Genetically Engineered Soy Kills Rat Babies: Pt 1 of 3

By Jeffrey M. Smith, from Spilling the Beans Newsletter, 10.05

Next:   2   3

Jeffrey M. Smith is working to catalog all known health risks of Genetically Engineered foods, along with a team of international scientists. He is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world’s bestselling book on GMO foods, and producer of the GMO Trilogy.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at Institute For Responsible Technology

Part 1 of 3: Rat Babies Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy

The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GMO) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.

Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GMO soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GMO soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.

Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GMO-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups.

But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GMO soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GMO soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.

Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote 'PRELIMINARY STUDIES' on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GMO food.

Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.

GMO Soy’s Divisive Past

The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto's 'Roundup' brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.

The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, 'The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.'[1]

The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GMO foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GMO food policy as 'just a political document' without scientific basis, and warned that industry would 'not do the tests that they would normally do' since the FDA didn’t require any.[2] He was correct.

There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GMO soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on 'biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,'[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It's the first of its kind.

Next:  2    3   

Articles and Reviews on Related Topics: