[Ccpg] is Organic Food inferior to Genetically Modified Food?

[Hilda.Wright at softhome.net]

is Organic Food  inferior to Genetically Modified Food? 

From:   Korea-Japan Joint Resolution Against GM Wheat
Translate:   www.babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish 

To:  Wheat Farmers and Traders of the USA and Canada:
  We, consolidated consumers of wheat products and organic farmers of Korea 
and Japan, are strongly against GM wheat that contains not only 
Roundup-Ready herbicide-resistant protein but also antibiotics and the virus 
protein CaMV, all of them having potential of harming human health and 
causing irreversible damage to the whole of nature, of which we are part. 

We will never eat even one piece of such grain, nor will we allow one bit to 
reach our lands. Please stop using GM wheat and keep using conventional 
non-GM wheat, the variety that we have accepted and enjoyed. If any news 
that GM wheat is commercially grown reaches us, we win launch a massive 
rally to replace wheat with staple rice for any purpose of grain use. 

We sincerely wish you would take our voice into consideration when you make 
the choice of whether to go with GM wheat or conventional non-GM wheat.
 --The Coalition of Farmers and Consumers against GM Food in Japan 


  A two-year-old Japanese study has now made it into an English translation. 
This document from the Health Ministry of Japan ought to rattle a few cages 
and cause Cheney-Stokes palpitations in the breasts of scientists, both the 
perpetrators of fraud and the dupes who bought into the fiction being 
purveyed as science. 

  In the Japanese report MONSANTO's dangerous logic may take this one-two 
punch without distress, but literate farmers will recoil if they pause to 
follow the trail Japanese scientists have marked with iron-clad clarity. 

  Briefly, the desire to harvest more bins and bushels has prompted 
scientists to install a toxin into the bean itself via the agency of genetic 
engineering. With systemic resistance in tow, low-input cultivation and 
cropping could be simplified. To achieve this goal, MONSANTO created a 
soybean mutant resistant to their bestseller, the organophosphate Roundup. 
Glyphosate is the effective ingredient in Roundup. 

  The resistant strains developed seriously hampered enzymatic activity of 
ESPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) The technical nature of 
the development does not need to detain us. Suffice it to say that one of 
the enzymes works to synthesize the aromatic amino acids tyrosine, 
phenylalanine and tryptophan, for which reason the soybean failed to thrive. 

GENETIC ENGINEERING
  Genetic engineering was the rage at the time of the initial experiments. 
The idea was to breed unlike species at the molecular level, this technology 
having developed in the wake of Watson and Crick's modeling of DNA in 1953. 

  The company scientists found a microorganism in glyphosate factory sewage. 
It was a soil bacterium capable of synthesizing aromatic amino acids in the 
presence of glyphosate. The resultant product was quite different from 
nature's blueprint. It took a powerful protein from a cauliflower virus to 
make the gene insert perform. Additionally, a signal peptide carries the 
necessary protein to the locus of the enzyme. These few notes are 
necessarily an aside, perhaps a bow to the ingenious craft of the engineer. 
But the mix of genes from several unrelated plants assumes understanding of 
a natural system so complex that no computer in the world could handle even 
a fraction of the information contained within a blade of grass. 

  The genetically modified soybean has never existed in nature. It 
appropriated the genetic material of the bean and tampered with it in 
defiance of natural evolution. The Japanese study tells us that "239 (17.51 
percent) nucleotides out of 1,365 total were manually converted into 
different bases . . . in order for the protein synthetic machinery of the 
soybean cell to decipher the bacterial gene across the species barrier." 

  All this is interesting, a bit esoteric, and possibly a broadside designed 
to confuse the grower and hand off convincing evidence that Norman Borlaug 
is right, the world has to have genetic engineering and greater profits for 
the brilliant redesigners of nature. 

  The Japanese paper said, "It is with good reason that genetically modified 
plants are called Frankenstein plants in Europe." 

