ORGANISMI GENETICAMENTE MODIFICATI ED I LORO DANNI

Pubblicato sulla rivista bi-mestrale Newsletters della Gerson Institute di San Diego, California, un documento scientifico in sette punti che dimostra la tremenda minaccia degli Organismi Geneticamente Modificati (O.G.M.) per la salute umana (Gerson Healing Newsletter, Vol. 21, No. 3, April-May, 2006 page 5, 7, 9; First Part , www.gerson.org ).
In particolare, al punto 3 dell’articolo, viene sottolineata l’impossibilità di curare efficacemente il cancro mediante la particolare dieta-Gerson, famosa terapia presentata nel 1946 al Congresso degli Stati Uniti, e caratterizzata dal fatto di essere basata sull’utilizzo di migliaia di vitamine naturali (compresa la vitamina B17) e dall’assenza di tutti e 9 gli aminoacidi essenziali, dall’assenza di Glucosio, di acido folico e di vitamina B12.
Particolare attenzione è anche rivolta ai retro-virus, molto spesso presenti nelle piante OGM, e capaci potenzialmente di produrre anche negli esseri umani gravi tumori maligni come leucemie, linfomi, sarcomi, glomi e carcinomi.
Le stesse piante OGM, essendo manipolate geneticamente, possono inoltre essere fortemente deprivate di importanti vitamine anti-cancro, vitamine in gran parte ancora sconosciute, e di cui sono riportati in bibliografia allegata importanti lavori scientifici raccolti dall’autore.

La minaccia degli Organismi Geneticamente Modificati (OGM)

Le vitamine e le sostanze pro-vitaminiche presenti nelle piante naturali di comune alimentazione umana possono essere stimate in numero superiore a 15.000-30.000 tipi. L’introduzione nell’agricoltura moderna degli Organismi Geneticamente Modificati (O.G.M.) è una ingiustificata e pericolosissima alterazione di ciò che l’Evoluzione ha prodotto nelle piante in centinaia di milioni di anni: piante sulle quali si è basata la successiva evoluzione biochimica dei complessi organismi animali superiori, culminati con l’avvento dei Mammiferi negli ultimi 65 milioni di anni e quindi con la comparsa dell’Uomo; pertanto il delicato equilibrio biochimico della specie umana dipende dall’integrità delle specie vegetali così come l’Evoluzione le ha condotte fino a noi, poiché la Salute di ciascuno di noi è basata sulla Biochimica cellulare umana, e questa dipende, nella propria complessità genomica (DNA), dall’utilizzo di migliaia di vitamine e di complessi fitochimici presenti in Natura.
La personale visione dell’autore del presente lavoro che, come medico nucleare, ha avuto modo di studiare per anni gli effetti delle radiazioni ionizzanti su organismi complessi, è che la pianta è anch’essa un organismo complesso, frutto dell’evoluzione biologica avvenuta in centinaia di milioni di anni: ogni modificazione genetica provocata in essa dall’Uomo (con radiazioni come a Chernobyl, o con virus come attualmente compiuto con gli OGM), per quanto minima possa essere tale modificazione, essa produrrà comunque un danno, un danno irreparabile che spesso non potrà essere riconosciuto, poiché l’Uomo conosce con sicurezza soltanto poche decine di vitamine e di altre sostanze pro-vitaminiche. Viceversa, le vitamine e le altre sostanze contenute nelle piante sono decine di migliaia, e sono queste le responsabili del corretto funzionamento della complessa biochimica umana e del genoma umano (DNA).

Ma oggi, per ottenere il vantaggio di una maggiore produzione agricola, si ricorre al metodo di modificare il patrimonio genetico delle piante naturali, allo scopo di modificarne la struttura, renderle sterili (piante “TERMINATOR”) per obbligare gli agricoltori a comprare nuovi semi ogni anno), brevettarne la trasformazione indotta, e rivendere in tutto il mondo il prodotto così ottenuto. Si afferma inoltre che esista sostanziale equivalenza tra il prodotto geneticamente modificato (OGM) e quello ottenuto con la selezione dei caratteri genetici (cioè tramite incrocio naturale di piante come da sempre fatto dall’umanità nel corso di migliaia di anni). Da parte dell’autore del presente lavoro, si afferma invece che tale “sostanziale equivalenza” è assolutamente insostenibile, perché l’incrocio naturale di piante avviene con semi naturali della stessa specie, mentre la manipolazione genetica (OGM) avviene superando le barriere di specie vegetali, mediante introduzione di geni di altre specie vegetali, o addirittura di batteri, virus o animali. Infatti la maggior parte dei geni usati dall’ingegneria genetica provengono da specie viventi che non hanno mai fatto parte dell’alimentazione umana e, addirittura, sono provenienti da DNA non appartenenti a piante ma ad animali, batteri o virus e/o retrovirus transgenici.

Si possono così ravvisare SETTE minacce immediate:

PRIMO:

Depauperazione dei complessi pro-vitaminici e vitaminici delle piante.
Depauperazione di complessi vitaminici e pro-vitaminici non più presenti negli alimenti, con conseguente incremento delle malattie degenerative e carenziali come ad esempio il Cancro. Gravissimo è, ad esempio, il deliberato tentativo di disattivare (con Fortilin, Bcl-2, Bcl-xl) le sostanze naturali contenute nelle piante, cioè quelle vitamine che entrano in complessi meccanismi enzimatici nel DNA dei mammiferi, e inducenti il fenomeno di apoptosi (suicidio) in queste cellule di mammifero se ammalate da cause infettive o di altro genere (come ad esempio il Cancro). Tale fenomeno di blocco dell’apoptosi (azione di anti-apoptosi), introdotto sperimentalmente nella pianta del tabacco tramite virus (748,751, 1254) è un gravissimo atto di danno deliberato inflitto all’Ecosistema tramite gli O.G.M.: un danno che, se propagato a piante alimentari di uso comune, potrebbe rendere del tutto impossibile la cura dei tumori e di molte altre malattie tramite quanto considerato in questo lavoro.

