Community | January 11, 2010 | 32 comments

Animals fed on genetically engineered feed are different

source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19992.cfm

Image
JanforGore
NOTE: Even in the European Union where there is mandatory labelling of GM ingredients in food and feed, there is no mandatory labeling as yet of meat, dairy products or eggs from animals fed on GM feed (GM corn or soya, for example).

Even though such labeling is favoured by consumers, and is justifiable purely in terms of transparency, the food industry has tried to make out that GM feed fed to animals makes no difference either to the animal or the final product. Research shows both claims are scientifically unsupported.

In this context, Prof Jack Heinemann has produced an exhaustive review of the literature. Item 1 is GM-Free Cymru's excellent brief summary of his report, and also sets it in the context of a landmark ruling by the New Zealand (NZ) Commerce Commission. Item 2 draws on the report to give more detail.

Prof Heinemann's study is available here: http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ Or via the Commerce Commission web site, at the bottom of the following
page:
http://www.comcom.govt.nz//MediaCentre/MediaReleases/2009...
rgmfreechickenclai.aspx
---
---
1.A LANDMARK RULING
NZ Commerce Commission: animals fed on GM components ARE different Comment
by GM-Free Cymru
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/landmark.html

In a landmark ruling, the NZ Commerce Commission has accepted evidence from Prof Jack Heinemann, from an exhaustive review of the literature and on the basis of his own extensive professional experience, that animals fed on GM components ARE different from those which are reared using non-GM feed. This is a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA, who have maintained consistently that there are no differences between GM- fed and non-GM-fed animals, and that there is therefore no need for labelling or segregation of feed supplies to meet consumer demand for GM-free products.

This issue came to a head because of complaints that NZ poultry producer Inghams claimed, in a high-pressure advertising campaign, that its chickens contained no GM ingredients, in spite of using up to 13% GM soy-based feed.

In one of its adverts, Inghams said: "Research confirms that animals that consume feed with a component of GM are no different compared to animals that have been fed a low GM or GM free diet."

The Commission has now told Inghams that it was breaching the Fair Trading Act by making false or misleading claims. Inghams continued to argue on its website that the use of GM soy did not compromise an absolute GM-free status and animals that ate feed with a GM component were no different to animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM- free diet. This position was verified by numerous feeding studies, the website said. The company cited publications by a New Zealand Royal Commission, the Royal Society and the Federation of Animal Science Societies. However, those publications were at least 7 years old; and the company accepted the CC ruling and stopped the advertising as soon as Prof Heinemann's investigation was commenced.

Prof Heinemann's Report, entitled "Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed" (July 2009), makes interesting reading. It surveys all of the published animal feeding studies which are cited by EFSA, FSA and other bodies, and subjects them to a careful analysis. He refuses to be drawn on human health and safety safety issues (since that was not his
brief) but concludes that there are many deficiencies in the studies which purport to show "no effects" from the consumption of GM animal feed.

Sometimes, in animal feeding experiments, GM components have been used in both the test group and the control group, which would have the effect of masking GM effects. Many animal feeding experiments are too short to reveal physiological changes. Other deficiencies are related to variability in the GM DNA of feed supplies, the sensitivity of the testing methods used, and the use of surrogate proteins rather than whole GM feed in the testing protocols.

Nonetheless, there are abundant studies (including some conducted under the auspices of the GM industry itself) that show statistically significant physiological changes in GM-fed animals, and that reveal the presence of "DNA and protein unique to GM plants within animals and animal products."

Prof Heinemann also concludes: "There is compelling evidence that animals provided with feed containing GM ingredients can react in a way that is unique to an exposure to GM plants. This is revealed through metabolic, physiological or immunological responses in exposed animals."

This is a very important study which should form the basis of a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA to change the wording on their websites and to abandon their fondly-held beliefs that GM components fed to farm animals do not enter the animal and animal product food chain.
---
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Sustainable Agriculture,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Animals,  animal cruelty,  Disease,  2 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // Animals fed on genetically engineered feed are different

  • JohnnySoftware
    • 0
      JohnnySoftware  

    • On a slightly tangential subject, researchers at Cornell university announced that Bt cotten is being attacked by secondary pests, somewhat wiping out its economic advantages. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/Bt.cotton.China.ssl.html

      The Bt kills bollworms. Unfortunately, other pests are now surging and farmers have to spray their cotton 20 times per growing season. So, the Bt was only initially effective. It basically just created a vacancy that other pests in the food chain were happy to fill. Four years after the Bt cotton was introduced, its farmers were using as much pesticides as the other cotton farmers.

      Scientists have also known for over a decade that Bt corn kills the popular and important monarch butterfly. http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/99/5.20.99/toxic_pollen.html

      Neither of these two effects, the short-term benefits of Bt cotton nor the deadly effects of Bt corn on monarchs was announced in advance. Both were discovered by independent scientists after the GMO crops were introduced into the environment on a large scale.

    • 2 years ago
  • mik00014
    • 0
      mik00014  

    • "No, we have not been doing this for millenia. Farmers have been traditionally and NATURALLY breeding plants in the same genus for millenia, not blasting them with virus and bacteria guns in fusing genes from different species in a purely random and unknown fashion. "

      How do you define Natural? All the DNA that is being used for experimentation comes from a source that I believe you consider Natural. Is it natural to fly in a plane, or work on a computer. Is it even natural for livestock to be kept in captivity??

      If I was to plant a non GM crop of corn in pestisides eventually they would become resistant to it by keeping preferential mutations until it comes up with its own gene for the environment. The same could be done in a fraction of the time with genetic engineering. Why would you want to spend the time to get the same result? A good analogy would being using paper instead of a computer to solve a complex problem, you will still get the same result. DNA can be moulded one way or another, if you get the same result in the end why should it matter how you got there?

      People who make judgements based on belief rarther than evidence are no different than people who believe that the first humans on the planet were Adam and Eve.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • unimatrix0
  • mik00014
    • 0
      mik00014  

    • To JanforGore

      You say that diabetes, obesity, allergies, and digestive tract diseases have risen since the rise of GM foods. Do you think this proves that GM foods are to blame? I could say the same about the increase in electronic equipment, that since electronics have become more normal we have seen a rise in these diseases. Neither of these statements should be agreed with purely on the basis that there is a vague corrolation. The only way to link these statements is through thoroughscientific study, one that does not disregard all of the variables involved with living in our current environment.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07pSYJ2qDIY

      Well, at least the Canadian media covers this. But here in the US? Time for a moratorium on ALL GMOs.They are not being properly tested and companies are using their clout with governments to bypass the testing and regulatory processes. And anyone who claims they are "safe" simply because they claim there have been no health effects to date from them hasn't been paying attention to the rise in diabetes, obesity, allergies, and digestive tract diseases since their "approval", which IMO are in part the result of the thrusting of these untested organisms into our food and environment. They have infected our fields, our soil, our animals, and our lives. They need to be stopped.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • "We have been genetically engineering food for millennia, ever since we figured out that we could breed favorable characteristics into livestock and vegetation alike. The only difference today is that we are much faster at it."

      Sounds like another biotech shill with no history here spouting the same misrepresentations. No, we have not been doing this for millenia. Farmers have been traditionally and NATURALLY breeding plants in the same genus for millenia, not blasting them with virus and bacteria guns in fusing genes from different species in a purely random and unknown fashion. Please try another propaganda talking point the next time. And what do you think BT is? Do you know?

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • ColossalView
  • mik00014
    • 0
      mik00014  

    • I think people don't really understand the point this scientist is making. He has shown that feeding animals GM food makes them different to animals that are fed non GM food, what does this tell us? Nothing. If I were to eat a slice of orange a day and then stop for a week, this would have the same effect, I would no longer contain the same components as I once did.

      We have been genetically engineering food for millennia, ever since we figured out that we could breed favorable characteristics into livestock and vegetation alike. The only difference today is that we are much faster at it.

