

TOP OF THE PAGE

TOP OF THE PAGE