Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Soy. It is found in seemingly every prepared and processed food item available on the market. Whether it is soy protein, soybean oil, or soy lecithin, soy derivatives have become an almost universal additive in American food products. Commonly thought to be a healthy, protein-dense food, the soybean has been touted as a wonder victual capable of feeding the planet and stopping world hunger. Truth is, unfermented soy is one of the most harmful, toxic substances to ever become so predominant in the food chain.

The History of Soy

Historically, ancient farmers planted soybeans in order to infuse their soil with nutrients such as nitrogen; their food crops benefited from the enriched soil that the soy plants provided. Typically attributed with Asian diets, soy has always played a minor role in eastern fare and, when consumed, it is done so fermented from a whole bean.

The traditional Japanese diet, for instance, includes over 100 biologically-unique foods per week with soy products accounting for only a few items. In Pearl Buck’s 1931 bestselling Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Good Earth, she writes of Wang Lung, a Chinese subsistence farmer who rises to power in pre-revolutionary China because of his and his wife’s hard work and determination. Raised in China herself, Buck’s story contains scant mention of soy consumption as part of the typical Chinese diet.

Ancient pictographs from the Chinese Chou Dynasty period also confirm that soy was traditionally not used as food but as a crop-rotating plant that served to replenish the planting soil with nutrients. Throughout the centuries, it gradually gained popularity in various fermented forms.

Only in recent decades has corporate soy production become commonplace, ushered in by gales of misinformation claiming it as a health food in all its processed forms. Even in Asian countries, 90% of soy consumption involves processed, unfermented soy products much like the ones consumed in America.

What’s So Bad About Soy?

Soybeans naturally contain a host of anti-nutrients and toxins, including trypsin inhibitors, hemaglutinin, phytic acid, and phytoestrogens.

The potent trypsin inhibitors present in soy significantly curtail protein absorption, causing abdominal distress due to hampered absorption of crucial nutrients and amino acids. Animals fed diets that contained large amounts of trypsin inhibitors developed pancreatic problems including cancer.

Hemaglutinin is a substance that is responsible for causing red blood cells to clump together and form clots. Both trypsin inhibitors and hemaglutinin have been deemed “growth depressant substances” for their contributions in stunting essential bodily functions.

Phytic acid, or phytates, is another nutrient absorption inhibitor that deters the uptake of essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc. Present in the bran of seeds, phytic acid will offset the intake of nutrients by stopping their absorption within the intestinal track, leading to severe mineral deficiencies. Zinc, the “intelligence mineral”, is the one most completely blocked by soy phytates. Soy has also been shown to have the highest phytic acid content of any other grain or legume ever studied.

Phytoestrogens are chemical compounds found in some plants that mimic the estrogen hormone. Soy products are particularly rich in isoflavone phytoestrogens which are capable of significantly disrupting human hormonal balance, particularly in men. A study conducted by Harvard University revealed a definitive correlation between soy consumption and low sperm counts in men, indicating that high soy consumption can instigate reproductive harm and suppress testosterone levels.

Genetic Engineering

To add insult to injury, the GMO Compass database records that as of 2008, 92% of soy crops in the U.S. are genetically-modified varieties. GMOs are continually shown in independent studies to cause serious harm in the human body, a frightening prospect when considering that soy derivatives are found in virtually every processed food product.

One of the most prevalent culprits is soy lecithin, an emulsifier that is added to processed foods to stabilize the ingredients with one another. Soybean oil is another popular additive found in all kinds of foods from mayonnaise and salad dressings to cakes and breads. Besides the fact that they are soy-based and highly prevalent, these ingredients are most often derived from GMO soybeans.

Even organic products may contain GMO soy lecithin since this particular ingredient falls outside the realm of organic requirements, a controversial loophole that many have taken charge to have changed. Most organic products specify non-GMO soy lecithin, but it is always important to investigate and verify.

Eat Soy Sparingly, and Only Organic

The proper way to eat soy is whole, organic, fermented, and sparingly. Soy milk, tofu, soy nuts, and other popular food items are essentially toxic due to the inherent toxic properties of unfermented soy. Many of these products are also highly processed and genetically-modified.