      The harmful effects of genetic engineering must be looked at on a case by case basis, the same way we look at the harmful effects of drugs. Unless we maliciously add DNA (E.g adding a gene that produces a toxin) there should be nothing to worry about.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnnySoftware
    • 0
      JohnnySoftware  
    • mik00014:

      Well, the last assertion you make is that there is no problem "unless" we genetically engineer in a toxin is old news. That was done some time back and you probably eat it every day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

      That is really different from the other thing you are talking about. When you say an orange is in you when you eat it, and gone from you when you stop eating it, you are over-simplifying. Mostly, that is the case. Mostly, not always.

      You see, you are looking at cells and DNA is fundamental, unchanging, totally non-intermingling components. That is just now how they work. That is mostly how they work - or nothing would, but that is not the whole story.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • More from the link:

      *There is evidence of DNA unique to GM plants in animals given GM feed - but DNA is inconsistently detected:

      Pigs
      Pigs were fed on controlled diets with some groups receiving 60% GM and some conventional maize. DNA unique to the transgene used in GM maize event Btl 1 was detected in pig stomachs, small intestine (duodenal, ileum), rectal and cecal contents but not in peripheral blood.

      Cows

      In a survey of milk products sold in stores in Italy, researchers found evidence of target DNA unique to GM plants in 38% of samples, including those labelled "organic".

      Fish

      GM plant-specific target DNA was detected in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of rainbow trout fed on a defatted GM soybean variety. The target DNA was detected for up to three days post transfer to a non-GM diet. This DNA was subsequently detected in leukocytes (white blood cells), head kidney and muscle. The target DNA was confirmed to be identical to the DNA in the GM soybeans.

      Chickens

      A study on GM corn Bt176 fed to broiler chicken found that the DNA was not completely digested and could be detected for various lengths of time post-consumption in the crop, proventriculus (part of the stomach), gizzard, small intestine (duodenum, jejnum, ileum) and the caeca and rectum. The researchers reported evidence of plant-specific DNA in the blood, pectoral and thigh muscles, liver, spleen and kidney up to four hours after feeding, but did not detect the DNA unique to Bt176. No further detection was possible after 24 hours from feeding. This finding establishes that DNA can persist, circulate and transfer to deeper tissues although any particular fragment may fall below the detection limit.

      In another study researchers found plant-specific DNA on chicken meat in supermarkets. While the target was not DNA unique to a GM plant, "it can be considered that an incomplete degradation of ingested DNA fragments may take place in the Gl tract of birds, enabling the detection of residual plant gene fragments. Due to a fast passage of feed through the GI tract of birds the appearance of DNA fragments might be more likely than for mammals". DNA unique to a GM plant would be as likely to persist in animals fed GM-feed as any plant-specific DNA.

      These researchers could not distinguish between several causes of DNA on the chickens, including residual undigested DNA from feed or contamination with feed dust which was not removed through the slaughter, preparation and packaging process. They confirmed that the DNA was from an external source and not because the chickens were genetically modified, because the target DNA was not detected in chicken embryos. For the purposes of this report, the cause is irrelevant because whether the GM-specific DNA is present as a partial digestion product on the meat or whether the meat is contaminated as a result of airborne material from GM-feed, it ultimately is on the chicken because of the use of GM feed.

      Notable quotes from two studies:

      1. "In summary, all results coincide with former propositions about a possible transfer of small DNA fragments from feed into distinct farm animals. First data are now available for pigs, and a recent report first observing foreign DNA within various chicken organs is supported" (p. 274 Klotz et al., 2002).

      2. "Studies on DNA degradation in the GI tract suggest that foreign DNA ingested by animals is not completely degraded in their GI tracts" (p.
      380-381 Chainark et al., 2008).

      Rats

      In rats fed on maize flour, a maize-specific single gene (as a surrogate for a GM-specific gene) was detected in the upper GI, from stomach to duodenum, and a gene maintained at multiple copies was detected throughout the GI down to the jejunum, ileum, caecum, colon and in the faeces.

      Sheep

      A toxin gene unique to GM-maize was detected in rumen juice up to 5 hours after feeding. Targeting a smaller fragment to increase the efficiency of PCR allowed detection up to 24 hours after feeding.
      __________
      And this is exactly what must concern us, especially those prone to allergies to soy... the inconsistency of where the GM DNA (which is not the same as natural DNA) will be found and how it can mutate due to environmental conditions or the rate of it being fed to animals which could prolong how long it stays in the animal. BT corn is also registered as a pesticide. How anyone can say that the DNA used in it is no different than any other DNA when it has been blasted with bacteria and viruses and the genes of two completely different species is simply towing the biotech/ Monsanto line.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • -1
      bombastinator  
    • JanforGore:

      This says more about our ability to detect food particles than anything else. You don't turn into a plant from eating plants, you don't turn into a cow from eating beef and you certainly don't turn into a gmo crop by eating something that ate gmo crops anymore than you turn into a door knob by using one.

    • 2 years ago
  • NewScum
  • lizziehoffman
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  

    • "Animals fed on genetically engineered feed are different" (from animals fed exclusively on non GMO feed). Sounds like a good hypothesis for scientific experimental research to do a logical study which will establish the premise as either a proven or disproven fact. Until then it's still unproven one way or another. But I tend to believe Jan's statement as having truth value. We Germans have an old saying: Mann ist was man isst. You are what you eat. I'm not omniscient, As a mortal human I make mistakes like anyone else, but I make it a life long practice to make only honest mistakes. It's a matter of good character the depraved could not understand or value. As Confucian wisdom goes, "the cautious seldom err ".The GMO's humans are greedy, crooked, pathological liars who would say and do any reckless thing they could get away with to establish their Monopoly. That HAS been proven throughout their history. Jan has brought massive evidence to bear to prove that in previous articles. It's a known fact the GMOs grease lots of Gummint employees with bribes to lie through their teeth to promote their colossal profits. They could tell mindless potential customers their GMO fed cows shit only perfumed flowers and it's likely some would misrepresent that opinion as fact too. And parrot drop those words as if they were holy scripture. But that would not make it true either.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • -1
      bombastinator  

    • This doesn't make any sense.

      DNA is DNA. The genetic code of a food source should have no effect on the consumer except as it effects the makeup of the food material. You could make a low fat GM cow and the consumer might be affected by the leanness of the beef but not the DNA itself. If this were true we would be affected by the DNA of EVERYTHING we eat. The only thing that makes GM DNA unusual is where it came from, not what it is.

      We need to get the magical thinking out of the GM foods debate it makes the whole campaign look as stupid as the republicans after Sarah Palin made her "I can see Russia from my house" comment.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  
    • bombastinator:

      dna isn't dna so much if you're creating a different animal our bodies aren't used to processing as food. What you mentioned is a for a cow to not develop fat easily via gene therapy, but what the industry is talking about is making a cow that wont die due to ddt exposure and can digest soy (which is also genetically immune to ddt) and so on by literally creating a new animal with genetic rearrangement. There not the same things and we should realize we're really screwing with our own evolution, not to mention the ecosystems that create these animals in their natural states.

      To put it in simpler terms. Blocking a cows genes that trigger fat growth, and genetically altering the cows genes to make them immune to chemicals are two completely different things.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • -1
      bombastinator  
    • bombastinator:

      That is correct and incorrect. I could just as easily use your DDT example and make the same point. The difference would be that the cow might then be producing a hormone to make it immune. they can also inject cows directly with enough steriods to make eating cow liver produce testosterone reactions for weight lifters. That actually happend to me personally back in the late 80's. I ate a lot of liver because It was low fat and cheap and in 3 months I could hold a playing card between my pecs by flexing them. I don't eat non organic liver any more.
      Could they bioengineer a poisonous cow? Sure. The statement though was that there was a problem because they were finding recombinant genetic material from the plants in the animals as if to imply that it was somehow contagious.

      Also why are they even talking about DDT? That stuff has been totally illegal for years. There's no money in resisting it because no one can use it to begin with.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnnySoftware
    • 0
      JohnnySoftware  
    • bombastinator:

      No, your hypothesis that DNA in food does not matter does not hold against really basic scientific facts.