Gravissima è anche la possibile scomparsa di molte vitamine naturali anti-cancro (Antocianine, Flavonoidi (1122), Polifenoli (1123), sesquiterpene lattone Partenolide (701), penta-acetil Geniposide (1061), Camellina B (698), beta-Criptoxantina (1063), Esperidina (1063), Emodina (247,333,715), acido ursolico (700), Solfuro di allile (694,696), Eriodictoiolo (693), protocatechine (692), Indoli (809), Isotiocianati (809), Resverarolo (695), Elemene (690), Acutiaporberina (711), Capsaicina (719), Wagonina (713), Fisetina (713), acido carnosico (712,1062), Germanio sesquiossido (269), Epigallocatechina gallato (173,1124), Limonene (693), Axeroftolo palpitato, alfa e beta Carotene, acido trans-Retinoico, Tocoferoli, Cinaropicrina, Licopene (633), Proantocianidina, Damnacanthal (1043), Baicalina (718), Baicaleina (718), acido idrocinnamico (693), sesquiterpenoidi come Atractilone (704), come Atractilenolidi I, II, III (704), alcaloidi del Gelsemio (699), altri flavonoidi (1064), Sinigrina, acido ferulico, acido ellagico, acido cumarinico …) inducenti l’apoptosi (suicidio) dei tumori.
Questa scomparsa può avvenire a causa della modificazione OGM di piante ad uso alimentare o medico: sono riportate molte vitamine e molte piante che inducono questo fenomeno di suicidio del cancro, con aggiunta dei dati di bibliografia scientifica su diverse modifiche apportate dalle Multinazionali OGM.
Ad esempio: Pueraria species induce apoptosi sul neuroblastoma (1046) ma, il contenuto di Antocianine (apoptosi su tumori) della Pueraria-OGM è gravemente decresciuta al 40% (1119).
Gravissima, è poi l’assenza dei semi dai frutti OGM: l’importanza dei semi come fattori anti-cancro risiede sostanzialmente nel fatto che essi contengono la famosa vitamina B17, ma è estremamente grave il fatto che le grandi aziende semeniere OGM stiano immettendo sul mercato agricolo mondiale gli stessi frutti privi però di semi, in particolare: Cucumis melo, Citrus limonum, Citrullus vulgaris, Solanum lycopersicum, Vitis vinifera….

SECONDO:

mutazioni genetiche delle piante e conseguente alterazione della Biochimica umana
A causa dell’introduzione di geni estranei (es. di animali, batteri, virus, retrovirus) nel DNA della pianta, si verifica in essa l’alterazione della normale sequenza genomica, con la comparsa di nuove proteine e/o la perdita di altre proteine di sequenza genomica. Di qui la comparsa di nuove sostanze simili alle vitamine naturali, ma in realtà con caratteristiche di reattività enzimatica e biochimica diverse da quelle naturali, con induzione pertanto di modifica della loro componente di attività biochimica sul genoma umano, una volta introdotte con l’alimentazione.
Di qui la comparsa potenziale di nuove malattie insorte “artificialmente” a causa di manipolazione genetica (OGM) di organismi vegetali, inquinati geneticamente da nuove molecole simil-vitaminiche dagli effetti induttivi sul DNA umano e sulla sua complessa biochimica del tutto sconosciuta, ma probabilmente foriera di gravi danni data l’estrema complessità e quindi vulnerabilità del DNA umano.

TERZO:

la minaccia alla dieta-anti-cancro
Come già dimostrato da diversi Autori (749,750), solo un’alimentazione basata su frutta e verdura fresca biologica è in grado di indurre risposta immunitaria contro il tumore, la detossificazione degli organi e dei tessuti, e il particolare fenomeno dell’apoptosi (suicidio) delle cellule malate. La chiave di spiegazione di tale efficacia curativa di queste particolari diete vegetariane risiede nel fatto di non assimilare mai cibi contenenti tutti i potenziali fattori di crescita cellulare, in particolare l’assimilazione contemporanea di tutti e 9 gli aminoacidi essenziali (Valina, Isoleucina, Leucina, Lisina, Metionina, Istidina, Triptofano, Fenilalanina, Treonina [Arginina nel bambino]), degli acidi nucleici (DNA, RNA), della vitamina B12, dell’acido folico e, relativamente, anche acido para-aminobenzoico [PABA]): una volta, i cibi che contenevano tutto ciò erano unicamente i cibi di origine animale (carne, pesce, uova, latte, formaggio, burro..) che sia Gerson che altri Autori (compresa anche la medicina cinese e indiana) proibivano di assumere per almeno 1 anno. In particolare risultava così vincente la sola alimentazione vegetariana, cioè a base di sola frutta e di verdura, compresi i cereali e i legumi. Questi ultimi cibi sono ricchi di proteine, e ciò può stupire che venissero comunque impiegati nella terapia del Cancro da Gerson e da molte altre scuole di medicina naturale occidentale, indiana e cinese. Ma il motivo del loro uso riposava sul fatto che nessun cereale e nessun legume conteneva da solo tutti e 9 gli aminoacidi essenziali. Questi alimenti però, se uniti insieme nello stesso pasto, determinavano l’assimilazione di tutti e 9 gli aminoacidi: di qui il divieto assoluto di non mangiare assieme Pasta (o Polenta, o Pane [anche se azimo] o Riso) con Legumi, poiché si avrebbe avuto integrazione dei nove aminoacidi essenziali (8 contenuti nei cereali + 8 contenuti nei legumi), con effetto nutrizionale simile a quello ottenuto dalla Carne (in fondo, una volta, un piatto di Pasta e fagioli era anche chiamato ….la carne dei poveri….)
Oggi però, tramite l’introduzione in commercio di cereali, legumi e altri vegetali modificati geneticamente (O.G.M.) in molti di questi alimenti sono contenuti TUTTI gli aminoacidi essenziali (1065), rendendo in tal modo effettivamente NON più curabile il Cancro secondo quanto descritto in questo lavoro, nella terapia Gerson, e da molti altri autori.

QUARTO:

malattie indotte da virus transgenici
I virus transgenici con cui oggi si fanno gli Organismi Geneticamente Modificati (O.G.M.) entrano nel DNA della pianta, modificandola in maniera a noi sconosciuta. Questi virus dovrebbero restare latenti, ma nulla può escludere che possano anche riattivarsi in maniera analoga ai ben noti virus tumorali a RNA (Oncornavirus) o come i virus tumorali a DNA (entrambi induttori di leucemie, sarcomi, carcinomi, gliomi…). Questi virus possono anche essere portatori di malattie nuove o di malattie abbastanza simili a ben note sindromi purtroppo ancora poco comprese nella loro dinamica (AIDS, Mucca Pazza, etc…), e di cui è ancora molto vaga l’origine (forse virus trangenici ).
In merito a virus impiegati per costruire O.G.M. vi è un’ampia bibliografia (738-747,1120).
Si ritiene necessaria la ricerca in pazienti malati di tumore della possibile genesi del tumore da retro-virus introdotti con l’alimentazione.
Tutto ciò richiede però l’accesso ad informazioni riservate, forse coperte da brevetto, in merito ai modelli di retrovirus impiegati dalle multinazionali OGM, e alle modifiche apportate loro dalle stesse aziende prima della immissione in commercio delle stesse piante OGM.
E’ difficile rintracciare virus tumorigeni a DNA impiegati dalle multinazionali OGM per modificare il DNA delle piante ad uso alimentare, poiché questi virus (Pox-virus, Herpes-virus, Papova-virus, Adeno-virus), a differenza degli Oncorna-virus, non sono rilevabili nel siero, nelle urine del paziente o nel tumore stesso. E’ però dimostrato che nel citoplasma di cellule tumorali di mammifero infettate e modificate da questi virus a DNA permane una piccola frazione, altamente specifica, di RNA messaggero, che non si trova né in cellule normali, né in cellule tumorali infettate da altri tipi di virus oncogenici a DNA. Un’ibridazione positiva, rivelata dalla formazione di DNA ibrido radioattivo (32P) indica la presenza si sequenze di DNA virale nelle cellule trasformate (1280)