ARE THEY SAFE?
According to the FDA, modified beans are as safe as those designed by 
natural evolution. Are they? 

For field tests, soybeans were grown without herbicides. The Roundup Ready 
soybean is usually sprayed with Roundup. "It was a surprise to find that 
both the genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 strain and the parent strain, 
A5403, used for field tests were not sprayed with Roundup herbicide in their 
cultivation. What MONSANTO has produced with Roundup application was a 
minimal amount, enough to test glyphosate residues in the harvested forage. 
Several tons of soybeans used in safety assessments were not produced with 
Roundup. The reason is not stated in the documents." 

  Based on such data, the Japanese study asserts, it is not possible to 
assess the safety of soybeans that human beings and animals consume on the 
premise that glyphosate is missing, this when the toxin is used to inhibit 
plant enzyme ESPS and its effects on other metabolic pathways. 

  One conclusion flows logically from the facts. Test results based on a 
product other than the one that is marketed are worthless. 

  The protein analyzed was from E. coli, not from RR soybeans. The protein 
expressed in the bioengineered product does not have the same amino acid 
sequence as the soil bacterium from which the gene was harvested. There is 
the matter of "post-transnational modification after expression," the 
Japanese study said. In short, the whole procedure can run amok. Apparently 
it has, as on-scene sow breeding experiences in Iowa have revealed. The 
Japanese study noted that "amino acid sequence" was not determined. 

  "What MONSANTO has sequenced was only 15 amino acids from N-terminal of 
the protein that was expressed in E. coli. The rest of the sequence was an 
assumption from the nucleotide sequence of the bacterial DNA. They 
determined only 33 percent of an expected total of 455 amino acids that the 
protein is not of soybean." 

  Further: "The real sequence of CP4ESPS protein in the soybean we are 
eating is still unknown." 

  Further: "Acute toxicity tests on rats are also carried out by the protein 
expressed in E. coli." What MONSANTO says in the application document is 
that extracting large amounts of CP4ESPS protein from soybeans is difficult. 
The Japanese find this a poor excuse. The paper goes on to define the proper 
procedure. The papers filed with the U.S. government stand accused of 
conjectural science, science converted to the needs of a corporation that 
apparently sees science as malleable. 

  "The experiments described are fundamentally invalid," the report 
concludes. Yet the business of genetic engineering was loaded into American 
agriculture with hardly a single reference to the American constituency that 
the government was obligated to consult. 

ANIMAL TESTS
  There were animal tests using cows, chickens, rats, catfish and quail. All 
seem to have been inadequate. Toasted soybeans were fed to only 10 rats in 
each group for 28 days. Cross-generation or chronic toxicity was not 
measured by such a limited scope. Even so, weight and welfare of kidneys, 
liver, etc., exhibited differences. Short-term tests of untoasted soybeans 
did not exhibit a difference between GMOs and natural, and this became a peg 
on which hangs the claim of "no difference." The statistical differences 
were evident just the same, the Japanese say, but were ignored: 

Even with these far-from-satisfactory experiments, the data for body and 
organ weight of liver, kidney and testicles show obvious differences in the 
male rats between both groups, wild strain A5403 and bio-engineered strain 
40-3-2 soybean. 

  The groups fed raw soybeans showed no difference, but the male group fed 
toasted soybean 40-3-2 exhibited 6.7 percent lower body weight than the 
A5403-fed group and 13 percent less than the group fed commercial feed mix 
at the end of test period of 28 days. Although this difference is described 
as statistically significant in the data sheet, the conclusion ignores these 
results and states that "no statistical significance is observed." 

  The experiments are far from satisfactory in terms of both the samples and 
the statistical method used. Our group transcribed all raw data and redid 
the statistical analysis using the Turkey multiple method. The result again 
showed the apparent growth obstacle for body and kidney weight in male rats 
fed with toasted 40-3-2 soybean. We wondered why there is no such difference 
in the female rats group. The answer to this question seemed to be the 
amount of feed intake: where males took 25 to 30 grams/day, female rats took 
only 18 to 20grams/day (approximately 70 percent of male intake). It is 
highly possible that female rats would also show significant growth 
difference if the experiment were conducted on a much larger scale and with 
a longer feeding period. 

TOASTING, ETC.
Much of this report has been abstracted in depth to make it readable for the 
average farmer. The conclusion needs no explanation, for it speaks with 
damning finality: 

We found a highly intentional misinterpretation in ignoring obvious 
differences between the A5403 and 40-3-2 hybrids in the documents. Raw 
soybeans showed no difference in the analysis between genes modified 30-4-2 
and non-modified A5403 soybeans. Difference is observed in toasted soybeans. 
Besides such main components as water, protein, fat, fiber and ash, 
trypsin-inhibitor, lectin and urease, which are called harmful 
physiologically, active substances as feed are detected in the analysis. 
Urease is used as an indicator of protein denaturation by heat treatment. 

Obvious differences appeared after toasting at actual feed processing 
conditions (108 C for 30 minutes). While the concentrations of total protein 
and potassium were not changed, the concentrations of trypsin-inhibitor, 
urease and lectin are significantly higher in the toasted 
glyphosate-tolerant bean 30-4-2 compared to that of the A5403 normal bean. 
These physiologically active substances remained active even after heat 
treatment in the genetically modified soybean, whereas those of the 
herbicide-sensitive normal bean were easily denatured and inactivated. The 
high activity of these elements does not usually satisfy as feed. 

This result prompted MONSANTO to claim that "the modified soybeans were not 
toasted sufficiently in the experiment," and they returned and asked for 
retreatment of the sample by the Texas A&M laboratory that processed the 
beans. MONSANTO ordered the condition of retoast at 220 C for 25minutes, 
which is considerably higher than normal processing of 100 C for 10 minutes. 
Retoasting, however, further widened the difference in activity between the 
two strains. The hybrid 61-67-1, another genetically modified soybean 
inserted with bacterial CP4EPSPS, showed a high heat-resistant property. 

  Scientists would usually conclude in such a case that there was 
substantial difference between the two types, but MONSANTO concluded that 
the second toasting was still not enough. In the end, they toasted twice 
further and finally got the result they wanted, i.e., all proteins were 
denatured and inactivated. With this result, they concluded that genetically 
modified and non-modified soybeans have equivalent properties. 

No protein can withstand repeated heat treatment and stay active. This is a 
common knowledge of protein chemistry. The results at normal feed-processing 
conditions is required - no more, no less. MONSANTO based their conclusions 
on the presumption that "they can't be different" and their economic need 
that "they shouldn't be different." Their translation of the experiment is 
based on a desired-outcome attitude and not at all scientific. The 
English-language report did not show analysis data of the third and fourth 
heat treatments, but the summary report in Japanesehas a graph, as if there 
were data, showing the final loss of activity, stating, "The data from 
insufficient heat treatments is not adopted" and "No substantial difference 
observed." If one reviews only the summary volume in Japanese and does not 
look into the English data, one would be ushered to the conclusion "safe." 

  However, we found in the first and the second analyses data a fact 
indicative of regular heat treatment. Granulated soybean, when heated, loses 
weight as water and other volatile components evaporate, and as a result, 
relative concentration of non-volatile substance such as total protein and 
ash increases. The data shows clearly that the modified 40-3-6 and 61-67-1 
and the non-modified A5403 have gone through same level of heat treatment. 
The decrease of water content also certifies this fact. 

  MONSANTO concluded that the residual herbicide in a crop increases, 
therefore the safety standard should be slackened. Adopting the 
Roundup-tolerant soybean would increase the herbicide concentration in the 
soybean plants and seeds, because the herbicide is directly sprayed on the 
plant by post-emergence application before harvest. MONSANTO studied in 
detail the results of changing factors such as spraying times, the 
concentration of the active ingredient, glyphosate, the duration of harvest 
after spraying, and growing locations. 

