The Institute for Responsible Technology's "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs" List

Hello kind readers. Today I'm reviewing a post from the "Institute for Responsible Technology" entitled "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs". For those of you who are not familiar with the IRT, it's a "charitable organization" run by some guy: it's not a government institute, it's not affiliated with a university, research facility, or hospital. And when I say that it's run by some guy, that's not an exaggeration: its founder is not a scientist and doesn't have a background in science, to the best of my knowledge, yet he's a leader in the anti-GMO movement, and information from his "Institute" is often used as authoritative, scientific evidence of GMO harm.

How can you protect your family from the dangers
of GMOs unless you buy the IRT's book???

Before even starting, I noted that there are no hyperlinks to references or even a list of references at the bottom of the IRT's post. But, since I've seen this list pop up with greater frequency, I'll still read the list and try to figure out what it's all about.

1) GMOs are unhealthy. The website claims: "The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses."

• The AAEM is an organization that believes that WiFi, "toxins" in vaccines, and water fluoridation are harmful. So not exactly the place I'd turn to for medical advice. In contrast, literally hundreds of scientific organizations have stated that crops generated through transgenesis (i.e GMOs) pose no greater risk than traditionally bred crops.
• I have never seen a study stating that genes from GM soy have transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside us. Note that the website says "can transfer". Here are a couple of similar statements of my own: "you could die in a sharknado". "Genetic material from a boa constrictor could transfer to a rat that it ingests, creating a hybrid ratstrictor". You get the idea... All my hypothetical scenarios have as much evidence to support them as the statement about GMOs from the IRT,
• Regarding the study finding Bt in the blood of pregnant women, that study has been found to be deeply flawed, because the method the authors used to detect Bt was made for plant cells, not mammalian ones.

The IRT continues to highlight the dangers of GMOs by pointing out correlations: since GMOs have been introduced, the number of chronic health problems has increased. But there's no evidence that one causes the other. Could it possibly be that our population is just living longer? Or that we're getting better at diagnoses of many disorders/diseases?

Summary: No credible evidence is provided demonstrating that GMOs are unhealthy.

2) GMOs contaminate - forever. Just when I thought the IRT couldn't get more dramatic, it goes on to say: "Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste." The IRT claims that this genetic pollution is affecting all of us, particularly organic farmers. I've never heard of a farmer losing organic certification in the US/Canada due to "GMO contamination", maybe because there was such a thing as "cross-pollination" before GMOs existed and farmers who are concerned about this take proper measures to prevent it from happening by establishing appropriate buffer zones with surrounding farms. So unless the IRT can establish that GM pollen is some sort of super-pollen that spreads further or pollinates more easily or that the pollen will survive for all eternity, then I can't really buy this argument. To support my statement, here's the USDA's latest report on coexistence of GM crops and non-GM crops. I know!! Isn't it crazy that the organization that certifies organic farms actually has guidelines on how organic farmers can coexist with GM crops?? The report also contains information on surveys conducted by the USDA to determine if farmers have experienced economic losses due to GMO contamination. However, the report doesn't distinguish or examine how these losses occurred: was it due to cross-pollination in the field, contamination during harvest, during transportation, or storage, for example? Despite the flaws in their numbers, it's still incredibly low: only 87 farmers experienced losses due to GMO contamination between 2011 and 2014 in 20 states surveyed. 

3) GMOs increase herbicide use. The website claims "Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs." The amount of herbicide used isn't a very useful statistic. Is it because we have more fields dedicated to herbicide tolerant crops? Was there a decrease in other herbicides? Were the other herbicides harsher on the environment and have a more toxic profile? The article goes on to say: "Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer." There's no evidence for any of this. The EPA examined whether glyphosate is linked to hormone disruption and found "no convincing evidence" to support it. Regarding Round-Up and cancer, "a Joint Meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health Organization (WHO) Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)" recently stated that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet".

4) Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects. The article claims that by "mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects". There are several papers that have done comparisons on unanticipated consequences/changes of GMOs and traditionally bred crops (see here, here, and here). In each case, the transgenic crop had fewer unanticipated changes in DNA and/or RNA than the traditionally bred crop. To read more about these studies, see this post. So perhaps the IRT is concerned about the ratstrictor or something, otherwise I'm not sure what they're referring to. 

5) Government oversight is dangerously lax. The paragraph explains that GMO safety studies are not required. Technically, this is true. All GMO safety studies and submissions are voluntary. However, to date, I don't know of any GMOs that haven't gone through FDA approval. As such, the voluntary testing of GMOs is only on paper, not in practice: in practice it is mandatory. Surprisingly, the FDA's process for approving GMOs is one that was meant to be applied to all novel crops. This op-ed from Nature explains: "[The FDA] recommended through a guidance document — not a regulation — that developers of foods derived from 'new plant varieties' undergo a voluntary consultation process with the agency. This guidance did not exclude non-GE new plant varieties. In practice, however, developers of conventionally bred foods seem not to have undergone such consultations, whereas the FDA has been notified of more than 100 foods derived from GE plants (see go.nature.com/z78s1e)." This "voluntary but not really voluntary" aspect of the regulatory process of GMOs is one that, I believe, should change because it can be exploited by organizations such as IRT to imply that safety studies are not conducted. Not only is the FDA involved, but EPA and USDA-APHIS are also involved in the regulatory process, depending on the trait. However, Biotech Regulation in US is being restructured to make it simpler, and to adapt it to newer crop modification techniques.

6) The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety. IRT's point here is to suggest that the only scientists claiming that GMOs are safe are those that are paid off by large companies, whereas independent scientists know that GMOs are dangerous. They draw a parallel between scientists who claim that GMOs are safe and scientists who claimed that tobacco is safe. I was curious as to how the scientific consensus on tobacco safety was obtained, and I found this paper (H/T Skepticalraptor's post on the topic). To generate a scientific consensus on a topic, there needs to be enough research to support a conclusion. The paper I've linked to highlights that it took decades to generate a consensus on whether tobacco is safe or not: first, it took a few years to observe that there was an increasing incidence of lung cancer, and it wasn't until the 50's that case-control studies were conducted associating cigarette smoking with cancer. After several such studies were conducted, the medical organizations of the time issued statements highlighting the association. The tobacco industry defended the safety of their products and funded research to demonstrate this, but this stands in stark contrast with the safety of GMOs: the scientific consensus on GMOs is supported, not only by the industry, but also by dozens of reputable scientific organizations around the globe. The scientific consensus on cigarettes was not upheld by the tobacco industry. Basically, if the tobacco industry can't pay off the WHO to say that smoking cigarettes is safe, then neither can Monsanto. You can read more about the consensus on tobacco, how it was opposed, and how researchers within the tobacco industry spoke out here.

7) Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed. IRT quotes an article from Nature from 2009 about how scientists who show the harm of GMOs are attacked or are censured. Here's the full article from Nature and I'd like you to read it to see just how much cherry-picking was done by IRT. The article highlights how research on GMOs that generate results suggestive of harm elicit two responses: from the anti-GMO camp, the information is used to campaign against the crops and to drive policy; from the pro-GMO camp, there is swift criticism of these papers to highlight any flaws there may be. The article interviews scientists who have been criticized and those who conducted the criticism and provides perspectives from both sides. The pro-GMO camp basically states that papers on controversial topics need to be reviewed more carefully, since they can and are used by activists to further their agendas, even if the papers are heavily flawed (which is ironic, because I'm reviewing a piece from the IRT which does exactly that). As for IRT's claim that research is being "suppressed", I'll need a citation for this.

8) GMOs harm the environment. The IRT claims: "GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable." However, there's no evidence to support this. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released their report reviewing GMOs and stated: "Overall, the committee found no conclusive evidence of cause-and-effect relationships between GE crops and environmental problems." The NAS' answer is more nuanced, provides many examples of why there's no conclusive evidence, and I encourage you to review the document.

9) GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. The NAS report states that GMOs have not really increased yields, although the IRT doesn't use this document to make this statement. It's important to note that none of the GMOs that are currently on the market were directly designed to increase yields. The NAS' summary states that, although there is disagreement on whether the current traits on the market have improved yields, there's no data to suggest that the increase in yields that farmers have observed due to GMOs are different from the increase in yields that farmers have observed in conventional farming. However, from my perspective, not having seen an increase in yields isn't a reason to shun GMOs: transgenesis gives agronomists the ability to create crops designed to withstand stresses or be more efficient, and using such traits we may see increases in yields. The IRT makes similar statements regarding current GMOs and their ability to feed the world. Again, none of the GMOs on the market are currently fortified, but transgenic crops have the potential to help reduce malnutrition and there are a few projects that have made lots of headway.

10) By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply. Ah... We finally get to the heart of the matter. The IRT doesn't want to just label GMOs, but to get rid of them entirely from the food supply. The IRT makes this really convenient, by making a handy dandy shopping guide for people who want to avoid GMOs. And guess who sponsors the guide?!? ZOMG! Food companies that want you to buy their food!!!!

The double standard in the GMO debate

As a scientist who writes about GMOs, I get called "shill" on a fairly frequent basis. Sometimes, the mere fact that my twitter handle is "BioChicaGMO" is enough evidence for a person to call me a shill

My Twitter Handle seems to be my undoing

(as an aside, the reason why I went with BioChicaGMO is because BioChica was taken, and since the spouse suggested that I start a twitter account to promote my blog, I thought it made sense. I'd probably choose something different if I were to start all over again. BioChica was my Xbox GamerTag. I used to play fairly frequently before the kid came around.)

Hey spouse, after you finish reading this, let's play a round of Portal. It's been a while.

Anyway, getting back to the main point of this article, the sector of biotech I work in has nothing to do with agriculture, and biotech is a huge umbrella term for many, many sectors. In the different websites I write for, I've tried to be as transparent as possible and have made my LinkedIn profile public. Accusing me of being a shill for Ag is equivalent to accusing an organic apple farmer of being a shill for McDonald's because they're both in the food industry. The shill-gambit is used very often in topics surrounding biotech, such as vaccines or GMOs, and it's a shame because it doesn't really help support any argument.

However, in reading many articles about GMOs, I'm always struck by the double-standard that exists when it comes to financial motivations. Why is Dr Mercola as popular as he is, when he sells supplements promoted in his articles? How isn't that a conflict of interest? Or take, for example, the Institute for Responsible Technology: its founder writes an article about gluten allergies and GMOs, with the only evidence being material from the website itself, and then encourages you to buy items that they recommend.

It's a guarantee that I'm funded by GMO related corporations!

The Non-GMO Project is another example, and I'm going to highlight this by following the story of Dr John Fagan, a molecular biologist who became part owner of a company named "Genetic ID" around 1998. Genetic ID is a company that does DNA testing to determine if foods contain GMOs. Genetic ID is also one of a handful of labs that is used by the Non-GMO Project for its certification process, and is a "Non-GMO Project Approved Lab". Therefore, the greater the customer demand for non-GMO certified products, the more money flows towards Genetic ID and towards its owners.

The Non-GMO Project's website has a lot of information geared to highlight the value of a GMO-free diet. For example: "a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights", or "Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe", or "The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled." There are no references or citations provided for any of these statements, so their validity cannot be assessed. If you visit the website's section on GMO Science, it points you to a document entitled "GMO Myths and Truths". The website explains this document by stating that it's "an evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. This 2014 document is prepared by the preeminent researchers and scientists: Michael Antoniou, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan."

I just want to pause here for dramatic effect, and to make it clear that the author of the scientific document that the Non-GMO Project provides is the same guy that owns one of the labs that the Non-GMO Project uses for its DNA verification process.

The article was about Autism and GMOs and how there's no evidence
suggesting that eating GMOs causes ASD. But it doesn't matter because
apparently I'm funded by Monsanto.

I reviewed the first chapter of GMO Myths and Truths a long time ago and the rest of the chapters I've slowly debunked, although not as directly. The document embodies "Gish Galloping" which basically consists of throwing so much information and so many references at a person that they could never debunk your argument. Instead of providing 1-2 references that encapsulate an argument, 50 references are provided most of which don't really support the argument being made. I've been sent the document several times in the course of my discussions on GMOs, particularly on Twitter. If you scan through "GMO Myths and Truths", you may be stunned by the seemingly overwhelming evidence against GMOs and you might freak out, and that's what the document is intended to accomplish. But if you peel back the document's polished, shiny exterior and look at it in depth, you'll see that most statements are hypotheticals of things that might happen. There's a difference between what's possible and what's probable. Is it possible that I might get struck by lightning while getting bitten by a hammer-head shark? Sure. Is it probable? Not really. So many, many statements made in GMO Myths and Truths are presented as possibilities, yet the probabilities are never addressed. And I'm sorry, but any document that supports Seralini's study loses all credibility.

The person never did come back to resume our chat... 

Anyway, John Fagan is one of the authors of this document. The elegance of it is quite admirable: scare the bejeezus out of people about what's in their food by producing a "scientific" document with all the right words and language, thereby increasing the demand for non-GMO verified products. In fact, John Fagan is the Executive Director for Earth Open Source who put together the "GMO Myths and Truths" document and several other similar publications. The organization's goal is to "restore the open source roots of the food system – collaboration, transparency, and shared knowledge and resources – to help feed humanity, increase equity, support self-reliance and foster healthy ecosystems."