QUINTO:

intossicazione da veleni sintetizzati da piante transgeniche
Intossicazione cronica di cibi a causa di sostanze tossiche insetticide contenute nelle piante per renderle resistenti ai parassiti come il Bacillus touringiensis (789-793), con conseguente possibile incremento di cancri, aborti spontanei, mutazioni genetiche sulla discendenza, Sindromi da Immunodeficienze acquisite, malattie degenerative e da sostanze tossiche, etc….

SESTO:

modificazione transgenica di piante naturali
Passaggio a specie “indigene” naturali delle sostanze tossiche artificiali, come ad esempio il “Bacillus thuringiensis”(789-793) o di altro tipo, tramite impollinazione incrociata, con potenziale minaccia anche per le piante e le erbe mediche oggi impiegate in Fito-Terapia poiché queste ultime saranno inquinate dai geni transgenici provenienti dalle zone agricole a coltura transgenica (OGM).

SETTIMO:

scomparsa irreversibile del patrimonio genetico delle piante naturali
Graduale ed irreversibile scomparsa delle diversità biologiche, cioè della normale flora naturale. Le coltivazioni transgeniche arrecheranno infatti una gravissima minaccia alle zone ricche di bio-diversità (genomi naturali): il flusso transgenico che andrà dalle piante modificate alle piante naturali sarà inevitabile quando il rapporto numerico fra aree coltivate con piante artificiali supererà le superfici delle piante naturali, determinando così la perdita irreversibile di gran parte del patrimonio genetico naturale di tutte le piante esistenti al mondo, attualmente pari a circa 442.000 specie già classificate, su un totale stimato di circa 600.000-800.000 specie.

In sostanza:
Numerose piante sono già scomparse nel corso di questi ultimi anni perché gli agricoltori hanno abbandonato le piante naturali, per adottare invece varietà di piante artificiali, cioè geneticamente modificate, poiché rese uniformi nel proprio genoma, ad alto rendimento di produzione (ma povere di vitamine), intrinsecamente malate (poiché incapaci di sopravvivere in assenza di pesticidi), rese sterili per ragioni di mercato, e infine manipolate geneticamente per essere rese resistenti agli insetti e ad altri animali poiché capaci di produrre esse stesse dei veleni, cioè delle sostanze tossiche che verranno infine mangiate dagli animali di allevamento e dall’uomo stesso. Persino nelle foreste la varietà genetica è oggi minacciata dalle perdite di habitat, non solo da pratiche di deforestazione scorrette, ma persino dalla contaminazione del patrimonio genetico adattatosi a situazioni locali da parte di ibridi creati dalle grandi ditte sementiere produttrici degli OGM.
I prodotti transgenici rappresentano quindi, proprio per come sono concepiti, una formidabile spinta per accentuare le caratteristiche di unilateralità delle monocolture, e quindi di scomparsa del patrimonio genetico naturale esistente da centinaia di milioni di anni. Non avremo quindi più, nel futuro più o meno prossimo, tutte quelle varietà di piante (alimentari e non) caratteristiche di ogni particolare regione nazionale o locale. La contaminazione genetica ambientale indotta da parte di ibridi creati dalle grandi ditte sementiere degli OGM, che inevitabilmente s’incroceranno con le varietà presenti in natura, porterà ad una perdita del patrimonio genetico naturale (non recuperabile in alcun modo), di tutte quelle particolari caratteristiche che sono entrate nel genoma delle piante nel corso dei lunghi processi di adattamento alle varie situazioni ambientali. Tale perdita è oggi gravissima persino per gli ambienti naturali come le foreste. Sostanzialmente, la base stessa della Biochimica umana è oggi minacciata nella sua più intima essenza (DNA umano) dall’impiego sconsiderato di queste piante artificiali, senza alcuna possibilità di recuperare un patrimonio genetico di oltre 440.000 specie di piante classificate (su un totale 600.000- 800.000 stimate), di cui una buona parte scompariranno nel giro di poche centinaia di anni, minate alla base dai danni genetici introdotti dall’Uomo.

La pianta è un organismo complesso, frutto dell’evoluzione biologica avvenuta in centinaia di milioni di anni. Ogni modificazione genetica provocata in essa dall’Uomo, per quanto minima, produrrà comunque un danno, un danno irreparabile che spesso non potrà essere riconosciuto, poiché l’uomo conosce con sicurezza soltanto poche decine di vitamine e di altre sostanze pro-vitaminiche. Viceversa, le vitamine e le altre sostanze contenute nelle piante sono decine di migliaia, e sono queste le responsabili del corretto funzionamento della complessa biochimica umana e del genoma umano (DNA).

NOTA: Intanto, la contaminazione genetica potrebbe essere ufficialmente autorizzata in USA: è stata infatti presentata una proposta in base alla quale il FDA autorizzerebbe la contaminazione delle colture alimentari in USA, se originata da colture sperimentali. Il fine, a quanto pare, è di consentire alle industrie o agli Istituti di ricerca di conservare il segreto industriale. Come fa osservare Adrian Bebb, di Friends of the Earth, questo renderà impossibile la verifica di qualsiasi alimento importato dagli USA, poiché, come dice “non sarà possibile eseguire alcun test dal momento che non si potrà sapere per quale sostanza eseguire i test, e sarebbe consentito anche l’inquinamento originato da piante modificate per produrre medicinali.”

L’FDA è quindi procinto di pubblicare quella che può essere di certo considerata la legge che legalizzerà la contaminazione degli alimenti con materiale transgenico. La politica recentemente adottata da tale organo governativo stabilisce linee-guida secondo le quali un’azienda può volontariamente consultarsi con l’FDA ed ottenere da essa l’approvazione del proprio materiale transgenico in fase di sperimentazione come “accettabile” nei casi di contaminazione. Tale procedura fornirà alle aziende la copertura legale nei casi di contaminazione e garantirà loro l’autorizzazione delle proprie sementi sperimentali che così entreranno subito nella catena alimentare. Dal momento che più di due terzi degli OGM coltivati in via sperimentale negli USA contengono geni le cui caratteristiche specifiche sono considerate di natura “confidenziale”, non si ha attualmente alcuna informazione su di essi. Impossibilitati a venire in possesso di tali essenziali informazioni, i laboratori di analisi contro l’inquinamento OGM non saranno più in grado di riscontrarne la presenza nei prodotti alimentari, cosa che ovviamente avrà graviissime ripercussioni sull’attività di tutte quelle aziende che si adoperano costantemente per prevenire i fenomeni di contaminazione OGM.

