Genetically Modified GMO Food Part 2

no_gmos Genetically Modified GMO Food Part 2

Genetically Modified GMO Food, Part 2  by Jeffrey Dach MD

This article is part two of a series. For part one, click here

Science, Friend or Foe?

Science can be a benefit to humanity, or a great threat depending on use. For example, atomic science can be used either for peaceful production of energy, or for warfare. Unfortunately atomic warfare is no longer tenable, since atomic warfare would merely serve as mutual annihilation, covering the planet in a radiation cloud that would destroy all life.

Albert Einstein was once asked whether World War Three would be fought with the hydrogen bomb or the simple atomic bomb.  Albert Einstein replied,

“I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought, but the next one (World War Four) will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Genetic Engineering Friend or Foe?

Similarly, genetic engineering can be considered either a boon or a threat to humanity depending on use. The current day use of genetic engineering by large corporations like Monsanto and Aventis is intended to increase corporate profit with no regard for the environment or health safety, and so far, has been a great threat to bio-diversity of life and human health.

Revolving Door at the FDA and  Michael Taylor

Through a revolving door of insider political appointments and manipulation, Monsanto successfully created for itself a favorable FDA ruling which allows Monsanto and others to introduce genetically modified food into our supermarkets without safety testing or even labeling.

For example, Michael Taylor, a lawyer working for Monsanto, was hired by the FDA to re-write the new GMO regulations as, “substantially equivalent”, eliminating safety testing or even labeling. Other Monsanto insiders playing in the game were Donald Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas, Margaret Miller and Susan Sashan. (1-2)

Frankenfoods GMO FrankensteinFrankenstein Food

Genetic engineering is a primitive and crude technology that yields unpredictable results and unpredictable adverse events, and therefore poses a threat to life on the planet of a magnitude similar to radioactive contamination arising from global nuclear warfare.

The release of genetically modified seeds (GMO trans-genes) creates genetic pollution, an irreversible form of damage to the biological environment. The health effects on plants animal and human life is unpredictable.
These GMO Foods are in reality,”Frankenstein Foods”. GMO Foods must be banned from the entire planet immediately.

Image above: Boris Karloff in Frankenstein 1931 courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

We Need GMO Labeling

GMO food content must be labeled so that consumers may exercise the right to know what is in their food product.

No Patents for GMO Organisms – Overturn the Ruling

Court ruling granting patents for living organisms must be overturned, and existing patents for living organisms and plants must be revoked.

Heroes in the fight against GMO Food

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Vandana Shiva, are two female scientist heroines devoted to the global ban of GMO food. See their article,

Why Prince Charles is Right, We Need GMO-Free Food and Agriculture for Food Security by Dr. Vandana Shiva and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

Ignacio Chapela controversial Mexican-born microbiologist.

See, The Sad Saga of Ignacio Chapela by John Ross

Jeffrey Smith activist and author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette.

Percy Schmeiser, Canadian farmer who battled Monsanto in court defending the right of farmers to use their second generation seeds. and others…..

This article is part two of a series. For part one, click here.

Articles with Related Interest

GMO FOOD FIGHT on Senate Floor

Heading towards Extinction with GMO Food

Jeffrey Dach MD


1) How Monsanto Rigged the System: through Politics & Propaganda AHRP

2)  Monsanto’s High Level Connections to the Bush Administration Source Watch

3) deleted

4) Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Published on August 3, 2016

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Scientists call for bio-patent ban, GMO moratorium

“Food biotech is dead”

I have presented only a small fraction of the scientific findings indicating problems and dangers specific to genetic engineering, which both the practitioners and regulators are ignoring or dismissing. These and other concerns have persuaded more than 410 scientists from 55 countries around the world to sign an Open Letter to all Governments demanding a moratorium on environmental releases of GMOs because they are unsafe, and a ban on patenting life-forms and living processes because those patents are unethical. They also demand support for non-corporate, sustainable, organic agricultural methods that can truly bring food security and health for all.