  The data show clearly that the concentration of glyphosate and AMPA (a 
degraded metabolite of glyphosate) in forage and hay increase greatly by 
post-emergence application of the herbicide compared to that of conventional 
pre-emergence application, although the residual concentration in the plant 
differed from place to place. 

  The largest value of the combined glyphosate and AMPA was 40.187 ppm in 
forage, considerably higher than the U.S. safety standard at the time of 
application to FDA and USDA (1994) of 15 ppm in forage and hay. The maximum 
combined concentration of glyphosate and AMPA in soybean seed was 13.178 
ppm, less than the 20 ppm U.S. standard at that time. The concentration of 
residual glyphosate increased in accordance with the application, from two 
to three times. As a result, cultivating Roundup ready soybeans may 
sometimes violate U.S. safety standards
.
  We found a surprising statement in the document to address this problem. 
In its conclusion, MONSANTO says that "The maximum combined glyphosate and 
AMPA residue level of approximately 40 ppm in soybean forage resulting from 
these new uses exceeds the currently established tolerance of 15 ppm. 
Therefore, an increase in the combined glyphosate and AMPA tolerance for 
residues in soybean forage will be requested." They know very well that 
adoption of an herbicide-tolerant crop took precedence over safety 
standards. In fact, the U.S. tolerance standard of combined glyphosate and 
AMPA in soybean forage was changed to 100 ppm after they approved the 
genetically engineered soybean. 

  As for the Japanese government, they revised the safety standard of 
combined glyphosate and AMPA in soybean seed from 6 ppm to 20 ppm in April 
2000 at the request of the U.S. government. Japan could thus import soybeans 
from the United States without violation of the law. 

  Thus, MONSANTO, in their rush to verify safety, patchworked the results of 
experiments and analyses that are as full of holes as an incomplete puzzle. 
Their product was asserted safe through manipulation of experimental 
results. Even more troubling, rather than trying to meet legal safety 
standards, they requested - and were granted - the revision of these 
standards to fit their needs 

  We have managed to find facts showing inadequate and incomplete safety 
assessment in the application document by MONSANTO, even though our work was 
limited and took place under difficult conditions. The process of genetic 
recombination and the results of other animal experiments remain uninspected 
by us. 

TEST OF REASON
  The matter of genetically modified canola is being tested in Canada's high 
court. The U.S. courts have handed down incredible decisions, most of which 
carry out a reversal as greatly denounced as the Dred Scott ruling. For now 
it is up to the American farmer to shun GMOs. The Japanese seem to have 
taken the position that they want to see what happens to a generation of 
Americans before they rush to judgment. 

   The original paper cited, abstracted, and quoted above is titled 
"Fraudulent Conclusion: Facts Found by Inspection of the Safety Assessment 
of GM Roundup Tolerant Soybean, MONSANTO's Dangerous Logic as Seen in the 
Application Documents Submitted to the Health Ministry of Japan." The credit 
line reads, Masaharu Kawata, Assistant Professor, School of Science, Nagoya 
University, Japan. A subtitle says, "What Is Herbicide-Resistant Soybean by 
MONSANTO?" 

Conclusion:  GM food is VERY DANGEROUS. 

LINK:
www.resistanceisfertile.com
www.bhopal.org
http://bibleplus.org/health/ms_lupus.htm
www.percyschmeiser.com
www.connectotel.com/gmfood
www.organicconsumers.org
www.geneticsaction.org.uk
www.pan-uk.org
www.natural-law-party.org.uk
www.gefoodalert.org
www.safe-food.org
www.truefoodnow.org
www.geaction.org
www.foodfirst.org
www.gefree.org
http://ngin.tripod.com/
http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/stop_gmo.html
www.ourstolenfuture.org
www.factoryfarm.org
www.tilth.org
www.bastyr.edu 

}Please forward this email to friends and to electronic Bulletin Boards. 
Please print out & distribute.
Please give a copy to a friend. Thank You and God Bless You.  Praise God.