9. November 2007
schon längst bewiesen wurde, daß Gentechnisch veränderte
Saaten und Lebensmittel als nachweislich unsicher und gesundheitsgefährdend
eingestuft werden müssen , findet man immer noch die üblichen
Falschaussagen zur Gentechnik zum Beispiel in Tageszeitungen wie „Die Welt"
und sogar in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung unter Federführung
von Joachim Müller-Jung. Nicht nur Bienenwissenschaftler wie Elke
Genersch  lassen sich zu Falschaussagen verleiten, sogar angesehene
Wissenschaftsjournalisten wie Joachim Müller-Jung zitieren Wissenschaftler
und Organisationen, die längst wegen notorischer Verfälschung
der Tatsachen berüchtigt sind (z.B. ISAAA) und legen dabei selbst
einen blinden Eifer für die grüne Gentechnik an den Tag, der
Zeitungen wie die FAZ in ein seltsames Licht rücken: „Der nächste
große Umbruch ist mächtig in Fahrt", wir „erleben einen beispiellosen
Boom der Gentechnik", wir dürfen „bloß kein Misstrauen säen,
die Gentechnik als Ganzes stehe auf dem Spiel", „die immer neuen und immer
längeren Fristen der Erprobung und Zulassung" sind ihm ein Graus;
immer diese „Überregulierung" sei für ihn und all die anderen
Forschungszentren für Pflanzen-Biotechnologie ein Ärgernis .
Von Sicherheit der Verbraucher kann keine Rede sein. Nicht eine einzige Sicherheitsbehörde weltweit ist kompetent, die wirklichen Gesundheitsgefahren auch nur zu identifizieren, geschweige denn den Menschen zu schützen:
"Although the body of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has verified the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others. The gene inserted into plant DNA may produce a protein that is inherently unhealthy. The inserted gene has been found to transfer into human gut bacteria and may even end up in human cellular DNA, where it might produce its protein over the long-term. Toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products. Farmer and medical reports link GM feed to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals.
But there is not a single government safety assessment program in the world that is competent to even identify most of these potential health problems, let alone protect its citizens from the effects.
A review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E. Ann Clark, for example, reveals that 70% "of the currently available GM crops . . . have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock. The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato Decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops." In the remaining 30% of the other crops tested, animals were _not_ fed the whole GM feed. They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce. But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant. Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria. This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others. Clark asks, "Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?" . Epidemiologist and GM safety expert Judy Carman shows that assessments by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) similarly overlook serious potential problems, including cancer, birth defects, or long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies.
review of twelve reports covering twenty-eight GM crops - four soy, three
corn, ten potatoes, eight canola, one sugar beet and two cotton - revealed
no feeding trials on people. In addition, one of the GM corn varieties
had gone untested on animals. Some seventeen foods involved testing with
only a single oral gavage (a type of forced-feeding), with observation
for seven to fourteen days, and only of the substance that had been genetically
engineered to appear [the GM protein], not the whole food. Such testing
assumes that the only new substance that will appear in the food is the
one genetically engineered to appear, that the GM plant-produced substance
will act in the same manner as the tested substance that was obtained from
another source [GM bacteria], and that the substance will create disease
within a few days. All are untested hypotheses and make a mockery of GM
proponents' claims that the risk assessment of GM foods is based on sound
science. Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat,
sample sizes were often very low - for example, five to six cows per group
for Roundup Ready soy - and they were fed for only four weeks." 