The success of an entity such as the Non-GMO Project relies on pressure from groups such as GMO-Free USA to persuade companies into believing that the Non-GMO Project label will be of value to their customers. With systematic and well-coordinated campaigns against companies, non-profit groups such as GMO-Free USA and GMO Inside have managed to convince companies to create GMO-free products: Similac recently announced that it was making GMO-free formula, General Mills decided to take the GMO-free plunge with Cheerios, and Hershey's has decided to go non-GMO. GMO-Free USA also shuns GMO-free labeling if the certification isn't through the non-GMO project. And guess who is on the board of advisors for GMO-Free USA?  John Fagan.

Nothing that John Fagan has done here is illegal. Nothing here is different from what many other companies out there are doing. I write this to highlight the double standard that exists when it comes to GMOs: if I had written this exact same story, replacing Dr Fagan with an executive at Monsanto, and if the organizations listed advocated for biotech, I'd like you to think of the outrage that would exist as a consequence.

They're onto me! They've discovered that I've taken
the Secret Oath of Scientists

Well-designed studies that receive industry funding are discarded because of their "ties to ag", but a poorly designed study that receives funding from non-GMO organizations is ethical, and if flaws in the design are pointed out then it's considered to be a "smear campaign" orchestrated by shills. Last week, I got a comment asking me about the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) dirty dozen: every year the EWG puts together a list of fruits and veggies that have the highest amount of pesticide residue, and advises people to eat the organic version of these. The EWG's methods have been found to be flawed, and there's no evidence that eating the organic version of the fruits and veggies on their list is "healthier". Additionally, EWG receives funding from the who's who of organic companies including Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, Earthbound Farms, and Dr. Bronner Soaps. I consider this a double-whammy: 1) no science to back them up and 2) funding from groups that benefit from their scientifically-questionable publications. Again, replace the characters in this story with a company against whom you may have a bias. Let's use Coca-Cola as an example: let's imagine that Coca-Cola gives funding to a non-profit who puts together a glossy brochure comparing caffeine free products between different companies. There's no difference between Sprite and 7-Up, but they claim that caffeine free Coca-Cola has less caffeine than caffeine free Pepsi, and they recommend buying Coke. The difference is 2 parts per billion, but that's not in the glossy publication or in the press release. What would you think? Would your spidey senses start tingling? I assume that it would. So explain to me what the difference is between this hypothetical scenario and what the EWG actually does with their dirty dozen?

The double standard here is mind-boggling.

I'm going to quote from an article that I wrote a while back on a related topic: "The truth is that universities do not have a litmus test to measure your ethics. Companies do not have a sorting hat to determine if your moral standards are a proper fit. As such, there are unethical individuals in both areas. More importantly, there are many individuals with a clear sense of what is wrong and right. Science is science. Crummy science can be produced in publicly funded labs. Amazing studies can be published by individuals affiliated with an industry. There are many examples of both."

Fair enough... But this person should also look at who sponsors Seralini.

So whatever criteria you use to determine if someone is a shill should be applied across the board. Whatever criteria you use to determine if a study is scientifically sound should be used universally. Whatever standards you use to determine if an organization should be trusted should be applied to all groups, whether it's GMOanswers or Non-GMO Project. I can tell you that I've never received a penny for anything I've written related to GMOs, nor do I have a side business that benefits from what I write. I wonder if the authors of "GMO Myths and Truths" can say the same.

Microbiomes and GMOs

What's up everyone? This post reviews an article that I stumbled upon on Twitter. I don't think that I ever anticipated that joining Twitter would cause me to read more papers, but it's been a very pleasant surprise. The paper has a freakishly long title, way longer than 140 characters: "High-Throughput Sequence-Based Analysis of the Intestinal Microbiota of Weanling Pigs Fed Genetically Modified MON810 Maize Expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab (Bt Maize) for 31 Days" and is publicly available. The jargon-free title of the paper would be "DNA sequencing analysis of the bacteria in the gut of baby pigs fed an insect-resistant-GM-corn for 31 days". The study is independently funded and its authors claim no conflict of interest.

The reason I wanted to read this paper is that a) it combines two trendy topics: GMOs and microbiomes (hence the buzzword-laden title to this blog), and most importantly, b) I wanted to find out if this paper lent credibility to the Institute for Responsible Technology's hypothesis that GMOs are to be blamed for poor gut health. Here's a quote from their website, which I'll explain further below:

"A recent analysis of research suggests that Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders:

Intestinal permeability

Imbalanced gut bacteria

Immune activation and allergies

Impaired digestion

Damage to the intestinal wall"

As you may know, trillions of bacteria live in our gut. These little critters help digest our food, generate vitamins for us, and breakdown many different compounds. The collection and distribution of these bacteria is known as our "microbiome". There's a lot of research going on right now exploring different aspects of our microbiomes, but it's a fairly new field: we don't know what constitutes a "good" or "healthy" microbiome or if such a thing exists at all. We know that the composition of the bacteria in our gut fluctuates a lot and very quickly (as examples, this study suggests that microbiomes change very quickly when you eat meat; this study suggests that jet lag impacts your microbiome, possibly causing metabolic imbalances). Odds are, your microbiome is changing at this very moment to account for many different factors, particularly if you had to deal with the ridiculous daylight savings time change this weekend. 

So what does this have to do with GMOs? One of the many arguments made by the Institute for Responsible Technology and other anti-GMO groups is that the Bt-toxin, which is a bacterial protein introduced into specific crops such as corn and cotton to make them insect resistant, negatively impact our gut. Here's an overview on how the Bt-toxin (or protein) works from UCSD: "The Bt toxin dissolve in the high pH insect gut and become active. The toxins then attack the gut cells of the insect, punching holes in the lining. The Bt spores spills out of the gut and germinate in the insect causing death within a couple days." Basically, if a bug that is sensitive to Bt eats a crop that has the Bt-toxin transgene, then it will die pretty quickly.

The reason why this same pathway doesn't work in humans is because a) our guts don't have high pH (our stomach has low/acidic pH), and b) we don't have the receptors in our gut that recognize Bt. 

So, that's why I was curious to read this paper. Would a single statement from the Institute for Responsible Technology finally be correct/accurate? Aren't you excited??? Let's get started!!

The paper starts by outlining the importance of this field of research (my comments/thoughts in brackets): any change in the microbiome caused by a GM-plant could impact the host [i.e. the person], particularly if the individual is immunocompromised; the European Food Safety Authority guidelines recommend examining the impact of GMOs during animal feeding trials, but most research examining the Bt-toxin has examined the impact of the protein on bacteria of the soil [which is also important from an ecological standpoint]; in vitro [in a petri dish] tests suggest that the Bt toxin has anti-bacterial properties and that it doesn't actually get completely degraded in the intestine, so it's important to figure out what it does in vivo [in a living organism]. 

The paper also reviews results of previous Bt-corn feeding studies that have examined the microbiome: 2 feeding studies in cows found no impact, a study in sheep also found no impact, but a feeding study in rats found a difference in the distribution/location of a bacteria after feeding Bt for 90-days (I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you read that there are no studies about GMOs and their safety, you are being misled). The authors explain that their study is important because a) the pig's digestive system is similar to that of humans and b) the DNA sequencing analysis that they perform is far superior to that used in previous studies. 

We interrupt this post for BioChica's shameless self-promotion: please read my previous post on DNA sequencing if you need an introduction to the technology.

The experiment seems pretty well designed: once the pigs were weaned, they were randomly split into two groups of nine pigs each (i.e. n=9/treatment). One group was given feed that was made from Bt-corn and the second group was given feed that was made from the non-genetically modified strain of the corn (i.e. the non-GM isogenic parent line). The pigs weren't given antibiotics at any point and were allowed to eat and drink freely. It would have been good to have the numbers of how much they ate/drank to determine if there was any difference.

The Bt-corn and the control corn were grown in neighboring plots to ensure that they had the same environmental conditions (this is an important aspect to the study since previous papers that I've reviewed suggest that the environment plays a bigger role in differences between GM and non-GM crops than whether the crop is a GMO). The Bt-corn and its corn were tested to determine if there were any differences in their nutritional composition (i.e. does the GM-corn have more/less sugars, carbs, amino acids, etc. than the non-GM corn?) and there were no alarming differences. The authors made feed for the pigs out of the Bt-corn, making sure that the ONLY GM ingredient was the Bt-corn. For the control pigs, they made the exact same feed using the control corn. The pigs were fed the corn for 31 days and then euthanized. Fecal samples (i.e. pig poop) were collected on day 1 and day 31. Once the pigs were euthanized, samples were collected from different points along the intestine. Then, DNA was collected from all the stool samples.



Apparently, this cute little mammal's
digestive system is quite similar to our own

Once they had the DNA, they performed a specific analysis which allows you to determine what species were in the sample (including bacteria), as well as their distribution (for the science-y people, they amplified the v4 portion of the 16S rRNA using universal primers, sequenced on a 454 and then BLASTed against a 16s-specific database). They included a negative control throughout the DNA analysis. They compared the results from the two groups of pigs and did the necessary stats.

So... after all that work, what did the data say?

The authors go through the different families of bacteria found in each area of the intestine and any differences seen between the two treatments. There were no differences in the abundance of the most prevalent types of bacteria between the two treatment groups. There were differences in the abundance of some of the minor families of bacteria, most of which the authors attribute to sampling (for example, the bacteria was found in 5 pigs in one treatment and only 2 pigs in the other treatment). Other differences in the abundance of the less prevalent bacteria were primarily attributed to differences in the amount of fiber between the corn leading to differences in the amount of food ingested (which points again to the fact that the authors really should have measured the amount of food and water that the pigs were taking in). It's important to note that the differences observed were within the "normal" amount for corn.

The authors conclude by stating that the biological importance of these small differences remains to be seen, but that, in any case, they didn't cause any issues in the intestines of the pigs examined. The authors point out that they didn't observe any anti-bacterial effects caused by the Bt-toxin, possibly due to the fact that the amount of Bt-toxin in the feed was approximately 4000x lower than the amount used in the in vitro studies where the anti-bacterial effect had been observed/measured.

I'd like to take a moment to say "Holy Crap!! 4000x lower?? No wonder the real world relevance of in vitro studies is always an important question!!"

The final paragraph of the study reads (my explanations in [brackets]): "In conclusion, 31 days of Bt maize consumption had only minimal impact on microbial community structure in the ceca [gut] of pigs, resulting in statistically significant differences in abundance of only 2 of 39 bacterial families and 2 of 54 genera [subfamilies] detected. However, the low abundance and frequency of detection of some taxa [types of bacteria], as well as the lack of information on their role within the intestine, make interpretation of some of the data difficult. Nonetheless, results from the present study indicate that dietary Bt maize [corn] is well tolerated at the level of the intestinal microbiota following 31 days of exposure, as the differences observed are not believed to be of major biological importance and were not associated with any adverse health effects."

So there you have it. The paper suggests that Bt corn doesn't cause a leaky gut, doesn't kill the bacteria in your gut, and doesn't have a negative impact on your intestine. Next time you're bloated and gassy, you won't be able to blame the GMOs :P

I have no doubt that some will read this and point to the small differences observed and yell "Aha!! There ARE differences!" The paper clearly questions the biological relevance of these differences, and as I mentioned earlier in this post, the paper adds more evidence to an existing body of data suggesting that Bt causes no harm in the gut. Some will say "31 days isn't enough!!", but again, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, evidence suggests that changes in our microbiome take place quickly and that it's always in flux. If I were an academic scientist, I wouldn't want to investigate the question of Bt impact on microbiomes any further because of the high likelihood that I wouldn't find anything new. We hear a lot about the shortage of grant money and funding in science. Can you honestly tell me that it's the best use of your tax dollars to do yet another study on this topic with all the data that already exists? Anyhoo, that's my rant for this evening...

Till next time!

Update 11/6/2014: I got the following comment about the article that is worth noting "They also didn't use very strict p-values or do multiple test corrections - pretty amazing how few significant hits they found without it!"

Learning about GMOs: A reflection on year one

It's been over a year now since I started learning about GMOs and writing this blog. I've learned so much and am humbled every day by how much I have yet to learn. But as I look back and reflect on the knowledge gained, I also see that it's quite a bit, particularly considering all the life-events that have taken place in parallel. I thought that I'd share with you my learnings about GMOs that have surprised me the most.

Some of these were on the level of an M. Night Shyamalan movie-twist for me. Some are not even about GMOs, but just about agriculture and our food in general. Yeah... I kinda feel embarrassed about not knowing a few on the list... Don't judge me!