Bibliography
173) Hibasami H: Induction of apoptosis in human stomach cancer cell by Green Tea catechins, Oncol Rep; 5, pp: 527-9 1998.
247) Lee H.Z.: Effects and mechanisms of emodin on cell death in human lung squamous cell carcinoma, Br. J. Pharmacol., 134, pp.11-20, 2001.
269) Mainwaring MG: Complete remission of pulmonary spindle cell carcinoma after treatment with oral germanium sesquioxide, Chest, 117, pp. 591-593, 2000; Chest, 117, pp. 307-308, 2000
333) Palù G.: Aloe-Emodin is a new type of anticancer agent with selective activity against neuroectodermal tumors, Cancer Research, 60, pp.2800-2804, 2000.
514) New England Journal of Medicine, 28 January 1982, pp 236;
515) New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 299, 1978, pp. 549-552
633) Giovannucci E.: Intake of carotenoids and retinol in relation to risk of prostate cancer, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 1995, 87 (23), pp. 1767-1776
690) Zheng S.: Initial study on naturally occurring products from traditional Chinese herbs and vegetables for chemoprevention, J.Cell. Biochem. Suppl. 1997, 27, pp.: 106-112
692) Tseng TH: Induction of apoptosis by hibiscus protocatechuic acid in human leukemia cells via reduction of retinoblastoma (RB) phosporylation and Bcl-2 expression, Biochem. Pharmacol. 2000, 1, 60 (3), pp. 307-315.
693) Ogata S.: apoptosis induced by the flavonoid from lemon fruit (Citrus limon BURM f. ) and its metabolites in HL-60 cells, Biosc. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2000, 64 (5), pp.: 1075-1078
694) Hong YS.: Effects of allyl sulfur compounds and garlic extract on the expression of Bcl-2, Bax, and p53 in non small cell lung cancer cell lines, Exp. Mol. Med. 2000, 32 (3), pp. 127-134.
695) Kimura Y.: Resveratrol isolated from Polygonum cuspidatum root prevents tumor growth and metastasis to lung and tumor- induced neovascularization in Lewis lung carcinoma-bearing mice, J.Nutr. 2001, 131 (6), pp. 1844-1849
696) Pinto J.T.: Antiproliferative effects of garlic-derived and other allium related compounds, Adv Exp. Med. Biol. 2001, 492, pp.: 83-106
698) Wang CC.: Camellin B induced apoptosis in HeLa cell line, Toxicology, 168 (3), pp.: 231-240
699) Zhong Yao Xai: Inhibitory effect of gelsemium alkaloids extract on hepatic carcinoma HepG2 cells in vitro, 2001, 24 (8), pp.: 579-581
700) Huang J.. Experimental study on apoptosis induced by ursolic acid isolated from asparagus in HL-60 cells, Zhongguo Zhong, 1999, 19 (%) pp.: 296-298
701) Wen J.: Oxidative stress-mediated apoptosis. The anticancer effect of the sesquiterpene lactone parthenolide, J.Biol. Chem. 2002, 277 (41), pp.: 38954-64
702) Ren W. : Tartary buckwheat flavonoid activates caspase 3 and induces HL-60 cell apoptosis, Methods Find Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 2001 23 (8), pp.: 427-432
704) Wang CC.: Cytotoxic activity of sesquiterpenoids from Atractylodes ovata on leukemia cell lines, Planta Med, 2002, 68 (3), pp.: 204-208
708) Zhang XL: Salvia miltiorrhiza monomer IH764-3 induces hepatic stellate cell apoptosis via caspase-3 activation, World J. Gastroenterol. 2002, 8 (3), pp. 515-519
711) Chen Q.: Apoptosis of human highly metastatic lung cancer cell line 95-D induced by acutiaporberine, a novel bisalkaloid derived from Thalictrum acutifolium, Planta Med 2002, 68 (6), pp.: 550-553.
712) Steiner M.: Carnosic acid inhibits proliferation and augments differentiation of human leukemic cells induced by 1,25dihydroxyvitamin D3 and retinoic acid, Nutr. Cancer 2001, 41 (1-2), pp. 135-144
713) Chen Y.C.: Wogonin and fisetin induction of apoptosis through activation of caspase 3 cascade and alternative expression of p21 protein in hepatocellular carcinoma cells SK-HEP-1, Arch Toxicol. 2002, 76 (5-6), pp. 351-349
715) Kuo PL.: the antiproliferative activity of aloe-emodin is through p53-dependent and p21-dependent apoptotic pathway in human hepatoma cell lines, Life Sci, 2002, 71 (16), pp. 1879-1892
718) Ciesielska E. : anticancer, antiradical and antioxidative actions of novel Antoksyd Sand its major components, baicalin and baicalein, Anticancer Research 2002, 22 (5), pp. 2885-2891
719) Zhang J.: Capsaicin inhibits growth of adult T-cell leukemia cells, Leuk Res. 2003, 27 (3), pp. 275-283
738) Lindbo J.A.: Virus-mediated reprogramming of gene expression in plants; California, USA; Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol. 2001, 4(3), pp. 181-185;
739) Mette M.F.: Endogenous viral sequences and their potential contribution to heritable virus resistance in plants, Salzburg, Austria, EMBO J., 2002, 21(3), pp.: 461-469;
740) Harper G.: Viral sequences integrated into plant genomes; United Kingdom; Annu Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, pp.: 119-136; Epub 2002 Feb.;
741) Paul W.: Correct processing of the kiwifruit protease actinidin in transgenic tobacco requires the presence of the C-terminal propeptide; United Kingdom; Plant Physiol. 1995, 108(1), pp. 261-268
742) Sehnke PC.: Expression of active, processed ricin in transgenic tobacco; Florida, USA; j. Biol. Chem., 1994, 269(36), pp.: 22473-6.
743) Matzke MA: Integrated pararetroviral sequences; Nat. Biotechnol. 2000, 18(6), pp. 579.
744) Hammond J.: Epidemiological risks from mixed virus infections and transgenic plants expressing viral genes; Maryland USA; Adv Virus Res., 1999, 54, pp. 189-314.
745) Tabe LM.: A biotechnological approach to improving the nutritive value alfalfa; Australia; J. Anim. Sci., 1995, 73(9), pp.: 2752-9.
746) Nagar S.: A geminivirus induces expression of a host DNA synthesis protein in terminally differentiated plant cells; USA; Plant Cell. 1995, 7(6), pp.: 705-719.
747) Feuerbach F.: Retrovirus-like end processing of the tobacco Tnt1 retrotransposon linear intermediates of replication; France; J. Virol. 1997, 71(5), pp.: 4005-4015.
748) Dickman MB.: abrogation of disease development in plants expressing animal antipoptotic genes, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA, IN: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2001, Jun 5, 98(12): 6957-62
749) ) “The Gerson therapy. The amazing juicing programme for cancer and other illnesses”, by Charlotte Gerson and Morton Walker, Thorsons ed.; Charlotte Gerson, Morton Walker.
750) Gerson M.A.:Cancer Therapy; Results of Fifty Cases, The Gerson Institute, Bonita, California, 1999.
751) Li F: Characterization of Fortilin, a novel anti-apoptotic protein, J.Biol.Chem. 2001; 276(50), pp.:47542-9
789) Nat.Toxins 1998; 6(6):219-33
790) Rev. Can. Biol. 1978 Jun; 37(2): 127-130
791) J.Clin. Microbiol. 1998 Jul, 36(7): 2138-9
792) FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 1999 May; 24(1): 43-7),
793) J.Appl.Microbiol. 2000 Jul, 89(1): 16-23.
809) Bonnesen C.: Dietary indoles and isothiocyanates that are generated from cruciferous vegetables can both stimulate apoptosis and confe protection against DNA damage in human colon cell lines. Cancer Res. 2001, 61(16), pp.: 6120-6130
969) Hildebrand G.L.: Five year survival rates of melanoma patients treated by diet therapy after the manner of Gerson: a retrospective review’, Alternative therapies, vol. 1[4], September 1995, pages 29-37.
1043) Tomonori H.: Induction of normal phenotypes in RAS transformed cells by damnacanthal from Morinda citrifolia, Cancer-Letters 73, 1993, pp.161-166.
1046) Jang MH: Protective effects of Puerariae flos against ethanol induced apoptosis on human neuroblastoma cell line SK-N-MC, Jpn J.Pharmacol., 2001, 87(4), pp..338-342
1061) Chang-YC.: Induction of apoptosis by penta-acetyl geniposide in rat C6 glioma cells, Chem. Biol. Interact, 141(3), pp.:243-257
1062) Steiner M.: Carnosic acid inhibits proliferation and augments differentiation of human leukemic cells induced by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and retinoic acid, Nutr.Cancer 2001,41(1-2):135-144
1063) Tanaka T.: Suppression ofazoxymethane induced colon carcinogenesis in male F344 rats by mandarin juices rich in beta-Cryptoxanthin and Hesperidin, Int.J.Cancer- 88(1), pp.:146-150, 2000.
1064) Ren W. : Tartary buckwheatflavonoid activates caspase 3 and induces HL-60 cell apoptosis, Methods Find Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 2001 23 (8), pp.: 427-432
1065) Day P.R.: Genetic modification of plants: significant issues and hurdles success, Am.J.Clin.Nutr., 63(4), pp.: 651S-656S, 1996
1119) Joung JY.: An overexpression of chalcone reductase of Pueraria Montana var. lobata alters biosynthesis of anthocyanin and 5’-deoxyflavonoids in transgenic tobacco, Biochem Biophys Res. Commun 2003, 303, pp.: 326-331
1120) Varrelmann M.: Transgenic or plant expression vector-mediated recombination of Plum Pox virus, J. Virol. 2000, 74 (16), pp.: 7462-7469
1121) Kuo PL.: Resveratrol induced apoptosis in mediated by p53-dependent pathway in Hep G2 cells, Life Sci 2002, 72(1), pp.: 23-34
1122) Ren W.: Flavonoids: promising anticancer agents, Med Res. Rev. 2003, 23(4), pp.: 519-534
1123) Fujiki H.: Two stages of cancer prevention with green tea, J.Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 1999, 125(11), pp.: 589-597
1124) Hibasami H.: Induction of programmed cell death (apoptosis) in human lymphoid leukaemia cells by catechin compounds, Anticancer Res. 1996, 16(4A9, pp.: 1943-1946

authorbio
Dr. Pusztai, born in Hungary, received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London. ...

biotechnology: genetically modified foods
Genetically Modified Foods:
Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?
By Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D.

articlehighlights
GM crops and food are being grown and consumed by the public, even though:

* there is little scientific study about their health risks
* safety test technology is inadequate to asses potential harm
* they can carry unpredictable toxins
* they may increase the risk of allergenic reactions

June 2001
Genetically Modified Foods:
Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?
By Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D.

Information is scarce about health hazards, such as toxicity in GM crops.

Scarcity of safety tests

How can the public make informed decisions about GM foods when there is so little information about its safety? The lack of data is due to a number of reasons, including:

* It's more difficult to evaluate the safety of crop-derived foods than individual chemical, drug, or food additives. Crop foods are more complex and their composition varies according to differences in growth and agronomic conditions.
* Publications on GM food toxicity are scarce. An article in Science magazine said it all: "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data".1 In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist. Even animal studies are few and far between.
* The preferred approach of the industry has been to use compositional comparisons between GM and non-GM crops. When they are not significantly different the two are regarded as "substantially equivalent", and therefore the GM food crop is regarded as safe as its conventional counterpart. This ensures that GM crops can be patented without animal testing. However, substantial equivalence is an unscientific concept that has never been properly defined and there are no legally binding rules on how to establish it.2

GM foods may cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.

They can also produce allergies.
When food-crops are genetically modified, ("genetically modified" food is a misnomer!) one or more genes are incorporated into the crop's genome using a vector containing several other genes, including as a minimum, viral promoters, transcription terminators, antibiotic resistance marker genes and reporter genes. Data on the safety of these are scarce even though they can affect the safety of the GM crop. For example:

* DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract.3,4 Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids5 and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance.
* Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, since some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crop's own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, which we cannot analyze for and seriously limiting the selection criteria.

Current testing methods need radical improvements

Currently, toxicity in food is tested by chemical analysis of macro/micro nutrients and known toxins. To rely solely on this method is at best inadequate and, at worst, dangerous. Better diagnostic methods are needed, such as mRNA fingerprinting, proteomics and secondary metabolite profiling.6 However, consuming even minor constituents with high biological activity may have major effects on the gut and body's metabolism, which can only be revealed from animal studies. Thus novel toxicological/nutritional methods are urgently needed to screen for harmful consequences on human/animal health and to pinpoint these before allowing a GM crop into the food chain.7

Safety tests on commercial GM crops

GM tomatoes: The first and only safety evaluation of a GM crop, the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato, was commissioned by Calgene, as required by the FDA. This GM tomato was produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an 'antisense' GM method. The test has not been peer-reviewed or published but is on the internet.8 The results claim there were no significant alterations in total protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids.9 Therefore, the GM and parent tomatoes were deemed to be "substantially equivalent."
Some rats died within a few weeks after eating GM tomatoes.