"Soy allergies jumped 50% in the U.K. just after GM soy was introduced. If GM soy was the cause, it may be due to several things. The GM protein that makes Roundup Ready Soy resistant to the herbicide does not have a history of safe use in humans and may be an allergen. In fact, sections of its amino acid sequence are identical to known allergens. A portion of the transgene from ingested GM soybeans, along with the promoter that switches it on, transfers into human gut bacteria during ingestion. The fact that the transformed bacteria survives applications of Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, suggests that the transgene continues to produce the Roundup Ready protein. If true, then long after people stop eating GM soy they may be constantly exposed to its potentially allergenic protein, which is being created within their gut. (This protein may be made more allergenic due to misfolding, attached molecular chains, or rearrangement of unstable transgenes, but there is insufficient data to support or rule out these possibilities.1 ) Studies suggest that the GM transformation process may have increased natural allergens in soybeans. The level of one known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, was 27% higher in raw GM soy varieties. More worrisome, it was as much as sevenfold higher in cooked GM soy compared to cooked non-GM soy. Not only is this higher amount potentially harmful, the finding also suggests that the trypsin inhibitor in GM soy might be more heat stable and, therefore, even more allergenic than the natural variety. It is also possible that changes in GM soy DNA may produce new allergens. Although there has never been an exhaustive analysis of the proteins or natural products in GM soy, unpredicted changes in the DNA were discovered. A mutated section of soy DNA was found near the transgene, which may contribute to some unpredicted effects. Moreover, between this scrambled DNA and the transgene is an extra transgene fragment, not discovered until years after soy was on the market. The RNA produced is completely unexpected. It combines material from all three sections: the full-length transgene, the transgene fragment, and the mutated DNA sequence. This RNA is then further processed into four different variations, which might lead to the production of some unknown allergen. Another study verified that GM soybeans contain an IgE-binding allergenic protein not found in nonGM soy controls, and that one of eight subjects who showed a skin-prick allergic reaction to GM soy had no reaction to nonGM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge. The increased residue of Roundup herbicide in GM soy might contribute to increased allergies. In fact, the symptoms identified in the U.K. soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints including acne and eczema. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product, AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans, might contribute to allergies. Finally, mice fed GM soy had reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. When protein-digesting enzymes are suppressed, proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Any reduction in protein digestion could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the GM soy.
Bt Toxin Triggers Immune Response: Bt toxin is consistently associated with immune and allergic-type responses. Although the unpredicted consequences of the GM transformation process might also contribute to allergic reactions from Bt crops, evidence suggests that the Bt toxin itself is a major factor. The Bt proteins found in most currently registered Bt-corn varieties would not pass the allergy test protocol described in the 2001 FAO/WHO report, because they have amino acid sections identical with known allergens17 and are too stable in simulated digestive solutions. Furthermore, immune responses are triggered by both the natural Bt toxin in spray form and Bt crops. The concentration of Bt toxin in crops, however, can be thousands of times higher than in sprays; and changes in its protein structure make the crop version more likely to provoke reactions in humans. Additional evidence: When populations were exposed to Bt spray, hundreds complained of allergic reactions; exposed farm workers also exhibited antibody responses.
Indian farm workers exposed to Bt cotton developed moderate or severe allergic reactions. Bt toxin fed to mice induced a significant immune response and an increased reactivity to other substances. Male rats fed MON 863 Bt corn had a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.
Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions to StarLink corn, and an expert panel determined that its Bt protein had a "medium likelihood" of being a human allergen. The consistency between the reactions related to Bt sprays and those reported by Bt-cotton workers is astounding. The Bt spray was associated with sneezing, runny nose, watery eyes, skin inflammation and irritation, rashes, itching and burning, swelling, red skin and eyes, exacerbations of asthma, facial swelling, and fever. Some people required hospitalization. Bt-cotton workers in India reported sneezing, runny nose, watery eyes, skin eruptions, itching and burning, red skin and eyes, facial swelling, and fever. Some people required hospitalization. The two lists are nearly identical-only "exacerbations of asthma" was on the spray list and not the other. Asthma and breathing difficulties were reported by Filipinos who inhaled Bt-corn pollen. They also described swollen faces, flu-like symptoms, fever, and sneezing. Some individuals in both India and the Philippines also reported long-term effects after exposure. The list of symptoms in the Philippines, however, did contain items not reported by the other two groups. These included coughs, headache, stomach ache, dizziness, diarrhea, vomiting, weakness, and numbness.