Soy formulas are inadequate and potentially dangerous for babies as they do not contain the vibrant array of vital nutrients found in the mother’s breast milk. Many doctors affirm that soy formulas lack essential fatty acids (EFAs), cholesterol, immunoglobulins, and other nutrients necessary for proper cognitive and neural development in the child. As it turns out, many babies are allergic to the highly-processed proteins and ingredients in infant formula.

For adults, soy products like miso, tamari, and shoyu that have been properly fermented are not only delicious but healthy when used in various food preparations. Fermentation eliminates virtually all of the anti-nutrients and toxins present in raw soybeans. Tempeh is another whole fermented soy food that is high in protein and dietary fiber, making it a pertinent vegetarian meal option.

Small amounts of fermented, organic soy foods in conjunction with a diverse, whole foods diet will serve the body well. Rather than consume inordinate amounts of chemically-processed soy as is becoming typical in the American diet, particularly among vegetarians, soy should be shrouded among an array of complete food items—preferably as a condiment and always fermented.

Ethan Huff is a freelance writer and health enthusiast who loves exploring the vast world of natural foods and health, digging deep to get to the truth. He runs an online health publication of his own at

http://wholesomeherald.blogspot.com.

Farmers in South Africa have reported an inexplicable failure to seed in three different varieties of corn genetically modified (GM) by the Monsanto Corporation.

“One can’t see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded,” said Kobus van Coller of Free State province. “One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem.”

The problems occurred only in corn engineered by Monsanto for increased yields or for resistance to the company’s trademark herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). Failure to seed has been documented in the provinces of Free State, Mpumalanga and North West.

According to Monsanto, the crop failure occurred due to “underfertilization processes in the laboratory,” and has only been a problem in “less than 25 percent” of the seed from the three corn varieties.

Marian Mayet of the Africa Center for Biosecurity disputed the company’s claims, however. According to her sources, some farms have experienced crop failures as high as 80 percent. She also expressed doubt over Monsanto’s explanation for the problem, laying the blame instead on the GM technologies used to produce the seed.

“Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a failure,” Mayet said. “You cannot make a ‘mistake’ with three different varieties of corn. We have been warning against GM-technology for years, we have been warning Monsanto that there will be problems.”

Mayet called on the government to launch an investigation into the crop failures and to institute an immediate ban on the cultivation of all GM crops in South Africa.

South Africa was one of the first countries after the United States to adopt GM corn. Like the United States but unlike many European countries, South Africa does not require that GM ingredients be labeled as such on food packaging.

The South African grocery chain Woolworths imposed a ban on carrying any GM foods in 2000.

Sources: http://www.naturalnews.com/026705_……

Genetically modified (GM) soy accounts for 91 percent of soybeans planted in the US and is rapidly growing throughout the world [1]. The dangerous biotech created science behind the introduction of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is rapidly mounting and can no longer be ignored by scientists or the public. The biotech propaganda of increasing crop yield and ending world hunger have been proven false, and attempts to skew the simple fact that the sole reasoning for the mass introduction of untested, toxic and dangerous GMOs into our plants, soil, animals and genes is to increase profits at any expense for the large multinational biotech companies.

Transgenic or GM soy is created by haphazardly blasting a gene into the soybean that allows the bean to be resistant to the cytotoxic effects of Roundup (glyphosate). Farmers are able to dose their entire soybean fields with glyphosate and only kill the weeds. But, wouldn’t it make sense that if something kills anything (including weeds) it also would be killing human cells? Also, what health effects are evident from consuming soybeans which have been genetically altered with a promoter virus to ensure the gene slips past the immune system of the plant?

Monsanto created Roundup in the 1970’s to kill weeds and has since catapulted this product to be the world’s number one selling herbicide. Before the patent on Roundup was set to expire in 2000, Monsanto needed a surefire way to keep the profits of Roundup from bottoming out. Monsanto quickly began purchasing the majority of the world’s seed companies while simultaneously creating GMOs that farmers needed to sign contractual agreements to only use Roundup. Subsequently, revenue from Roundup never dropped and in fact topped more than $4 billion in 2008, up 59% from 2007 [2].

GM-soy is estimated to be present in up to 70% of all food products found in US supermarkets, including cereals, breads, soymilk, pasta and most meat (as animals are fed GM-soy feed). Although Monsanto has consistently relied on industry-funded data to declare the safety of GM-soy and glyphosate, objective research published in peer-reviewed journals tells another story.

Toxicity of Glyphosate

A recently published study by Italian researchers [3] examined the toxicity of four popular glyphosate based herbicide formulations on human placental cells, kidney cells, embryonic cells and neonate umbilical cord cells and surprisingly found total cell death of each of these cells within 24 hours. The researchers reported several mechanisms by which the herbicides caused the cells to die including: cell membrane rupture and damage, mitochondrial damage and cell asphyxia. Following these findings, the researchers tested G, AMPA and POEA by themselves and concluded that, “It is very clear that if G, POEA, or AMPA has a small toxic effect on embryonic cells alone at low levels, the combination of two of them at the same final concentration is significantly deleterious”.

Although previous researchers have proposed that the supposed “inert ingredients” alter the role of cell membrane disruptors in fish, amphibians, microorganisms [4] and plants [5], independent of G, this study is the first of its kind to report similar findings in human cells. The researchers concluded that, “the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R [Roundup] formulation-treated crops” which are pervasive in GM-soya.

Furthermore, a recent study presently being prepared for publication by embryologists and biologists in Argentina found that glyphosate induced malformations in amphibian embryos [6]. Reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, an increase in the death of cells that help form the skull, and deformed cartilage were effects that were repeatedly found in the laboratory experiments, said lead researcher, Carrasco. Carrasco explained that in the first phase of the experiment, amphibian embryos were submerged in a solution of herbicide diluted in water in a proportion that was 1,500 times weaker than that used today on genetically modified soybeans. The embryos subsequently suffered head deformations. In the second stage, embryonic cells were injected with glyphosate diluted with water, alone. The deleterious impact was multiplied, showing that the active ingredient accounts for the toxicity, rather than the additives, Carrasco said.

“One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans,” said Carrasco, whose team of specialists in biology, biochemistry and genetics has been working on the study for 15 months. The researchers concluded that, “It is clear that glyphosate is not innocuous and that it does not degrade or break down, but accumulates in cells”.

Dangers of GM-Soy

In addition to the toxicity of glyphosate, several animal studies have found several health issues directly related to the consumption of GM-soybean. Rabbits fed GM-soy were found to have altered enzymatic activity in their livers as well as a higher metabolic activity [7]. Microscopic analyses of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes [8]. Much of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit.

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., described that the findings “are not random and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia” [9].

A study presented in December of 2005 by Dr. Ermakova found that rats fed a GM-soy flour diet had 56 percent of their offspring die at birth compared to only 8 percent in the control group [10]. Ermakova (2005) also reported that, “From the data it is evident, that 36% of the pups from the GM soya group weighed less than 20 g, in comparison with the 6% in the positive control group, and with the 6.7% found in the traditional soya supplemented diet group. Study of pups’ organs mass showed that the organs of small pups from GM group were tiny in comparison with the same of other groups except the brain mass. This fact indicated that the pups from the GM group were the same age as others, but changes were occurred with the development of internal organs” [10]. Furthermore, Ermakova found that the male rats who were fed GM soy had their testicles change color from normal pink to dark blue.

Researchers also found that the cells in the pancreatic cells of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes [11]. Furthermore, mice fed GM soy were found to have altered young sperm [12] and even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA [13]. Clearly, GMOs are either an arrogant blend of controlling life through food or an insidious plot for population control.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/026334.html

Germany has banned the cultivation of GM corn, arguing that the corn breed MON 810 is dangerous for the environment. But that argument might not stand up in court, and Germany could face fines totaling millions of euros if Monsanto decides to challenge the prohibition.

Under the new regulations, the cultivation of MON 810, a GM corn produced by Monsanto, will be prohibited in Germany. A clause in EU law allows individual countries to impose such bans. Environmental groups welcomed the ban, pointing out that numerous scientific studies demonstrated GM corn was a danger to the environment.

However, it may be hard to prove conclusively that MON 810 damages the environment, which could enable Monsanto to win a court case opposing the ban. Monsanto has said that it would look as quickly as possible into whether it would begin legal proceedings.

MON 810 had been the only GM crop that could be grown in Germany. The plant produces a toxin to fight off a certain pest, the larvae of the corn borer moth. MON 810 is already banned in five other EU member states: Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.

Sources:   Spiegel Online April 14, 2009

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Germany has now become the sixth country in the European Union to take a stand against GM corn — a wise move that unfortunately the United States has yet to do.

Whereas close to 9,000 acres slated to be planted with MON 810 corn in Germany will now be GM-free (assuming the ban stands up in court if necessary), the acres to be planted with GM corn in the U.S. is in the tens of millions.

German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced she was banning not only the cultivation of GM corn but also the sale of its seeds, saying she had “legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810 posed a danger to the environment.”

Why GM Corn is Dangerous

French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, molecular endocrinologist at the University of Caen and a member of two French government commissions evaluating GM food, found that MON 810, along with several other varieties of GM crops, showed statistically significant problems in animal studies that regulators have not pursued with follow-up research.

Seralini said the effects of the GM crops were similar to that of pesticides, including inflammation disorders, and problems with livers and kidneys, two major organs involved with detoxification.

Further, biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary‘s Debrecen University discovered that Monsanto’s Mon 810 is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as rare. Now Monsanto refuses to give him any more Mon 810 corn to use in his tests. They also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety.

So not only has MON 810 been shown to cause serious damage to animals, but it may also wipe out protected plant and insect species. Of course, adding to the potential devastation is the fact that corn is a wind-pollinated plant, which means it depends on the wind for pollination.

While growers of GM food often say their crops will be contained and unable to contaminate nearby fields, from an environmental perspective contamination between GM and non-GM crops is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable.

Really what can stop wind, tornadoes or other weather from blowing or transporting GM pollen or seeds over onto non-GM crops?

Not a whole lot.

So by planting even a few thousand acres of land with GM crops, there’s a very real possibility that a much greater area could become contaminated with the altered seeds, and subject to the potential health and environmental insults as a result.

The United States government‘s support for biotech is no secret. In fact, it is the official policy in several U.S. agencies to promote the industry, and some of them have attempted to push acceptance of GM crops in Europe — but let’s hope they continue to hold out.

MON 810 was currently the only GM crop approved for cultivation in Germany, so in choosing to ban GM corn, Germany will become an entirely GM-free country — a wise, wise move.

Of course, it’s not just GM corn that’s the issue here; all GM crops have the potential to cause great, irreversible harm.

Are GM Crops Threatening the Future of Humankind?

GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels, or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene.

This results in brand new proteins that have never before existed in food, some of which may be causing severe allergic reactions.

Creating a GM crop can also produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant‘s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, or change their levels of protein expression. No one knows how this will impact human health, but so far Jeffrey Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks related to GM foods.

Among them:

• Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
• Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn varieties
• Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Austrian researchers have now also confirmed a direct link between a decrease in fertility and a genetically modified diet. In order to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world, GM opponents are calling for an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops.

I agree with them wholly, as genetically modified foods are, from my perception, one of the largest threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race.

How to Ban GM Foods from Your Diet

You may not be able to single-handedly decide to ban GM crops in your country the way Germany did, but as a consumer you do have power. You can choose not to be a victim of deception, and you can choose what you feed your family.

Large portions of Europe have already succeeded in removing GM foods out of their food supply, forcing food manufacturers to use real ingredients in their European product lines. But here in the United States we’re still stuck with it to a very large degree.

Since GM foods do not need to be labeled in the United States, there are two main tricks you can use to figure out if something is genetically modified:

• Examine produce stickers on the fruits and vegetables you buy. The PLU code for conventionally grown fruit consists of four numbers; organically grown fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number nine; and GM fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number eight.

• Buy organic as often as you can. By definition, food that is certified organic must be free from all GM organisms.

Keep in mind, too, that soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola are four of the crops most likely to be GM, and these are also ingredients commonly added to virtually every processed food. So if you eat processed foods, be sure to buy only organic varieties or, ideally, cut them largely out of your diet.

If more of us begin to refuse GM foods, food manufacturers will have no choice but to listen.