Since we launched the Open Letter two years ago, the terms of the GM debate have shifted. It is no longer a moratorium that is needed. GMOs, as currently made, are unsafe and unsustainable, as well as immoral. We must abandon GM crops and all other attempts to genetic engineer plants, animals and human beings with a technology that is widely acknowledged to be unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable.

Even the corporations are coming around to the view that “Food biotech is dead” [28]. One by one, Aventis, Monsanto and Syngenta have announced they will concentrate on genomics and marker assisted conventional breeding. Though meanwhile, they are still forcing the world, especially the Third World to accept GM crops.

But the whole world is in revolt. The governments of Thailand and Sri Lanka, among others, have banned GM crops and GM imports. In Indonesia, armed guards had to be sent to protect Monsanto’s shipment of cotton seeds, which have already been shown not to perform as well as the indigenous non GM variety [29]. In the Philippines, mass demonstrations are taking place against GMOs and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) by MASIPAG (Farmer Scientist Partnership for Development) and other ngos. They condemn IRRI for restructuring sound traditional practices over the past 40 years to make farmers dependent on chemical inputs produced by corporations, the same corporations that are now forcing GMOs on farmers with the help of IRRI [30]. People are demanding farmer’s rights over the genetic resources in the collection and genebanks of IRRI and they renounce any form of IPR. Those sentiments are widely shared, not just all over the Third World, but in Europe and the United States.

Dr Mae Wan Ho
home page

Ban GMOs Now 04/06/08

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho warns that further indulgence in GMOs will severely damage our chances of surviving the food crisis and global warming; organic agriculture and localised food systems are the way forward

In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere; typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome, and have the tendency to move or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know the dance of life. That’s ultimately why genetic modification doesn’t work and is also dangerous.
Evolution Mae-Wan Ho Biology Department, Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, U.K. Comparative Psychology, a Handbook, (G. Greenberg and M. M. Haraway, eds.), pp. 107-119, Garland Publishing, 1998.
Why Prince Charles is Right,
We Need GMO-Free Food and Agriculture for Food Security.
Dr. Vandana Shiva and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho


Why GMOs Will Only Make the Global Food Crisis Worse

The Future of Food Video

he Future of Food – Introduction November 12, 2007
There is a revolution going on in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America, a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat. THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade. To view and purchase the entire film please go to: The Future of Food Video
List of Nations Banning/Restricting GE Crops
Third World Network: Doc. TWN/Biosafety/2001/F
GMO / Genetically Modified Foods, Genetically Modified Foods, Plants, Animals, Additives, Body Products, Fish, Crops and Trees have had their genes manipulated, changed, and put into other species that normally they would not mate with, blend with, consume, or grow in. Incredible combinations have been produced, and have been found to have mutations, diseases, abnormalities and trigger other diseases that otherwise may have remained dormant.

Very little testing has been done on the health effects of humans ingesting and applying genetically modified products. Tests that have taken place show animals that refuse to eat Genetically Modified feed, who upon being force-fed the Genetically Modified feed develop lesions, abnormalities, disease…and some have died.

Dozens of countries have banned the import, sale, use and planting of Genetically Modified Organisms due to lack of testing and long term study of human health and environmental effects.

The U.S. does not only NOT ban GMO’s, manufacturers are not required to identify or label a GMO ingredient in their food or body products. A conservative estimate concludes that 75+ % of American foods and body products contain genetically modified organisms. Regardless of dozens of scientific warnings, the FDA has approved widespread use of GMO ingredients in America’s foods and body products.

The following countries have banned or restricted the import, distribution, sale, utilization, field trials and commercial planting of GMO’s: Africa: Algeria, Egypt Asia: Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, Phillipines Europe: The European Union, Norway, Austria, Germany United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal Latin America: Brazil, Paraguay Middle East: Saudi Arabia North America: Maryland has banned GE (genetically engineered) fish and North Dakota and Montana have filed bans on GE wheat. The Municipalities of Burlington, Vermont (declared a moratorium on GE food), Boulder, Colorado (bans on GE crops) and the City and County of San Francisco (urged the federal government to ban GE food) are the only towns or states to take some sort of stand against plants, animals, foods, crops and body products that are, or contain Genetically Modified Organisms. NOTE: The U.S. government, and the FDA do not require anything Genetically Modified to be identified on ingredient lists. Genetically Modified foods and products are in widespread use and distribution throughout the U.S. Pacific: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand

Percentage of crops that are Genetically Modified in the U.S.: Soy (85%) Cotton (Cottonseed) (76%) Canola (75%) Corn (40%) Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%) Zucchini and Yellow Squash (small amount) Quest brand tobacco (100%)
Title: Submission of the British Medical Association to the Health and Community Care Committee On The Health Impact Of Gm Crop Trials Source: British Medical Association Publication date: November 27, 2002
Submission of evidence to the Clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee of The Scottish Parliament Dr Arpad Pusztai, FRSE Health Impact of GM Crops Posted 12/27/2002

Percy Schmeiser

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Monsanto vs Schmeiser The Classic David vs Goliath Struggle…
Rodney Nelson Farms Enterprises (“Nelsons”),
You are hereby notified that Monsanto Company does not authorize Greg, Roger, Rodney Nelson Farms Enterprises (“Nelsons”), or any entity in which the Nelsons have any interest or participates in any way, to possess, make, use or transfer any product containing Monsanto’s patented biotechnology, (including and commercially available seed containing Monsanto’s patented traits) such as Roundup…..
The Nelsons are a family of farmers in North Dakota, being sued by the St. Louis based, Biotechnology giant, Monsanto. Monsanto claims the Nelsons have used their RoundUp Ready® product without permission
Mississippi Dead Zone08.10.04 Recent reports indicate that the large region of low oxygen water often referred to as the ‘Dead Zone’ has spread across nearly 5,800 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico again in what appears to be an annual event. NASA satellites monitor the health of the oceans and spots the conditions that lead to a dead zone. Image to right: This image shows the outflow of the Neuse River. It is an example of contrast seen in the Gulf of Mexico when sediment filled water meets the ocean.
Dead zone (ecology) Gulf of Mexico Currently the most notorious dead zone is a 22,126 square kilometre (8,543 mi²) region in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi River dumps high-nutrient runoff from its vast drainage basin, which includes the heart of U.S. agribusiness, the Midwest, affecting important shrimp fishing grounds. This is equivalent to a dead zone the size of New Jersey. A dead zone off the coast of Texas where the Brazos River empties into the Gulf was also discovered in July 2007.[6]

Ignacio Chapela
Ignacio Chapela
For controversial biology researcher Ignacio Chapela, the long and winding road ends with tenure at Berkeley
By Barry Bergman, Public Affairs | 21 May 2005
The Sad Saga of Ignacio Chapela by John Ross How to destroy Mexican corn, reap maximum profits, and buy a university in one easy lesson… “I am living proof of what happens when biotech buys a university. The first thing that goes is independent research. The university is a delicate organism. When its mission and orientation are compromised, it dies. Corporate biotechnology is killing this university.”

The Future of Food and Other Videos
Lily Films presents: The Future of Food
Interview with Deborah Koons Garcia producer of the documentary film “The Future of Food” recorded November 23, 2005.
The Genetic Conspiracy (1/3) – about Monsanto by German producer…Japanese review Monsantos soy tests and find glaring proiblems with geneticlayy modified soy. The soy proteins are more stable and not destroyed by home cooking routines.
(2/3) both ASchkroft and his man, Clarence Thomas – both Monsanto People – OK to patent plants…
Monsanto Patent for a Pig (Pt.1 of 5) German Documentary
Safeway Taco Shells Contain Illegal, Likely Allergenic Variety of Bt Corn Illegal, Likely Allergenic Genetically Engineered Corn Found in Safeway Supermarket Corn Taco Shells For Immediate Release October 11, 2000
Contact: Amanda Gordon,
taco shell star-link corn The StarLink corn controversy StarLink was a variety of Bt corn patented by Aventis Crop Sciences (a subdivision of Aventis, acquired by Bayer AG in 2002), intended for use in animal feed.

U.S. regulatory authorities permitted the commercial sale of StarLink seed, with the stipulation that crops produced must not be used for human consumption. This restriction was based on the possibility that a small number of people might develop an allergic reaction because the version of the Bt protein used in StarLink is less rapidly digested than the version used in other Bt varieties.

StarLink corn was subsequently found in food destined for consumption by humans with an episode involving Taco Bell taco shells being particularly well publicized [2]. This led to a public relations disaster for Aventis and the biotechnology industry as a whole. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued. The registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000[3].

28 people reported apparent allergic reactions related to eating corn products that may have contained the starlink protein. However, the US Centers for Disease Control studied the blood of these individuals and concluded there was no evidence that the reactions people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the starlink protein [4].

Corn sent by the UN and the US as help to Central African nations was also found to contain some StarLink corn. The nations involved refused to accept the aid.

The southern portion of the U.S. corn belt planted the greatest amount of StarLink corn. It is this portion of the U.S. where corn borer damage creates the greatest economic loss to farmers.

The US corn supply has been monitored for the presence of the starlink protein since 2001. No positive samples have been found since 2004 showing that it is possible to withdraw a GM crop once it is released [5]
Illegal GE Corn Found In More Taco Shells

Greece Says No to GMO. In October 2004, the last of the 54 prefectures voted to declare their area GMO-free. That means that the whole of Greece is now covered by regional GMO-free zones. The anti-GMO movement is growing rapidly in the country. Last research results showed that the 93% of Greeks do not want GMO-cultivation on their land nor GMO products on their plate.

The Patent Landscape of Genetically Modified Organisms by Wen Zhou figures by Anna Maurer Wen Zhou is a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School.
Summary: Among the many contentious issues related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under public discussion, legal issues are in the spotlight. There is debate as to how much patent protection, if any, should be granted to GMO companies, and whether the patent rights have been utilized rightfully against farmers. The court seems to be by and large standing with the companies. This article provides an overview of GMO patents and related litigation to help you understand why.

StarLink Corn
StarLink corn settlement also to include interest By Kevin O’Hanlon, Associated Press
LINCOLN, Neb. — Farmers nationwide will be paid interest on the $110 million settlement with makers and distributors of genetically altered corn that was mistakenly introduced into the food supply.
To avoid an economic cataclysm, ASA persuaded Aventis to refrain from marketing Starlink™’s sister seed, Liberty Link™ Soybean, and Aventis avoided creating an economic public nuisance. After months of negotiations, Aventis abandoned its plans to commercialize the soybean; even today it still awaits approval by the EU. Aventis did so despite having secured full “food and feed” approval in the U.S. and having invested significant resources. 3

Bt Bacillus Thurigiensis
Bacillus thuringiensis Image: spores and bipyramidal crystals of Bacillus thuringiensis morrisoni strain T08025
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0830; FRL–8374–2] Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3Aa Proteins in Corn and Cotton; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3Aa proteins in or on corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; and cotton, undelinted seed; cotton, refined oil; cotton, meal; cotton, hay; cotton, hulls; cotton, forage; and cotton, gin byproducts, when applied or used as
plant-incorporated protectants. DATES: This regulation is effective August 6, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 6, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Comments on the human health impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene product in genetically modified crops”

EPA Review Docket Number OPP-00678B Professor Joe Cummins Professor Emeritus of Genetics
University of Western Ontario
Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part Two) Part 2: Genetically Engineered Corn By Jeffrey M. Smith