Toxicity and Reproductive Problems: In addition, there is substantial evidence of toxicity and reproductive effects associated with GM foods. Sheep that grazed on Bt-cotton plants in India, for example, exhibited nasal discharge, reddish and erosive mouth lesions, cough, bloat, diarrhea, and occasional red-colored urine. Shepherds report that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days. Post mortems on some of the estimated 10,000 dead sheep in the region indicated toxic reactions. Rats fed Bt corn showed toxicity in their livers and kidneys. And farmers link Bt corn with deaths among cows, water buffalo, horses, and chickens, as well as sterility in thousands of pigs or cows.1 Animal feeding studies with Roundup Ready soy indicated toxic livers, altered sperm cells, significant changes in embryo development, and a fivefold increase in infant mortality, among others. Our understanding of DNA has progressed rapidly since genetic engineering was applied to food crops, and many key safety assumptions have been proven wrong. Perhaps some day scientists will be able to safely and predictably alter food crops for the benefit of mankind and the environment. Until then, it is not responsible to risk the health of the entire population with this infant science or to release these crops into the ecosystem where they may self-propagate for generations. An immediate ban of GM foods and crops is more than justified." 
Ein sofortiges Verbot
sämtlicher gentechnisch veränderter Lebensmittel ist mehr als
Neben GV-Raps ist
es besonders gefährlich gentechnisch veränderten Reis anzubauen.
Mehr als andere Getreidearten neigt Reis (Oryza sativa) dazu, sich
der Kontrolle der Landwirte zu entziehen. Die verwilderten Reispflanzen
konkurrieren dann mit den angebauten um Nährstoffe und Licht. Außerdem
mindern sie die Qualität der Ernte. Experten warnen davor, hier auf
Gentechnik zurückzugreifen. Dass transgene Reissorten ihre fremdartigen
Gene an benachbarte Reispflanzen weitergeben können, ist bereits nachgewiesen.
Schützt die Erbschaft vor Herbiziden, Krankheiten oder Schädlingen,
so ist zu befürchten, dass sie sich rapide ausbreitet und die Eindämmung
von Unkraut-Reis zusätzlich erschwert.   
Nach Angaben des
Wirtschaftprüfungsinstitutes Ernst & Young beläuft sich der
Gesamtjahresumsatz der Biotech-Branche auf 960 Millionen Euro, davon nur
13 Prozent im Bereich der Agro-Gentechnik. Der größte Teil davon
geht ironischerweise in die Analytik, das heißt in die Diagnostik
von Lebensmitteln für Menschen, die keine Gentechnik wollen. Dagegen
steigt der Markt für ökologische Lebensmittel und die damit verbundenen
Arbeitsplätze stetig an. Es wird damit gerechnet, daß der Umsatz
mit Bioprodukten jährlich um 5 Milliarden Dollar wachsen und 2007
die Marke von 40 Milliarden Dollar überschreiten werde. Die größten
Märkte für Bioprodukte sind Deutschland, die Vereinigten Staaten,
Großbritannien und Schweden 
Die Zeiten, in denen die FDA in der Lage war eine Contergan-Katastrophe in Amerika zu verhindern, sind vorbei. Heute sieht die vielgerühmte Kontrolle bei FDA und EFSA so aus:
"Biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, but it is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Companies can submit whatever information they choose, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of their own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states flatly, "It is clear that FDA's current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE [genetically engineered] crops." He says, "The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat." Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded: "If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up.. . . If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards . . . then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent' agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings."
At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn't actually approve the crops. Rather, they issue a letter including a statement such as the following: "Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements."
The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."