Source: www.mercola.com

Although the biotech industry and our indentured corporate mass media would have us believe that recent scientific advances in food and farming are derived from genetic engineering and chemicals, according to UK-based GM Watch, the real breakthroughs in farming in 2007 came from organic and sustainable agriculture:

1) In 2007 a deluge of new scientific studies from a wide variety of institutions indicate that in comparison to genetically modified (GM) crops, organic agriculture can better feed the world, reduce global warming, provide greater nutrition, and boost the economy. Digesting new research on the topic, the United Nations announced that organic agriculture is the best way to feed the world and help stabilize the climate.

2) A wide range of new, non-GM crops over the last year are bringing hope to farmers around the world. Some of these include:
- A wheat variety that can withstand high salinity in soil, thereby opening up vast tracks of land previously considered “dead”.
- Non-GM corn and rice varieties that can tolerate droughts.
- Indian farmers find traditional cotton varieties to be much more stress-resistant than GM cotton.
- Iron fortified non-GMO maize strain reduces anemia rates in children.
-Discovery of non-GM variety of allergen-free peanut.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9572.cfm

Seven years ago, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets, along with other crops like potatoes and rice, was shelved at fears that consumers would not support their use. Sugar beets, which produce about half of the United States sugar (almost all of which is used domestically), are used in foods like candy, cereal, and baking products. The failure of the GM beet’s initial introduction was based on unwillingness from companies like Hershey and Kellogg to provoke consumer protests.

Now, the marketplace seems to have changed enough that such big sugar-buying companies are less hesitant to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” beet (which are tolerant of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate). According to Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles, her company “would not have any issues” buying them because “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.”

“Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said American Crystal Sugar president David Berg of the switch. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.” Most other companies, including Hershey and Mars, are refusing to comment on the subject, which has kept these developments quiet until recently.

Despite the corporate perception of public opinion on GM crops, organic advocates are disappointed that GM sugar beets have again become a possibility. “When I first saw this I said, ‘No, it can’t be,’” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). “I thought we had already dealt with this.” OCA has already begun its consumer campaign to get sugar buyers to reject GM beets again. “I don’t think companies like Hershey are going to want any more hassles than they already have,” said Cummins.

Issues with the crop center around environmental impact, like herbicide-resistant weeds (which have begun to appear in Roundup Ready corn and soybean fields) and threats to wildlife (see Daily News from 10/24/03 and 1/21/05). While the sugar derived from GM beets does not contain DNA or proteins, in areas where the beets are left in the ground for a winter, like California, they can produce seed that might spread to other fields. “We have to make sure we don’t cause ourselves more problems than we’re curing,” said Ben Goodwin, executive manager of the California Beet Growers Association. For more background on GM crops, visit our program page.

www.beyondpesticides.org

In Britain, foods or animal feeds that directly contain genetically modified ingredients must be labeled as “GM.” But due to a legal loop-hole, there is no such requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed on GM crops. The Soil Association decided to conduct an in-depth investigation to see if use of GM animal feed was being kept hidden from consumers.

They found that 73 percent of the feeds tested contained GM soy. Essentially, this means that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products and pork products sold in UK shops and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals.

Although the Food Standards Agency has assured consumers that they would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed animals, four studies by different scientific teams have found that GM DNA can be detected in milk and tissues from GM-fed animals. GM-fed animals have also exhibited allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in offspring, raising serious questions about whether or not GM-fed animals are suitable for producing human food.

www.mercola.com

A Pennsylvania beekeeper, John McDonald, has undertaken a study of agriculture’s effect on colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honeybees. After writing an article for the The San Francisco Chronicle that speculates on genetically modified (GM) crops’ contribution to the phenomenon, McDonald spent the last six months producing evidence to support his theory (one of many regarding the causes of CCD).

In his original article, McDonald asks, “Is it not possible that while there is no lethal effect directly to the new bees [from GM crops], there might be some sublethal effect, such as immune suppression, acting as a slow killer? … Given that nearly every bite of food that we eat has a pollinator, the seriousness of this emerging problem could dwarf all previous food disruptions.”