In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were claimed to be absent. In addition, it was concluded that mean body and organ weights, weight gains, food consumption and clinical chemistry or blood parameters were not significantly different between GM-fed and control groups. However:

* The unacceptably wide range of rat starting weights (±18% to ±23%) invalidated these findings.
* No histology on the intestines was done even though stomach sections showed mild/moderate erosive/necrotic lesions in up to seven out of twenty female rats but none in the controls. However, these were considered to be of no importance, although in humans they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.
* Seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons.
* These studies were poorly designed and therefore the conclusion that FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes were safe does not rest on good science, questioning the validity of the FDA's decision that no toxicological testing of other GM foods will in future be required.

Rats' ability to digest was decreased after eating GM corn.
GM maize: Two lines of Chardon LL herbicide-resistant GM maize expressing the gene of Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase Enzyme (PAT-PROTEIN) before and after ensiling showed significant differences in fat and carbohydrate contents compared with non-GM maize and were therefore substantially different. Toxicity tests were only performed with the PAT-PROTEIN even though with this the unpredictable effects of the gene transfer or the vector or gene insertion could not be demonstrated or excluded. The design of these experiments was also flawed because:

* The starting weight of the rats varied by more than ± 20% and individual feed intakes were not monitored.
* Feed conversion efficiency on PAT-PROTEIN was significantly reduced.
* Urine output increased and several clinical parameters were also different.

* The weight and histology of the digestive tract (and pancreas) was not measured.

Thus, GM maize expressing PAT-PROTEIN may present unacceptable health risks.
Allergen content increased when soybeans were genetically modified.

Compositional studies

GM soybeans: To make soybeans herbicide resistant, the gene of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium was used. Safety tests claim the GM variety to be "substantially equivalent" to conventional soybeans.10 The same was claimed for GTS (glyphosate-resistant soybeans) sprayed with this herbicide.11 However, several significant differences between the GM and control lines were recorded10 and the statistical method used was flawed because:

* Instead of comparing the amounts of components in a large number of samples of each individual GTS with its appropriate parent line grown side-by-side and harvested at the same time, the authors compared samples from different locations and harvest times.
* There were also differences in the contents of natural isoflavones (genistein, etc.) with potential importance for health.12
* Additionally, the trypsin inhibitor (a major allergen) content was significantly increased in GTS.10

Because of this, and the large variability (± 10% or more), the lines could not be regarded as "substantially equivalent."

GM potatoes: There is only one peer-reviewed publication on GM potatoes that express the soybean glycinin gene.13 However, the expression level was very low and no improvements in the protein content or amino acid profile were obtained.

The toxin level of GM cotton is unpredictable.

GM rice: The kind that expresses soybean glycinin gene (40-50 mg glycinin/g protein) has been developed14 and is claimed to contain 20% more protein. However, the increased protein content was probably due to a decrease in moisture rather than true increase in protein putting a question mark over the significance of this GM crop.

GM cotton: Several lines of GM cotton plants have been developed using a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki providing increased protection against major lepidopteran pests. The lines were claimed to be "substantially equivalent" to parent lines15 in levels of macronutrients and gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids and aflatoxin levels were less than those in conventional seeds. However, because of the use of inappropriate statistics it is questionable whether the GM and non-GM lines were truly equivalent, particularly as environmental stresses could have unpredictable effects on antinutrient/toxin levels.16

Nutritional/toxicological studies

Herbicide-resistant soybean: Studies have been conducted on the feeding value17 and possible toxicity18 for rats, broiler chickens, catfish and dairy cows of two GM lines of glyphosate-resistant soybean (GTS). The growth, feed conversion efficiency, catfish fillet composition, broiler breast muscle and fat pad weights and milk production, rumen fermentation and digestibilities in cows were claimed to be similar for GTS and non-GTS. However:

* These experiments were poorly designed since the high dietary protein concentration and the low inclusion level of GTS could have masked any GM effect.
* No individual feed intakes, body or organ weights were given and no histology was performed, except some qualitative microscopy on the pancreas.
* The feeding value of the two GTS lines was not substantially equivalent either because the rats grew significantly better on one of the GTS lines than on the other.
* The experiment with broiler chicken was a commercial and not a scientific study.
* The catfish experiment showed again that the feeding value of one of the GTS lines was superior to the other.
* Milk production and performance of lactating cows also showed significant differences between cows fed GM and non-GM feeds.
* Moreover, testing of the safety of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase which renders soybeans glyphosate-resistant18 was irrelevant because in the gavage studies an E. coli recombinant and not the GTS product was used. Their effects could be different as the differences in post-translational modification could have impaired their stability to gut proteolysis.

Thus, the claim that the feeding value of GTS and non-GTS lines was substantially equivalent is at best premature.
Rats had meager weight gain when fed GM soybeans.

In a separate study19 it was claimed that rats and mice which were fed 30% toasted GTS or non-GTS in their diet had no significant differences in nutritional performance, organ weights, histopathology and production of IgE and IgG antibodies. However, under the unphysiological -- basically, starvation -- conditions of these experiments when, instead of the normal daily growth of 5-8 g per day, the rats grew less than 0.3 g and mice not at all, no valid conclusions could be drawn.

GM corn: One broiler chicken feeding study with rations containing transgenic Event 176 derived Bt corn (Novartis) has been published.20 However, the results of this trial are more relevant to commercial than academic scientific studies.

GM peas seem to have no harmful effects on animals but that doesn't mean they are safe for humans.
GM peas: The nutritional value of diets containing GM peas expressing bean alpha-amylase inhibitor when fed to rats for 10 days at two different (30% or 65%) dietary inclusions, was shown to be similar to that of parent-line peas.21

* Even at 65% level the difference was small mainly because the alpha-amylase inhibitor expressed in the peas was quickly digested in the rat gut and its antinutritive effect abolished. Unfortunately no gut histology was done or lymphocyte responsiveness measured.
* Although some organ weights, mainly the caecum and pancreas were different, those of others were remarkably similar suggesting that GM peas may be used in the diets of farm animals at low/moderate levels if their progress was carefully monitored.

However, to establish its safety for humans a more rigorous specific risk assessment will have to be carried out with several GM lines. This should include:

* An initial nutritional/toxicological testing on laboratory animals
* If no harmful effects are then detected, it should be followed by clinical, double-blind, placebo-type tests with human volunteers, keeping in mind that any possible harmful effects would be particularly serious with the young, old, and disabled.

A protocol for such testing was given at the OECD conference in Edinburgh, February 2000 and subsequently published.22

Toxins were found in mice after eating GM potatoes.

GM potatoes: In a short feeding study to establish the safety of GM potatoes expressing the soybean glycinin gene, rats were daily force-fed with 2 g of GM or control potatoes/kg body weight.23 Although no differences in growth, feed intake, blood cell count and composition and organ weights between the groups was found, the potato intake of the animals was too low and unclear, whether the potatoes were raw or boiled.

Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown24 to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells. The results showed that despite claims to the contrary, CryI toxin was stable in the mouse gut and therefore GM crops expressing it need to be subjected to "thorough tests...to avoid the risks before marketing.24
When the health risks of GM potatoes were revealed in some studies, a debate ensued.

In another study, young, growing rats were pair-fed on iso-proteinic and iso-caloric balanced diets containing raw or boiled non-GM potatoes and GM potatoes with the snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) bulb lectin (GNA) gene.25 The results showed that the mucosal thickness of the stomach and the crypt length of the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes was significantly increased. Most of these effects were due to the insertion of the construct and not to GNA which had been been pre-selected as a non-mitotic lectin unable to induce hyperplastic intestinal growth26 and epithelial T lymphocyte infiltration. Although there is controversy about the tests, most of the adverse comments on this Lancet paper were personal, non-peer reviewed opinions and, as such, of limited scientific value. The findings, on the other hand, were published in a peer-reviewed publication25 and the criticism replied to.7 The work, however, has not been repeated nor results contradicted and it is therefore imperative that the effects on the gut structure and metabolism of all other GM crops developed using similar techniques and genetic vectors should be thoroughly investigated before their release into the food chain.

GM tomatoes: This study with a GM tomato expressing B. thuringiensis toxin CRYIA(b) gene was published in a book and not in a peer-reviewed journal. However, its importance was underlined by the immunocytochemical demonstration of in vitro binding of Bt toxin to the caecum/colon from humans and rhesus monkeys.27 Although in vivo the Bt toxin was not bound by the rat gut, this was possibly due to the authors' use of recombinant Bt toxin.
Allergies are a major concern with GM food, especially if ingredients are not labeled in packaged food.
Allergenicity studies

One of the major health concerns with GM food is its potential to increase allergies and anaphylaxis in humans eating unlabeled GM foodstuffs.

* When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2 S protein28 or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes.29
* It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens.30 Some farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin.31 It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has recently been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant.32

There are no reliable ways to test GM foods for allergies.

Assessment of the allergenicity of a GM foodcrop, however, is difficult when the gene is transferred from a source not eaten before or with unknown allergenicity or on gene transfer/insertion a new allergen or adjuvant is developed or the expression of a minor allergen is increased. Unfortunately, while there are good animal models for nutritional/toxicological testing, no such models exist for allergenicity testing.

* Presently only indirect and rather scientifically unsound methods, such as finding SHORT sequence homologies (at least 8 contiguous amino acids) to any of the about 200 known allergens, are used for the assessment of allergenicity.
* The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors (such as size and stability) of the transgenically expressed protein33 is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing34 instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins is also misleading because for example Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein.29
* However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy.35

Thus, in the absence of reliable methods for allergenicity testing, it is at present impossible to definitely establish whether a new GM crop is allergenic or not before its release into the human/animal food/feed chain.
We need more and better testing methods before making GM foods available for human consumption.
In conclusion

One has to agree with the piece in Science1 that there are many opinions but scarce data on the potential health risks of GM food crops, even though these should have been tested for and eliminated before their introduction. Our present data base is woefully inadequate. Moreover, the scientific quality of what has been published is, in most instances not up to expected standards. If, as claimed, our future is dependent on the success of the promise of genetic modification delivering wholesome, plentiful, more nutritious and safe GM foods, the inescapable conclusion of this review is that the present crude method of genetic modification has so far not delivered these benefits and the promise of a superior second generation is still in the future. Although it is argued by some that small differences between GM and non-GM crops have little biological meaning, it is clear that most GM and parental line crops fall short of the definition of "substantial equivalence." In any case, this crude, poorly defined and unscientific concept outlived its possible previous usefulness and we need novel methods and concepts to probe into the compositional, nutritional/toxicological and metabolic differences between GM and conventional crops and into the safety of the genetic techniques used in developing GM crops if we want to put this technology on a proper scientific foundation and allay the fears of the general public. We need more science, not less.6,7

© 2001, BioScience Productions, Inc., an organization promoting bioscience literacy. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor for reprint permission.

About the author: Dr. Pusztai, born in Hungary, received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London. Over his nearly 50-year career, he worked at universities and research institutes in Budapest, London, Chicago and Aberdeen (Rowett Research Institute). He has published close to 300 primary peer-reviewed papers and wrote or edited 12 scientific books. In the last 30 years he pioneered research into the effects of dietary lectins (carbohydrate-reactive proteins), including those transgenically expressed in GM crop plants, on the gastrointestinal tract. Since his contract was not renewed with Rowett as a result of disagreements, Dr. Pusztai has been lecturing on his GM potato research all over the world and acting as a consultant to groups starting up research into the health effects of GM food.

authorglossary

learn more get involved references back to top

Copy gene - genetic material that contains the genetic code for a desirable trait which has been copied from the DNA of the donor to transfer to the host organism. (Currently, it is not technically possible to take a gene from a donor organism and insert it directly into the host organism).

DNA - Deoxyribonucleic acid, the fundamental genetic material of all cells, that acts as the carrier of genetic information.

Gene - the biological unit of inheritance, which transmits hereditary information of a physical, behavioral, or biochemical trait.

Genetic modification - a technique for copying and transferring individual genes to another living organism to alter its genetic make up, thereby incorporating or deleting specific characteristics into or from the organism.

Toxin - a poison, usually originating in a plant or microorganism.

articlereferences

learn more get involved glossary back to top

1) Domingo, J.L. (2000) Health risks of genetically modified foods: Many opinions but few data. Science 288, 1748-1749.
2) Millstone, E., Brunner, E. and Mayer, S. (1999) Beyond substantial equivalence. Nature 401, 525-526.
3) Schubbert, R., Lettmann, C. and Doerfler, W. (1994) Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the blood stream of mice. Molecules, Genes and Genetics 242, 495-504.
4) Schubbert, R. Hohlweg, U., Renz, D. and Doerfler, W. (1998) On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission in the fetus. Molecules, Genes and Genetics 259, 569-576.
5) Mercer, D.K., Scott, K.P., Bruce-Johnson, W.A., Glover, L.A. and Flint, H.J. (1999) Fate of free DNA and transformation of oral bacterium Streptococcus gordonii DL1 plasmid DNA in human saliva. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, 6-10.
6) Kuiper, H.A., Noteborn, H.P.J.M. and Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M. (1999) Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. The Lancet 354, 1315-1316.
7) Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999a) Authors' reply. The Lancet 354, 1727-1728.
8) Alliance for Biointegrity website: http://www.biointegrity.org (1998), including Calgene FLAVR SAVRTM tomato report, pp. 1-604; International Research and Development Corp. first test report, pp. 1736-1738; Conclusions of the expert panel regarding the safety of the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato, ENVIRON, Arlington VA, USA pp. 2355-2382; Four week oral (intubation) toxicity study in rats by IRDC, pp. 2895-3000.
9) Redenbaugh, K., Hatt, W., Martineau, B, Kramer, M., Sheehy, R., Sanders, R., Houck, C. and Emlay, D. (1992) A case study of the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato. In: Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and Vegetables. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton.
10) Padgette, S.R. Taylor, N.B., Nida, D.L., Bailey, M.R., MacDonald, J., Holden, L.R. and Fuchs, R.L. (1996) The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. Journal of Nutrition 126, 702-716.
11) Taylor, N.B., Fuchs, R.L., MacDonald, J.,Shariff, A.B. and Padgette, S.R. (1999) Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 47, 4469-4473.
12) Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.
13) Hashimoto, W., Momma, K., Katsube, T., Ohkawa, Y., Ishige, T., Kito, M., Utsumi, S. and Murata, K. (1999) Safety assessment of genetically engineered potatoes with designed soybean glycinin: compositional analyses of the potato tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed protein in transgenic potatoes. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 79, 1607-1612.
14) Momma, K., Hashimoto, W., Ozawa, S., Kawai, S., Katsube, T., Takaiwa, F., Kito, M, Utsumi, S. and Murata, K. (1999) Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean glycinin: Analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Bioscience Biotechnology Biochemistry 63, 314-318.
15) Berberich, S.A., Ream, J.E, Jackson, T.L., Wood, R., Stipanovic, R., Harvey, P., Patzer, S. and Fuchs, R.L. (1996) The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 44, 365-371.
16) Novak, W.K. and Haslberger, A.G. (2000) Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology 38, 473-483.
17) Hammond, B.G., Vicini, J.L., Hartnell, G.F., Naylor, M.W., Knight, C.D., Robinson, E.H., Fuchs, R.L. and Padgette, S.R. (1996) The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. Journal of Nutrition 126, 717-727.
18) Harrison, L.A., Bailey, M.R., Naylor, M.W., Ream, J.E., Hammond, B.G., Nida, D.L., Burnette, B.L., Nickson, T.E., Mitsky, T.A., Taylor, M.L, Fuchs, R.L. and Padgette, S.R. (1996) The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. Journal of Nutrition 126, 728-740.
19) Teshima, R., Akiyama, H., Okunuki, H., Sakushima, J-i, Goda, Y., Onodera, H., Sawada, J-i and Toyoda, M. (2000) Effect of GM and Non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. Journal of Food Hygiene Society of Japan 41, 188-193.
20) Brake, J. and Vlachos, D. (1998) Evaluation of transgenic Event 176 "Bt" corn in broiler chicken. Poultry Science 77, 648-653.
21) Pusztai, A., Grant, G., Bardocz, S., Alonso, R., Chrispeels, M.J., Schroeder, H.E., Tabe, L.M. and Higgins, T.J.V. (1999) Expression of the insecticidal bean alpha-amylase inhibitor transgene has minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30% of the diet. Journal of Nutrition 129, 1597-1603.
22) Pusztai, A. (2000) The need for rigorous risk assessment. Chemistry & Industry 8, 280.
23) Hashimoto, W., Momma, K., Yoon, H.J., Ozawa, S., Ohkawa, Y., Ishige, T., Kito, M., Utsumi, S. and Murata, K. (1999) Safety assessment of transgenic potatoes with soybean glycinin by feeding studies in rats. Bioscience Biotechnology Biochemistry 63, 1942-1946.
24) Fares, N.H. and El-Sayed, A.K. (1998) Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins 6, 219-233.
25) Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999b) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354, 1353-1354.
26) Pusztai, A., Ewen, S.W.B., Grant. G., Peumans, W.J., van Damme, E.J.M., Rubio, L., Bardocz, S. (1990) Relationship between survival and binding of plant lectins during small intestinal passage and their effectiveness as growth factors. Digestion, 46 (suppl. 2), 308-316.
27) Noteborn, H.P.J.M., Bienenmann-Ploum, M.E., van den Berg, J.H.J., Alink, G.M., Zolla, L., Raynaerts, A., Pensa, M. and Kuiper, H.A. (1995) Safety assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein CRYIA(b) expressed in transgenic tomatoes. In: ACS Symposium series 605 Genetically Modified Foods - Safety Issues, Eds. Engel, K.H, Takeoka, G.R. and Teranishi, R. Chapter 12, pp. 135-147. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
28) Nordlee, J.A., Taylor, S.L., Townsend, J.A. and Thomas, L.A. (1996) Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybean. New England Journal of Medicine 334, 688-692.
29) Bindslev-Jensen, C. and Poulsen, L.K. (1997) Hazards of unintentional/intentional introduction of allergens into foods. Allergy 52, 1184-1186.
30) Burks, A.W. and Fuchs, R.L. (1995) Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and commercial soybean varieties. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 96, 1008-1010.
31) Bernstein, I.L., Bernstein, J.A., Miller, M., Tierzieva, S., Bernstein, D.I., Lummus, Z., Selgrade, M.K., Doerfler, D.L. and Seligy, V.L. (1999) Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 107, 575-582.
32) Vazquez-Padron, R.I., Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., Martinez-Gil, A.F., de la Riva, G.A. and Lopez-Revilla, R. (2000) Characterization of the mucosal and sytemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33, 147-155.
33) O'Neil, C., Reese, G. and Lehrer, S.B. (1998) Allergenic potential of recombinant food proteins. Allergy and Clinical Immunology International 10, 5-9.
34) Metcalf, D.D., Astwood, J.D., Townsend, R., Sampson, H.A., Taylor, S.L. and Fuchs, R.L. (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. In: Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 36(S):S165-186. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton, USA.
35) Nakamura, R. and Matsuda, T. (1996) Rice allergenic protein and molecular-genetic approach for hypoallergenic rice. Bioscience Biotechnology Biochemistry 60, 1215-1221.

home page