The FDA and other regulatory agencies are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them—a clear conflict. Suzanne Wuerthele, a US EPA toxicologist, says, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
Canadian regulators are similarly conflicted. The Royal Society of Canada reported that, "In meetings with senior managers from the various Canadian regulatory departments . . . their responses uniformly stressed the importance of maintaining a favorable climate for the biotechnology industry to develop new products and submit them for approval on the Canadian market. . . . The conflict of interest involved in both promoting and regulating an industry or technology . . . is also a factor in the issue of maintaining the transparency, and therefore the scientific integrity, of the regulatory process. In effect, the public interest in a regulatory system that is ‘science based'—that meets scientific standards of objectivity, a major aspect of which is full openness to scientific peer review—is significantly compromised when that openness is negotiated away by regulators in exchange for cordial and supportive relationships with the industries being regulated."
The conflict of interest among scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel is quite explicit. According to Friends of the Earth, "One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry. Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry. . . . Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project. The aim of this project was to agree [to] safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.' Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta." The report concludes that EFSA is "being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty." The pro-GM European Commission repeats the same ruse. According to leaked documents obtained by Friends of the Earth, while they privately appreciate "the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to the safety of GM crops . . . the Commission normally keeps this uncertainty concealed from the public whilst presenting its decisions about the safety of GM crops and foods as being certain and scientifically based." Further, in private "they frequently criticize the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its assessments of the safety of GM foods and crops, even though the Commission relies on these evaluations to make recommendations to member states. . . [and] to justify its decisions to approve new GM foods." For example, the Commission privately condemned the submission information for one crop as "mixed, scarce, delivered consecutively all over years, and not convincing." They said there is "No sufficient experimental evidence to assess the safety."
Kurz: eine unabhängige
Kontrolle gibt es beim European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel
ebensowenig wie bei der pro-Gentechnik Eu-Kommission oder der amerikanischen
23 unterschiedliche Kulturpflanzen in den unterschiedlichsten Stadien der
Entwicklung und Zulassung sein: Neben Avokados stehen Kartoffeln, Papayas,
Reis und Tomaten ganz oben auf der Liste . Ziel ist es, daß gentechnisch
veränderte Pflanzen nicht nur wahlweise in Grönland oder der
Wüste wachsen, sondern daß sie gleichzeitig auch als Medikamente
eingenommen werden können. Dann werden Bananen gegessen statt sich
impfen zu lassen, oder man trinkt Milch von gentechnisch veränderten
Tieren um wieder gesund zu werden - so wird es jedenfalls von den Gentechnik-Firmen
versprochen. Was wir davon zu halten haben kann sich jeder selbst ausrechnen.
Der nächste große Umbruch wird der nächste große
Flop der Biotech-Branche und löst einen weiteren Boom auf dem Markt
für ökologische Lebensmittel aus.
 Science Review Letters 2007, Vol. 6, No. 178, 156-172, 180
 Apicultural Review Letters 2007, Vol. 6, No. 177
 FAZ 2007/Nr. 259, p.N1
 Weitere Nachweise und Literatur in: Science Review Letters 2007, Vol. 6, No. 172 und 178, 156-159, 180
 Weitere Nachweise und Literatur in: Science Review Letters 2007, Vol. 6, No. 180 und 178, 156-172
 Science Review Letters 2007, Vol. 6, No. 64
 Annals of Botany, Bd. 93, p.67
 Annals of Botany, Bd. 98, p.1241
 FAZ 2007/Nr. 55, p.34
 FAZ 2007/Nr. 41, p.11 und Apicultural Review Letters 2007, Vol. 6, No. 112
 Siehe Anmerkung 4
 Siehe Anmerkung 3
zur Übersicht Kritische Wissenschaftsbriefe
Die Gesamtausgabe der Wissenschaftsbriefe erscheint als Supplement in der Fachzeitschrift "Naturwissenschaft"
Folgen Sie uns in den sozialen Netzwerken:
Beecolonies | Natural Apitherapy Council
Api / Science Review Letters
Centre for Ecological Apiculture / Apitherapy
Centre for Social Medicine / Apitherapy
Zentrum fuer wesensgemaesse Bienenhaltung