While CCD has been a worldwide concern, there has been minimal research in determining pesticides’ role, particularly regarding proximity to cropland. McDonald writes, “When it appeared that others weren’t interested in this experiment, I undertook to do my own investigation at my own expense.” Beginning in May, McDonald established new colonies (as his had been wiped out earlier), one in Centre County, Pennsylvania, where farming is extensive, and one adjoining Allegheny National Forest, where agriculture lay outside of the bees’ foraging range. The eight hives were monitored from May to October, and all had free access to goldenrod with which to produce honey.

By mid-October, the hives adjacent to farmland consistently did not gain weight, while those away from it grew steadily. When the “supers,” where honey is collected, were checked, the former had not produced enough honey to feed themselves, while the latter had produced close to 350 pounds of honey.

McDonald will leave the colonies in place to see if these bees die off like his last, but hopes “These results should encourage new research to determine what factor or factors are present in farm country to cause such a discrepancy in honey production.”

www.beyondpesticides.org

Rocky Mountain Outlook

By David Suzuki

Did you know that genetically modified, or “transgenic” crops are now commonplace on North American farms? According to a recent survey in the United States, the majority of Americans have no idea just how pervasive this technology has become. In fact, North Americans have been eating transgenic foods and using products made from their crops for over a decade. So, what kind of effect, for better or for worse, are these crops having on the environment?

One of the major concerns many ecologists had a decade ago was that transgenic organisms could inadvertently disrupt ecosystems by harming other organisms. Some transgenic crops, for example, have been engineered to resist certain types of herbicide. This allows farmers to liberally spray their fields with the herbicide, knowing it won’t harm their target crop.

These concerns were apparently warranted, as farm-scale evaluations two years ago in the UK of some transgenic crops found that vigorous application of herbicides was also damaging to the diversity of other life forms around farms. That’s because many of the weeds killed by the herbicides were important for butterflies and bees. Populations of these beneficial pollinators on the test farms fell, possibly having other, more wide-ranging implications up the food chain for birds and mammals.

Another common type of transgenic crop has an insecticide “built-in.” These crops have been genetically engineered to produce an insecticidal toxin that wards off pests. One of the most well-known has been engineered using a certain kind of bacterium called Bt. The advantage, in theory, is that Bt crops do not need to be sprayed with an insecticide to kill pests, and thus could be potentially cheaper and more environmentally friendly than their contemporary non-transgenic counterparts.

Concerns were raised, however, when lab tests showed that pollen from Bt crops could be potentially harmful to non-target insects, making them grow more slowly or reproduce less often. However a new meta-analysis of the effects of Bt cotton and Bt maize on non-target insects in the field has found that these types of crops appear, at least on the surface, to be less harmful to insects than farming methods that use insecticides.

This report, recently published in the journal Science, looked at 42 field experiments and found that fields of Bt cotton and maize contained more non-pest insects than did those that used insecticides to control pests. Of course, insecticide-free control fields still had the greatest number of insects overall. The authors point out that further studies to examine the impact on specific species of insects, rather than just all invertebrates, are essential to better understand the environmental impact of these crops.

Disturbingly, the researchers had to resort to obtaining much of their information on Bt crops through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, because the companies that produced them did not publicly disclose it.

The researchers also note that the debate around transgenic crops has been a heated and emotional one, “However, in the case of GM crops, scientific analyses have also been deficient. In particular, many experiments used to test the environmental safety of GM crops were poorly replicated, were of short duration, and/or assessed only a few of the possible response variables. Much could be learned and perhaps some debates settled if there were credible quantitative analyses of the numerous experiments that have contrasted the ecological impact if GM crops with those of control treatments involving non-GM varieties.”

Transgenic crops are not simple products like widgets, ipods or even automobiles. They are living organisms that can interact with other creatures in the environment in myriad ways. Nature is complicated. When you modify an organism at a genetic level, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the results are also complicated, and often unexpected. Transgenic crops are, in many ways, radically new and should be subject to the greatest of scientific scrutiny, not suppressed by proprietary concerns.

David T. Suzuki PhD, Co-Founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. He is the author of 43 books, and is recognized as a world leader in sustainable ecology. An internationally respected geneticist, Dr. Suzuki was a full Professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver from 1969 until his retirement in 2001. He is professor emeritus with UBC’s Sustainable Development Research Institute. Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org

Source: The Cornucopia Institute