Corn. But without the syringe in it to depict that it's a GMO,
it's not really scary.
From Wikimedia Commons

1) The vast majority of fruits and vegetables are not transgenics. Before starting this blog, I thought that most of what we ate were transgenic crops, meaning that they had a gene/protein from a different species. I had heard so much about tomatoes with fish genes and strawberries that would never freeze that I just assumed that all that stuff was out on the market. Every time I picked up a fruit in the supermarket that was particularly large, I thought to myself "huh... that's got to be a GMO". You know those grapes that are the size of a tennis ball, and squirt juice everywhere when you bite into them? Every time I ate one, I'd close my eyes and thank the mysterious GMO gods for that sweet delicious nectar. Little did I know that none of these fruits were GMOs. They were genetically modified in the sense that they had been bred and selected to have optimal sweetness and size through cross-breeding. But they weren't transgenic organisms. There are only a handful of transgenic crops such as corn, soy, or cotton. The short list can be found in this database (note that you have to select the type of approval to determine if the GMO has been commercialized or not).

2) Organic food production uses pesticides (EDIT: Not all organic food production and only pesticides that are permitted under the USDA's organic label and approved by the EPA. Which is also true about conventional farming). This one blew my mind. I couldn't believe it! I thought that by definition, organic food production did not use pesticides. Not only that, but some of the pesticides used are more toxic than those applied in conventional farming. The difference is that the pesticides used in organic farming are not synthetic. No idea why that is better... Here's a list of pesticides approved for use in organic farming.

3) Many plant traits are developed using mutagenesis. And can be labeled "Organic". This one melted my brain and the spouse still doesn't get it altogether. Mutagenesis is the use of radioactivity or mutating chemicals to create random mutations in plants, and selecting those with the desired trait (here's my blog post with an overview of various papers, and here's the Wikipedia article on the technique). This article from the New York Times lists wheat, barley and even ruby red grapefruits as crops generated through mutagenesis. Imagine that!! The delicious, organic, grapefruit from my farmers' market was developed using radiation to randomly create mutations, and somehow that's less scary than a GMO. Why the organic food movement isn't fighting for their labeling seems hypocritical, and the fact that they can exist under the umbrella of the organic label is astounding. Again: Mind. Blown.

4) There's lot of peer reviewed research on GMOs, both publically and privately funded. I mean a LOT. I remember the first time I typed in MON810 into PubMed (a database hosted by the NIH), I got over 100 hits. That's 100+ studies that have looked into some aspect, such as identification or safety, on a single seed/trait (MON810 is Monsanto's Bt corn) Since it's a database search, let's assume that some of them are only loosely related to MON810. But even if 50% are discarded, that still leaves us with 50+ studies on a single trait/seed. In a Q&A with the founders of Biofortified.org, they mentioned that the most common misconception about GMOs is that there aren't any studies. Although I didn't think that there were no studies whatsoever, I was blown away by the sheer number/volume of studies, many of which are publicly funded.

Don't get me wrong: just because I haven't read any credible studies suggesting that GMOs pose a health risk does not mean that we should stop studying them, both in terms of technical methods in their generation, as well as safety. Go ahead. Go to pubmed and type in MON810 :)

5) Types of traits used to generate GMOs generally benefit farmers, not shoppers. What I mean is that there aren't many GM crops where the trait introduced was selected because it would make me want to buy it in the grocery store. There are several crops in the pipeline designed for me, such as non-browning apples or soy that has healthy oils (my post about the non-browning apple is here). But at the moment, most crops are designed to benefit farmers, such as Bt crops which help farmers reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed to fight worms, or Glyphosate resistant crops, which help farmers fight weeds using glyphosate (my post about glyphosate is here). I have yet to write on the topic of whether GM crops lead to decreased pesticide use, so I have a lot to learn on this topic. 

It's important not to misinterpret this point: when costs decrease for farmers, the end consumer pays less. But this is an indirect benefit for the shopper. It'll be interesting to see if crops that directly benefit shoppers will impact their perspectives on GMOs.

6) The amount of misinformation surrounding this topic is staggering. And depressing. It ranges from the subtle, where statements are simply taken out of context or the complete findings of a paper are not provided, to outright lies. I expected that there would be misinformation, but I guess I was pretty naïve and didn't think it would be THAT bad. But it's downright awful. For example, the Institute for Responsible Technology's website states "The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function." The paper which this statement is based off of actually says "it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events seen in this study would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health" (this topic was reviewed in this post). This is a subtle little white lie, when you contrast it with the downright deceptive (and dangerous) statement that GM insulin poses a health risk (Dr Kevin Folta reviewed this topic here).

I still have a tough time understanding why certain organizations would use such deceptive means to attack a technology. I think Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it best in his recent Facebook post on the topic of GMOs:  "If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct. In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with."

I was surprised at how many people distrust GMOs because of Monsanto. That's not a good reason for distrusting a technology with broad applications. It's like saying that you don't trust computers because of Microsoft. But conventional food growers buy Monsanto seeds too, and Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on GM technology. So what do life saving technologies, such as insulin, have to do with Monsanto? What about Golden Rice? What about bananas designed to combat nutritional deficiency in Uganda? I was taken aback at how vehemently these are opposed, just because of the Monsanto-boogie-man.

7) Transgenic seeds are not sterile. I was certain that transgenic seeds could not be replanted, even if a farmer wanted to. I was dead wrong. When farmers buy seeds from a biotech company such as Syngenta, they sign an agreement, and they are not allowed to replant seeds. However, the seed is not sterile or unviable. (The topic of replanting seeds and terminator seeds was covered in my blog post here).

8) Peer review doesn't mean anything these days. Even if you don't factor in the issue of predatory or pay-for-play journals, peer review needs a new paradigm (check out this article for a great expose of predatory journals). In an article that sounds an awful lot like a story about drug trafficking, a "peer-review ring" got recently busted for abusing the academic review process. Although there's a growing number of ways to share concerns or criticisms about a paper, it hasn't led to a change in the review process. There's a whole website dedicated to covering stories about peer reviewed articles getting retracted.

Setting aside the reason behind errors in scientific journals, be they deliberate or not, there needs to be a positive feedback loop.

Personally, I think that scientists in the private sector should be able to provide feedback to the reviewers and editors about one of their products. They provide press-statements anyway once the paper's been published, so wouldn't it make sense to have their feedback and criticism in hand as a non-voting voice in the review process. Do you know who would read every single sentence several times, including the Supporting Materials section, in a paper that suggests that a GM trait is harmful? The scientist who made it and the company who commercialized it. If anyone is going to identify a flaw in a paper, it will be them. I don't think that their statement should carry weight in the decision of whether or not a paper should be published. But I think it will make the reviewer's job easier to have their observations in hand.


For the final point, I interviewed the spouse to find out what had surprised him most from all our discussions:

"9) That the greatest tool in combating misinformation on scientific topics is for scientists to be better communicators and to better educate the public. I was surprised to see that the link between the public's superstition regarding GMOs is directly related to their education or lack thereof. If we had better scientific literacy or better science education, it would cause less freak-outs. As a non-science person, my AHA!-moment came when I finally understood how eating a strawberry-fish smoothie would be same thing as eating a strawberry with a fish gene in it, because we can process and digest proteins from both species. That's such a small-little thing, but it created such a mental barrier."

Well, there you have it. Feel free to comment on the things that have surprised you most on this topic.

Review of "10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health"

As you may know, Mr Chubby-Cheeks is getting potty trained. What I never expected is how exhausting the whole ordeal is. If someone set up a service where you dropped your kid off and
picked him/her up a few days later fully potty-trained, they'd be gazillionaires.

Anti-GMO protest at BIO international conference 2014 in San Diego
Taken by a friend who attended.

Let's get down to business (no pun intended)... A story popped up in my Facebook feed that I have to take the time to address. It is entitled "10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health". Really caught my eye. It's actually a pretty good at bringing together the top health concerns that the anti-GMO movement has about the technology. I've reviewed most of them, so there will be a lot of links here to previous reviews and to the studies themselves. I'll go in the exact order as the article.

1) Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood.
I first reviewed this paper last year. The authors identified Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood. This protein is found in some GMOs, but is also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The biggest issue I had with the paper was the "so what" factor. We lack the receptors for the protein, so it has no impact on us. Did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs? Are you concerned that it might be toxic to you? Probably not (if you are concerned, then you've missed out on the greatest source of joy known to human taste buds...) Some chemical compounds behave differently between species, and both Bt's Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.

Since my original review last year, I've learned that the paper is deeply flawed due to the fact that the researchers' measurements were based on an experiment/assay that was designed to detect Bt in plants, not in humans. This post in Biofortified.org eloquently outlines that the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.

2) DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
Ummmm... No. That's not the paper's findings. I reviewed this one fairly recently. The paper found that whole genes from our food can be detected in our plasma. That does not mean that it's been integrated into our DNA: it means that it's been found floating in the space between cells. And that's any food, not just GMOs. I also outlined how the paper's findings are most likely due to contamination, since they did not include a negative control. However, even if the findings are accurate, DNA from GMOs behave no differently than DNA from organic or conventional foods. If you aren't concerned about the DNA from blueberries "transferring" into you, then you should not be concerned about DNA from GMOs either.

3) New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
The article states that this was a study from the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). There is no such study. There's a post on a webpage, but there isn't a peer reviewed article. I wrote about gluten allergies and GMOs last year, and it's a case of association with no causation (i.e the incidence of gluten allergies have increased over the past decade and the amount of GMOs we eat have increased too. But, so have the number of plasma screens manufactured). Additionally, GMO wheat has not been commercialized. The Celiac Disease foundation has spoken out against the IRT's report (Note that the IRT is an NGO which advocates for the elimination of GMOs from our food supply. It's not a university, college, or research institution). Recent studies have shed doubt on the existence of non-Celiac gluten sensitivity. So this "study" is blaming GMOs for something that may not even exist.

4) Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
This is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished in a different journal. This was the very first paper I reviewed, and frankly, I'm surprised it was ever published (which explains the retraction). The paper identified tumors in rats who were fed GMOs long-term, but the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors. The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food or were due to the fact that the rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed. A recent, fantastic re-analysis of their data suggests that their findings are due to chance. Finally, the findings from Seralini's paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies (you can find a journal review here and a BioChica review here).

5) Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
This paper was interesting and here's the breakdown: as this Wikipedia article highlights, approximately 80% of breast cancer cases are hormone sensitive, meaning that they need estrogen in order to proliferate and spread. In this paper, they took 2 breast cancer cell lines: one was estrogen sensitive and one was not, and they examined the impact of increasing amounts of glyphosate on cell growth. They found that glyphosate has similar impact to breast cancer growth as estrogen, although not as strong, and did not have an impact on the proliferation of the non-hormone sensitive breast cancer cell line.

They did a series of experiments which suggest that this growth is mediated through estrogen receptors (suggesting that glyphosate is probably mimicking estrogen). I thought that it was an OK paper. The #1 issue I had with it were the dose-dependent effects. At high concentrations of glyphosate, the cell growth starts to dip back down to the level seen in controls. Here's the issue: often times, there's a saturation point when you're looking at dosage effects of a compound, meaning that at a certain point you won't get an effect no matter how much more of that compound you add. But based on my understanding, you shouldn't really get a decrease in the curve; it should just level out. Like the top two graphs:

From Wikimedia Commons

However, they saw a dip in cellular proliferation at higher concentrations (it was more bell shaped). Their measurements were made based on a comparison to controls, but the data for the controls wasn't provided, so I'm not sure if perhaps the controls were behaving wonky or if there's actually a "protective" effect once glyphosate concentrations reach a certain point. Given the nature of the experiments they were performing, I'm surprised this was omitted. The second issue I have is that their negative controls don't have error bars, despite the fact that they had 3 replicates. My understanding of the statistical test they performed is that the standard error for the negative control is pretty dang important, but it isn't shown in any of their analyses.

In the past, I've highlighted the many issues that surround the use of in vitro assays. The authors of the paper highlight some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn't mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cell proliferation (this paper that suggests that glyphosate protects against cell proliferation in vitro in 8 different cancer cell lines and even states that it be developed into an anti-cancer drug...). They suggest that it may be due to a) the specific cell-line they used, b) their use of raw glyphosate (i.e. not a formulation, such as Round-Up) and c) the concentrations of glyphosate used.

Monsanto wrote a response to the paper stating that there are many studies that have examined the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and have found that the compound does not cause cancer. Many articles took this study to mean that glyphosate causes cancer when that is not the study's findings: their findings suggest that glyphosate may cause breast cancer to proliferate. Monsanto points out that this finding is contrary to the body of evidence that exists on the topic. As I previously mentioned, the authors admit to this fact and discuss that the next step should be to examine this issue in mice/rats models for breast cancer. I think that that's a great next step. I'd also look at this in a few more breast-cancer cell lines.

So, am I concerned about GMOs based on this paper? I think that this is probably the most compelling research paper that I've read about a potential health risk surrounding glyphosate, but my conclusion is that the study must be reproduced and its issues ironed out. The paper isn't really about GMOs: keep in mind that not all GMOs are glyphosate resistant (i.e. Round-up Ready) and the use of glyphosate is not limited to GMOs (I've said it before and I'll say it again: lumping crops into bins based on the method used to generate them does not make sense). Even a labeling law wouldn't help with that. Additionally, the paper does several experiments with a compound in soybeans that is known to be estrogen-like, and glyphosate's impact is very similar. Meaning that there are "natural" compounds in our food that seem to have the same impact on breast-cancer proliferation that this paper's findings suggest for glyphosate. In learning about this topic, I found quite a few publications that have examined soy food intake in patients with breast cancer (examples here, here, and here) and I couldn't find a study that had found a positive correlation. So more research is needed.

6) Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
Ummmmm... No. This is not a peer reviewed, published scientific study which the post claims. This is a publication by Earth Open Source, whose bias I have highlighted here.

7) Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
The paper, doesn't constitute research. It's a hypothesis. I tried reading it several times and it didn't make sense. But I felt a lot better when I learned that I wasn't the only one who scratched my head at it: it was reviewed by Keith Kloor over at Discover Magazine who reported an apt comparison between the article and one of Glenn Beck's chalkboard drawings.

So how did it get published? The paper is printed in a pay-for-play journal (also known as predatory journal), meaning that for a fee, you can get nearly anything published. Spouse, I can hear you now... "What do you mean?? Isn't that against research?" Yes. It is. It sucks. There have been several exposés on pay-for-play journals, and many (including myself) believe that it's eroding the quality of science (here's an overview from Nature.com). In this exposé, the journalist cut-and-pasted two articles together: one was a geology paper and the other was a medical paper. For added effect, he added graphs about Mars and the footnotes were about wine chemistry. Yet the paper was accepted in several journals.

Spouse, I know your next question is "then why aren't you submitting tons of articles??". Well, there's the ethics thing, but it costs about $1800 to publish in these crummy journals. Hence the "pay-for-play" label. The important point is that it is often difficult for individuals to determine if the research is any good, unless they're an expert in the field. And, as outlined in the link to Discover Magazine, experts in the field have stated that this particular study is junk.

8) Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
This paper is published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, owned by the Omics publishing group. This publisher tops the list of predatory journals, and there's even a Wikipedia entry about the quality of their journals.

Notwithstanding, I read the paper and now my brain hurts from how painful it was to read. They examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There's no indication of what was fed, how much was fed, how the animals were kept, or a million different variables for which there is no information. Any of these should invalidate the study. Their information about humans is even worse. It doesn't say anything about age, sex, weight, height, genetic background, how much food they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there's absolutely no definition for "chronically ill". I really don't know how you can draw any sort of conclusion from this study. Any single issue that I've listed here would be considered a fatal flaw that would exclude the paper from publication in a more prestigious journal, let alone having all of them combined in one hot mess.

9) Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
I read this study a while ago, but never wrote anything about it. The findings of the paper are pretty much in the title: they gave pigs GMO feed and non-GMO feed and identified differences between the two groups. I never wrote about it because to this day, the paper still isn't in PubMed, which is the NIH's database for scientific publications. It was because of this paper that I learned that PubMed doesn't index journals of low caliber or newly established journals. I felt like the NIH was weeding out the worst of the worst for me.

However, the paper has been thoroughly criticized by many.  Here's a brief list of a few of the issues:

• This post, by Mark Lynas, highlights the degree to which the data is cherry-picked. The difference in "inflammation" between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs is apparent only when you break down the degree of inflammation into subcategories, but there's no difference if you view it as a single category. Overall, there's a high rate of inflammation for both groups, which is not explained in the paper. At the same time, there are several parameters where GM-feed could be argued as having a protective effect (there's 50% fewer heart-abnormalities in pigs fed GM-grain), but this isn't discussed.  
• As explained by Dr Anastasia Bodnar, the authors do not analyze the compositional differences in the feed between the two groups. Previous studies have determined that the environment (i.e., water, soil, geography) of a crop has a greater impact on proteins and metabolites than whether or not the crop is a GMO [my review of the topic is here]. As such, the differences seen in the pigs may not be due pesticides or presence/absence of the transgenic protein, rather, they may be due to differences in composition of the feed.
• The study is a fishing expedition. Meaning that they're looking for something, no matter what it may be. As outlined by Dr David Tribe, if you take 2 groups of things and measure ~20 parameters, one of them is bound to be different. The authors do not perform the proper statistics nor do they examine the relevance of the findings. Does it matter that certain variables are different between the groups? Why are they different?  
• This interview with Val Giddings highlights that the animals had abnormally high rates of pneumonia, which points to the possibility that something wonky was going on.

In conclusion, even if the paper's findings are real, there's no knowing whether it was due to something associated with the transgene or not, because they didn't account for natural variation in the feed.

10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.
There are three papers associated with this bullet point. The first is a review and I agree with a few of the points it makes. It highlights the need for standardized tests and statistics in animal feeding studies for GMOs, and anyone who followed the Seralini debacle would probably agree. It summarizes papers that have performed feeding studies and their results. The biggest issue I have with the paper is that it doesn't remove flawed papers from their review list and it also doesn't distinguish between feeding studies for GMO crops that have been commercialized vs crops that have never been submitted for regulatory approval. However, the paper does not conclude that "GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence". The second paper is also a review/opinion, and the first author is affiliated with "Friends of the Earth". Skip! (Spouse, to clarify, the reason I'm skipping is a) it's not novel research, it's a review with an editorial slant and b) it's like reading an editorial by Syngenta advocating for looser regulation on GMOs. Of course that's what they'd advocate for! You don't even need to read it to know what they'll say). The third paper, is not even a review. It's an opinion/commentary published in 2002 in Nature Biotechnology (a high caliber journal). It outlines possible unintended consequences that could happen with a GMO, none of which have ever been documented/identified to the best of my knowledge.

My conclusion: none of these studies prove anything about GMOs. At best, they might suggest something and follow-up is needed. But, many are duds. Actually, to bring this article full-circle, a few are turds. Get it? Because of potty-training? Hilarious, right???

IRT - GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic

Before I get started, I have a confession to make: I love pomegranates. Love probably isn't a strong enough word. I ate 2-3 a day while I was pregnant, to the point that the hubby planted two trees for me (one of which had it's first fruit this year). But it's a "work food". Like crab legs. Or pumpkin seeds. You have to put in a good amount of effort before you can eat the stuff. Anyway, since it's pomegranate season, I've been eating them all the time and I woke up thinking "someone should make a pomegranate that's easier to clean". And I'm guessing I'm not the only one who wishes for this: Wikipedia has a good section dedicated to suggestions on cleaning out pomegranates (including my preferred method of cracking them open under water). Well, according to this review, a genetically modified pomegranate tree is possible because one has already been made to express GFP (green fluorescent protein). It's probably what Sheldon used to make his goldfish glow in the dark. The authors recommend making pomegranate crops that are stress tolerant or have other horticulturally-beneficial genes, but none have been made (although that hasn't stopped people from marketing GMO-free pomegranate juice). None of the suggestions in the review included recommendations on making the fruit easier to eat...

Now, getting onto juicier topics (no pun intended!)

If you've been following this blog, you'll know that I started reviewing the "Health Risks" section on the Institute for Responsible Technology's webpage several months ago. This was due to the fact that numerous anti-GMO webpages were using it as a resource, so I thought I should look into it. Today, I finish its review by covering a section entitled "GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic". I'll be honest here: I started out upbeat and open minded when I started reviewing the IRT's site, but I haven't come across a single valid statement. Consequently, every time I sit down to read from this webpage, I feel the same way as when I think about Jar Jar Binks. Or just Episode 1 in general. A sense of dread and gloom. Consequently, it's only this bowl of pomegranate that I'm currently eating that will get me through this last section.

The segment would have been more aptly entitled "Dietary supplement produced using recombinant DNA technology was associated with a deadly epidemic". Here's the first section directly from the IRT: "In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production." It goes on to state that it took years to "find" the disease and that an investigation only took place because the symptoms were so dire. The IRT argues that there is no monitoring of GMO-related illnesses - particularly long-term effects - and it may take decades, if ever, to identify the source of a problem. I've already reviewed the topic of long term effects of GMOs, so I'll focus on the first part of their argument.

Unfortunately, there are only two citations. The first is to an article on the IRT's webpage and the second is to a book written by one of the founders of the IRT. So neither one are peer reviewed sources. However, Wikipedia has a pretty good entry about this event, with several citations. The disorder is known as eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (or EMS) and the outbreak took place in 1989, leading to an eventual ban of tryptophan dietary supplements by the FDA. I started by reading a few abstracts for papers that investigated the cause of the EMS outbreak:

• The abstract for the first paper simply states that they traced the bad lot of L-tryptophan to a single manufacturer from Japan.
• The second abstract says the same thing (a different population was tested) and hypothesizes that a contaminant was introduced in the manufacturing process.
• The third abstract says the same thing, adding the point that the incidence of EMS decreased drastically once the product was recalled.

So far, there's nothing about a mysterious genetic engineering contaminant. There's reference to a contaminant, but no mention of when/where/how it could have been introduced.

If I were to magically design the perfect pomegranate, I think it would peel like a tangerine.

The next item I read was a 2001 report by the FDA (I thought it was odd that the IRT article did not mention the FDA's involvement). The FDA report was written up to clarify their position on tryptophan supplements. The report stated that 37 people died as a result of the bad batch of tryptophan. They state that there were numerous impurities in the batch, several of which were associated with EMS, but no one really knows how. They pointed out that not everyone who took the contaminated supplements got EMS, so there may be a genetic predisposition/factor involved as well. Again, nothing about a contaminant from the genetic engineering process.

I'd also magically make that white fluffy stuff disappear so that the seeds would just drop out. I looked it up and the white fluffy membrane doesn't have a specific name. You'd think it would have an uber-geeky scientific name.

Next, I found a New England Journal of Medicine article that looked into the whole tragedy. The article points out the fact that the manufacturer in Japan had switched to a new bacterial strain for the synthesis of tryptophan in 1988. In 1989, they made another change in their manufacturing process: instead of starting with 20kg of one of the starting materials, they cut it down to 10kg. During that same time period, some of the batches of tryptophan that they were making skipped one of their filtration steps. The authors find statistical significance between the amount of starting material used with EMS. They also find correlation between the bacterial strain used and EMS. However, they highlight numerous times that they cannot disassociate the bacterial strain used from the amount of starting material used, so they cannot tell the impact of the bacterial strain alone. Then they state: "For this reason, it is possible that strain differences were unrelated to the production of the etiologic [disease causing] agent." They also mention that the manufacturer's tests had shown no difference in the biological and physiological properties of the old and new bacterial strains. So the New England Journal of Medicine does not point to a weird by-product of the genetic engineering process. Also, article sheds a lot of light on the timeline: the first cases of EMS were identified in October 1989 and by early November 1989 the link between tryptophan and EMS had been found. It didn't take months or even years for this to be identified.

I only have two pomegranates left in the fruit basket... I'd better add 'pomegranates' to the shopping list. I wish I could write 'peel-able pomegranates'. I'd pay extra for those suckers.

So here's why I think that this is, by far, the most ridiculous "health impact" on the IRT's webpage and the molecular geneticist in me cringes at the thought that this is even considered a GMO, as defined in the GMO debate. In 1922, the first human patient received an injection of insulin isolated from a calf pancreas, and patients had to rely on insulin isolated from animals until the 1980's. To make human insulin, the DNA sequence of insulin is inserted either into bacteria or yeast, which then start making the protein. It is isolated, purified, and sold to millions of patients worldwide who rely on this lifesaving technology. Patients are not exposed to the bacteria or the yeast. These organisms are just used in the manufacturing process of insulin to make it scalable and, often, easier.

Statistically, insulin is a drug that me or someone I love and care for will probably end up taking in our lifetimes. And insulin isn't the only drug produced this way. Countless other drugs and dietary supplements,  including tryptophan, are produced using recombinant DNA technology (this article highlights that malarial drugs are being made this way). So why is the IRT focusing on this story about tryptophan and EMS? I really can't explain it.

In my perspective, the EMS outbreak highlights another issue altogether: the need to have more stringent regulations in the world of dietary supplements. The quick sequence of changes introduced in the manufacturing process of tryptophan and their immediate rollout to the market would have never even been contemplated if it were regulated as strictly as pharmaceuticals. Or if they wanted to make the changes, they would have had to perform rigorous testing to demonstrate that there's no change in the function of the product. Cutting back on starting material by 50%?? Changing the strain of bacteria used once the product is in the market? Utter craziness!! Please do not misconstrue this and think that I'm implying that the pharma/clinical world is perfect. Far from it. I worked on my first project in regulated markets this year and learned first-hand of the craziness that exists. But at least the regulations and trials that they have to go through put a few checks and balances in place.

Whew! With that rant I finish the review of the IRT's health risks. My conclusion: they focus on fear-mongering. Most statements were misleading or misrepresented the studies, and several statements were outright lies.

Till my next post, I'll continue enjoying pomegranate season and keep my fingers crossed that someone out there is working on a peel-able version of the fruit.

PS: After reviewing this, the spouse thought that the pomegranate seeds should be the size of grapes. Pure genius!