Bucchini, Luca, and Lynn R. Goldman. “Starlink corn: a risk analysis.” Environmental health perspectives 110.1 (2002): 5.  Starlink corn a risk analysis Environmental health perspectives Bucchini Luca 2002  Starlink Corn: A Risk Analysis Luca Bucchini and Lynn R. Goldman Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Allergenicity. The biochemical characteristics of Cry9c created challenges for the U.S. EPA in applying allergenicity assessment principles that had been used to support the safety of other pesticidal proteins. Consequently, there was a rapid evolution in the nature of the experimental evidence that the U.S. EPA and Aventis employed in the effort to evaluate the potential for allergenicity. The original submission (22) relied on stability studies and sequence analysis. These data did not rule out the possibility of allergenicity of Cry9c. The in vitro digestibility study showed that Cry9c is stable for 4 hr when exposed to pepsin digestion at pH 2.0. Cry9c is also stable to trypsin because, as noted above, it has been modified for increased proteolytic resistance. The protein was also found heat stable for 10 min at 90°C. Therefore, it was concluded that Cry9c was likely to survive processing and digestion and, as a consequence, to have the potential to interact with the immune system. The sequence analysis did not show any homology with known allergens. However, on the basis of its relative stability, the U.S. EPA restricted Cry9c to animal-feed use (23). Later, it was recognized that Cry9c may be glycosylated in plants; many believe that glycosylation is a feature of many food allergens (50) and that glycosyl groups contribute substantially to allergen binding (51,52). Retrospectively, the equivalence of trypsinized microbially produced Cry9c to the plant product seems to have been questionable; in fact, bacterially produced recombinant allergens sometimes cannot be validated, and eukaryotic systems may have to be used for their production instead, at least for aeroallergens (53).
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs
(Draft White Paper) Concerning Dietary Exposure To Cry9c Protein Produced By Starlink® Corn And The Potential Risks Associated With Such Exposure October 16, 2007, Scientific Considerations Regarding Allergenicity for the Initial StarLink® Decision
Testimony of Robert Cohen Regarding Genetically Engineered Frankenfoods & Organic Standards


“And what they did was Monsanto sent their own attorney, Michael Taylor, who was hired by the FDA to overview the entire procedure for the review, and he wrote the laws that led to all of the rules governing genetic engineering. In addition, Monsanto got their own scientists, Margaret Miller and Susan Sashan (phonetic), hired by the FDA to review their own research.

After Michael Taylor finished at the FDA, guess where he went to work. United States Department of Agriculture. He became an Under Secretary just at the time that Michael Espy had to resign in shame for taking bribes.

Congress. We had a committee, the House Agriculture Committee, that had a subcommittee called the Dairy, Livestock and Poultry Committee, and these 12 members of the committee stalled a bill that was intended to label food containing genetically engineered hormone. They stalled that bill in committee until the 1994 session of Congress expired. And when I investigated this matter, I found that 11 of the 12 men took a combined total of $711,000 in PAC money they call it. I call it bribes. Four of the men took money directly from Monsanto. Okay?

The relationships between USDA, private industry really trouble me. King & Spalding, a firm in Washington, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto’s attorney. Bob Dole’s chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld was the president of Serle, a subsidiary of Monsanto. The USDA and King & Spalding, this firm that represents Monsanto, they have 17 attorneys on the food arm of that agency that claim to have 40 years of combined experience working for USDA, working for the government.”

Fair Use Notice:

The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. The information on this site does not constitute legal, medical or technical advice.

Link to this article:

This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given. (c) 2008-2013 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved

Last updated on by Jeffrey Dach MD

Genetically Modified GMO Food Part 2
Article Name
Genetically Modified GMO Food Part 2
Genetically Modified GMO Food Part 2
jeffrey dach md
publisher logo

About Jeffrey Dach MD

Medical Director of TrueMedMD, a Clinic in Davie Florida specializing in Bioidentical Hormones and Natural thyroid. Office address 7450 Griffin Road Suite 190, Davie, Florida 33314 telephone 954-792-4663

One thought on “Genetically Modified GMO Food Part 2

  1. “Genetic engineering is a primitive and crude technology that yields unpredictable results and unpredictable adverse events”. That’s exactly why it’s done in highly secret, high-tech laboratories… because it’s primitive and crude. You actually just described traditional cross-breeding, which is seriously frowned upon in humans because of the unexpected consequences. Just like with the gene that codes for both sickle cell and increased resistance to malaria, too much of a good thing is a horrible thing. With traditional breeding practices, accuracy is impossible, and all of the unwanted genes get mixed in with the wanted ones. Just something to think about.

Leave a Reply