      1) sea slugs have acquired GENES for producing chlorophyl from algage they have eaten - http://current.com/items/91891887_sea-slug-is-half-plant-half-animal.htm - and it not only has affected them but it is hereditary
      2) there is such a thing as a DNA virus which is spread by DNA rather than the normal RNA way - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_virus
      3) plasmids are inherited rings of DNA inside cells - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid - that are not part of the DNA chain of the organism but passed from cell to cell; things within cells can, at least rarely, be transfered from one organism to the next - look at mitochondria which are considered to have arrived in animal life billions of years ago via infection
      4) transgenic mutation occurs in nature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plant#Natural_gene_flow_between_species
      5) borna viruses have supplied a significant part of human DNA, recent research uncovered - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100106/hl_afp/sciencebiotechgenomevirus_2010010618... - and see point (2) above before you say all viruses are RNA instead of DNA

      Plus, I am pretty sure it is accepted scientific theory that transgenic mutation occurs in nature. That is the term for one species acquires DNA from another species.

      All of this is very basic science covered in non-technical news media and the Wikipedia reference that school children use when writing research papers.

      You cannot say categorically that DNA consumed does not "matter". Clearly, that is an overly broad assertion. It is going to be right in some cases, and has been demonstrated to be very wrong in other cases.

      You have to determine on a case-by-case basis before you can say DNA in food does or does not. Right now, there are cases where DNA in food had a significant effect on the creatures that are its consumers.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • -1
      bombastinator  
    • bombastinator:

      @jhonnysoftware. And none of those apply here at all.

      1.) humans are not sea slugs. Read the whole article not just the headline. The slugs use a lot more than the DNA, and they are a highly unique organism.

      2.) You've got it backwards. All viruses use DNA. Only retroviruses like HIV use RNA. Viruses and retroviruses are actual organisms. They have specially coded injection DNA and cellular injection systems that are really quite complicated. It's like comparing a scrap of broken CD lying in the street with an fully charged iPod with the headphones. In any case if this was so you would be taking in the DNA of everything you eat right now. I haven't grown any horns lately. Have you perhaps started to photosynthesize? i thought not. This is a perfect example of that MAGICAL THINKING!

      3.) Plasmids?! Wow, you're reaching here. You really should read the actual articles you are quoting. So you are a particularly primitive form of sexually active bacteria? Much is explained.

      4.) Again you really need to read what you quote. You are talking about out of species reproduction... in plants only. You've already decided you're actually a bacteria remember?

      5.) An attempt to repackage #2 except it;s fairly obvious you didn't understand that one to begin with, so i guess it's understandable.

      >"All of this is very basic science covered in non-technical news media and the Wikipedia reference that school children use when writing research papers."<
      Yes. Which makes things look even worse for you.

      >"You cannot say categorically that DNA consumed does not "matter"."< I said DNA fragments. Can, did, doesn't.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Sw3rv
  • boywhocould
  • artemis6
  • bombastinator
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • artemis6:

      The GMOs are a menace to society worldwide. They are as extreme and dangerous as
      the worst Monopoly that could ever exist. In India they have already caused suicides of farmers they've enslaved in their trap. They seek to make the entire world dependent on them for the most fundamental drive-sustenence. They have sought to misuse the patent law through inconscienable lawyers and accountants to subvert the family organic farm. I would shudder to think of what this world would resemble should they ever gain control of it. Because if they ever do, it won't be a question of eradicating them with roundup, but
      rather how to reverse their horrific damage on such a super colossal scale that the idea of simply putting them out of business would be moot.

    • 2 years ago
  • lilysol
  • dalistuff
  • JanforGore
  • ahappymintleaf
    • 0
      ahappymintleaf  

    • If there was real transparency, there would be mass change and revolt. For now everyone should do their part in discussing the issue. Unless it says it's grass fed on the label, don't bother with it.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • And this is how they will get through the back door with forcing GMOs down our throats against our will and without our consent. Through animal feed. There is no reason why animals need to be fed on this crap. It is contributing not only to changes in the animals that may then be passed onto us, but also contributing to deforestaton, climate change, and the toxifying of the environment and food chain.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos