Centre For Social Medicine And Natural Apitherapy
Centre for Food Safety

Scientists | engineers | gardeners | medical doctors | apitherapists | non-medical practitioners | beekeepers of the Centre for Ecological Apiculture | Impressum
DI. Michael Thiele, international coordinator of the Centre For Food Safety

Safety Risks Of Agrobiotechnolgy I-IV - Severe Negative Side Effects Of Genetically Modified Crops On Nature And Environment, Especially Honeybees


If human beings spoke only about that what they conceive, thus it would be very quiet on earth". (Albert Einstein)


In lectures on genetically modified plants given at APIMONDIA 2005 in Dublin, Dr. D. Babendreier from Switzerland has the direct effect on beelarva looked into. If the genetically modified maize plants are producing an inhibitor, which interrupt the digestion of protein (Protease-inhibitor), the fodder glands of the nurse bees were clearly smaller. Protein fodder for bees contains very often parts of soy. Genetically modified soy are being cultivated in many countries, thus bees are able to contaminate themselves „by indirection" with genetically modified products. . Dr. R. Siede from Germany analysed several kinds of protein fodder for bees regarding components of genetically modified soy. In four of eleven products genetically modified material was detected. On top of that he analysed honey from bees fed with such protein fodder for bees. Also here components of genetically modified soy were found in several samples. The investigations of Jenny Walker (Great Britain) turned out that cultivation of genetically modified rape, maize and sugar beets cause an direct decline of the associated flora to agricultural crops and wild plants at the field margin. At the same time there was a decline of pollinators and a species impoverishment. (Dbj 11/05, p. 499)

A common practise to spread forbidden products (for instance bioengineered pigs), is, to sell them accidentally to market:

„The FDA has officially closed its investigation on a 2003 food safety mishap, wherein nearly 400 bioengineered pigs, developed for research, mistakenly ended up in the U.S. food supply. The University of Illinois says it accidentally sold the pigs to a livestock dealer, instead of incinerating them, as is required by law. The FDA claims it cannot make a statement regarding potential risk to human health, given the fact that the researchers kept insufficient records. The mishap follows on the heels of a similar situation occurring in 2001, when genetically engineered pigs were stolen from the University of Florida, and later turned up in the sausage served at a funeral in High" (OB #66)

A new British study, funded by the British government and the bioengineering industry, turns out that growing genetically engineered crops - also if they are cultivated only for one year - contaminates the arable land for at least 15 years. Last but not least bees and beekeepers are concerned:

„Scientists examined various test plots of GE  oilseed rape and found that even if a farmer were to grow the GE plant for only one season, the plants would continue to grow year after year, contaminating future harvests. The study reveals that nine years after growing the GE rape plants, two plants were found to be growing on every square meter. After 15 years, there was still one GE plant growing per square meter. The British government is using this data to fortify its decision to uphold a ban on growing GE crops". (OB #67 )

Looking for food outside of the EU: The first time genetically engineered rice appeared in supermarkets. In China (province Hubei) genetically modified rice was found in three branches of Carrefour, the second largest supermarket worldwide. (EN 3/05, S. 3) The spread of genetically engineered papayas in Thailand for instance is no rarity. Contaminated seeds were sold to 2600 farmers. But not only in Thailand consumers eat unknowledgeable these kinds of genetically engineered fruits, also consumers in Europe and Asia are probably concerned by export. (EN 3/05, p. 2)

Fortunately, genetically modified peas and rape are not yet to be found on fields in Germany. But you can find arable land cultivated with genetically modified maize in eastern Germany, for instance near Seelow, Neureetz, Neutrebbin, Heinersdorf in Brandenburg, as well as in the Hasselbachtal (Saxony). However, until now it is only about 400 ha. Austria, Hungary, Greece and Polen don’t allow growing genetically engineered maize because of still unknown risks. For years genetically modified soy mainly from Argentina and USA is being fed to cows. Although there is enough other food availlable, the companies Theo Müller und Campina/Landliebe don’t care about it. (EN 3/05, p. 2)

The „Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry" reports, australian field voles had developed an illness of their lungs which was probably caused by eating genetically modified peas. Responsible for this illnes is probably a slightly modified protein (FAS, Nr. 46/05, p. 73) The trial had been stopped; the scientists didn’t want to take the chance to test the effect of the nectar on bees or the peas on human beings.

If you want to change a pea into a bean, it is no wonder that afterwards the bean-pea is no longer a pea; such thoughts are alien to these scientists. Without much further thought scientists like Mr. Thomas Higgins from the „Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organisation" try to realise some abstruse thoughts.

Only because it is said the cultivation of peas would bring a profit of hundret millionens of Dollar to australian farmers - if there wasn’t the common pea-beetle who regularly causes high losses - Mr. Higgens transmitted without much further ado the construction plan for a protein, which protects beans from predators, into the pea. Of course he had a short term success: The protein of the bean, Alpha-Amylase-Inhibitor, prevents in the pea-beetle the degradation of starch and makes it unpossible for him to digest his nourishment. The pea-beetles die by starvation. But it is pure superstition, supposing the protein during the process of modifying would in the worst case scenario have no other sideeffects. However Mr. Higgins and his crew prefer to change horses in midstream: „The Alpha-Amylase-inhibitor in the bean didn’t attract attention in respect of being allergical. But when the scientists fed the peameal with Alpha-Amylase-inhibitor to lab-mouses, they became ill. ... Meanwhile, the effects on the mouses were so dramatically, that the developement of the new kind of peas was stopped immediately. ... The genetically modified construction plan developed in the pea unexpected creative abilities. " (FAZ, Nr. 274, p. 34)

Mr. Higgens had the world on, as manny a scientist of Agro-genetic-engineering before and after him.

One is wondering about the thought-vacuum, which can be found at these kind of scientists; what a happenstance, that the heads are not being crushed. If there is an emptiness of thouht also around them in the whole Agro-genetic-engineering community, thus it is not possible.

What is a real ultra conservative government? Isn’t it a government which preserves basic principles of life, namely a healthy earth with natural high quality food, and not run after any day flies among the new technologies? The technology of agro genetic engineering is demonstrably such a dayfly, which is hardly able to get by one day without a scandal - also if some science journalists chant their horses in a very loquaciously way. What is the opposite of a real ultra conservative governemnt? Surely one who acts the innocent, a sanctimonious, revolutionary communistic* governemt who believes without critizism in technological progress, which destroys the basic principles of life to the advantage of technological progress. Thus, a Head of State who also may pass as the best bible carrier** at all times, who prefers genetically engineered food and supports the spread of genetically engineered produce, if necessary in a very inventive way (also terminator-seeds), correlate with the communists rather than the real ultra conservatives.

As a rule there is hardly a country in Europe which is interested in genetically engineered food; even eastern Europe and Russia are not interested. Neither consumers nor beekeepers are interested in this dayfly-technology. Nevertheless there are some countries in the world where genetically engineered crops has become an out-of-control process. Genetically engineered crops like rape, soy and maize have run wild and made beekeeping in these countries nearly impossible or at least it ruins the good reputation as a honey export country. The countries concerned are mainly USA, Canada, China, Brasil, Argentina, Mexico and Romania.

While in the United States genetically engineered rape has run wild, are Brasil, Argentina and Romania known for genetically engineered soy getting out of control. Mainly in Romania one estimates that about 90 percent of the cultivated soy is modified. (EN 4/05, p.6).

The German commercial beekeepers association (DBIB) tested certified organic honey from USA as well as honey from Canada, found in a German supermarket. Clover-honey and rape-clover-honey from an bavarian company and an import and filling company from Braunschweig. All samples contained residuals of genetically engineered RoundUpReady Rape from Monsanto (it-Magazin 3/05, p.12).


Wherein does our physical body actually consist of? What is the connection of our physical body with Messias superstar? What is the future of our physical body?

The biotechnologist is doing research on the physical body of a plant, an animal and even human being without being able to know what it is, he is doing his experiment around. The biotechnologist was not yet found who were able to explain the physical body correctly.

Thus biotechnology and especially agro-biotechnology is based on lies from the start. Organisations, lobbyists, scientists, journalists who rely on agro-biotechnology are involved in a cloak and dagger operation. Some of this agro-biotechnology-taradiddle is being reviewed in the Science Review Letters.


ISAAA-scientists say the most obvious untruths straight out, and with an assuredness that weak and indecisively persons, who before not fully intend on maintaining their own opinion, as it is the duty of each mature man (and woman), may even fall into temptation to think different. For instance is the ISAAA’s mission „to contribute to poverty alleviation by facilitating the transfer of appropriate crop biotechnology applications to developing countries". It is a truism that cultivating modified crops by agro-biotechnolgy results in an increase of poverty and hunger in developing countries as well as an increase of prices for uncontaminated, not genetically modified food. ISAAA-scientists speak of „safe application of crop biotechnology" Also this statement is a dramatic untruth, because final negative side-effects for consumers and environment can’t be excluded.

„ISAAA's mission is to contribute to poverty alleviation, by increasing crop productivity and income generation, particularly for resource-poor farmers, and to bring about a safer environment and more sustainable agricultural  development ... ISAAA provides advice and services to assist in the development of an enabling environment to support the safe application of crop biotechnology. ... ISAAA believes that this mission can be best achieved by facilitating the transfer of appropriate crop biotechnology applications to developing countries" (ISAAA-Website, 2006/01/27)

That is a bit thick being such an honor nowadays to tell something wrong. The statistics on cultivation of genetically modified crops in the world 2006 - mainly praised by ISAAA itself - is working with wrong data. For instance Germany had cultivated in 1995 only 345 hectaria genetically modified crops for scientific purposes (Greenpeace, FAZ Nr. 11/2006, p.4) and not 50.000 as it is wrongly maintained by ISAAA. In the same way all the other country statistics may be completely wrong.

„There were 21 countries planting 50,000 hectares or more to biotech crops in 2005. These mega-countries included the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Paraguay, India, South Africa, Uruguay, Australia, Mexico, Romania, the Philippines, Spain, Colombia, Iran, Honduras, Portugal, Germany, France, and the Czech Republic ... The initiative „aims to build capacity in national programs by establishing a network of Biotechnology  Information Centers (BICs) to facilitate sound decision-making in all aspects relating to the safe use of these crops and their potential contribution to food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation. ... ISAAA’s commitment to sharing knowledge is evidenced in its well-received series of ISAAA Briefs and The Annual Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops conducted by ISAAA annually since 1996. The latter has become accepted internationally as the authoritative reference on the global deployment of commercialized genetically modified (GM) crops, and these valuable reviews will continue to be published and widely distributed by ISAAA to monitor the global deployment of GM crops in the first decade of the 21st century." (ISAAA-Website, 2006/01/27)

The only science journalists who believe in ISAAA are those who are of the same kidney as Mr. Christian Schwägerl or Mr. Joachim Müller-Jung. Quite a number of people think everything were reasonably, if it is done with a serious face or if it is being found on a seriously configured website. For instance if it is spoken with wholehearted words about a: „Board of Directors" and list of „Donors and fellowship donors".

After accurate examination you’ll find a lot of emty phrases but hardly any reasonably sentence on ISAAA-website. That can be confirmed by each more sensible human being. Who does not realize it must have had either a bad education or once got a blow on the head, by what the bridge between this sentence and the applause is collapsed.

"The activities of ISAAA are guided by an international Board of Directors that oversees programmatic, organizational, and policy strategies. The Board consists of prominent individuals representing developing and industrialized countries, public and private sectors, and various professional interest groups, particularly those concerned with protecting the environment. Board of Directors: Clive James (Chair), Canada; Paul S. Teng, Singapore (Vice Chair); W. Ronnie Coffman (Secretary), USA; Gabrielle J. Persley, Australia/UK; Wallace Beversdorf (Treasurer), Switzerland; Anderson Galvao Gomes, Brazil; Richard B. Flavell, USA; Jennifer Thomson, South Africa; Vo-Tong Xuan, Vietnam; Randy A. Hautea (ex officio member, ISAAA Global Coordinator), Philippines" (ISAAA-Website, 2006/01/27)

And who is directly or indirectly concerned with the whole agro-biotechnology-swindle by finanzial donors? As is well-known not only firms like Monsanto, Bayer crop science, Nestle, Novartis, Syngenta, Schering, KWS Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG, USDA, but also development aid organisations like United States Agency for International Development (USAID), USA; Gemeinschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Germany; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Bundesministerium fur wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (BMZ/GTZ),Germany. Even "ISAAA Board Members" have financed the swindle on their own initiative!

„Since its founding ISAAA has been cosponsored by a donor support group consisting of public and private sector institutions, listed below." A selction of Donors according ISAAA-Website, 2006/01/27: ACIAR, Australia; AgrEvo, Germany; Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSP II), USA; Atlantic Philanthropic Service, USA; AusAID, Australia (formerly AIDAB); Bayer CropScience, Germany; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC),UK; Bundesministerium fur wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (BMZ/GTZ),Germany; Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Denmark Department of Agriculture, Philippines; DuPont, USA; Fondazione Bussolera Branca, Italy; Gatsby Charitable Foundation, UK; Gemeinschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Germany; Hitachi Foundation, Japan/USA; International Academy of the Environment, Switzerland; International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada; Mahyco Research Foundation, India; McKnight Foundation, USA; Monsanto Company, USA; Monsanto Fund, USA; National Agriculture and Fishery Council, Philippines; Nestle, Switzerland; Novartis Seeds, Switzerland; PCARRD-DOST, Philippines; Pioneer Hi-Bred International, USA; SEAMEO SEARCA, Philippines; Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden; Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Sweden; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Switzerland; Syngenta, Switzerland; The Rabobank, the Netherlands; The Rockefeller Foundation, USA; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United States Agency for International Development (USAID), USA; USDA, USA.

A selction of Fellowship Donors according ISAAA-Website, 2006/01/27: Bayer CropScience, Germany; Cargill Seeds, USA; Clive and Glenys James, Canada; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico a Tecnologic (CNPQ), Brazil; Contributions from ISAAA Board Members;Dow AgroSciences, USA; East-West Seed Company; Gatsby Charitable Foundation, UK; Gemeinschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Germany; KWS Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG, Germany; Monsanto, USA; Schering AG (Institut fur Genbiologische Forschung Berlin), Germany; The Rockefeller Foundation, USA; William Brown Fellowship/Resources Development Foundation, USA

Did you ever met an agro-biotechnologist who had a good idea? They talk about something but they are not thinking. In most cases they have rarely more light in their heads as it is necessary to see that it is empty. ISAAA also wants prima facie to be an expert on food-safety. The following hot air is pretty much the only one on ISAAA-Website of this topic:

„The ISAAA Food Safety Initiative builds institutional capacity in the development and operation of effective food safety review and approval systems, with emphasis on harmonized regulations across regions.  It will expand its current initiative by increasingly emphasizing capacity building for regulators in national programs and by communicating authoritative information on food safety to the general public through these national programs. This is a timely initiative, for consumers in Asia are becoming more aware of genetically modified crops and of food products derived from them. Such products are now available in many Asian countries, either as imports or  as derived from domestically grown transgenic crops. Given its experience in this area, ISAAA believes that the initiative willcontribute in important ways to an on-going dialogue about the safety of genetically modified foods." (ISAAA-Website, 2006/01/27)

It’s not worth to plough the sands, because a honest man may find the way out of this taradiddle if he can. Such soft unmeaning stuff about bio-safety and food safety was never read.

Agro-biotech-Lobbyists (for instance ISAAA-scientists) appear in their outwardness to be rather harmless, but as a matter of fact they belong to the most dangerous species of people at all. A great scientist once had characterized this sort of people: the most dangerous species of people for me are always the white-livered and creeping feebles, who are good for everything and nothing, who, as a certain species of useless dogs, jump over everybodies stick, who seem to be incredible loyal and who always run away if you need them. Such people are doing everything what that person wants them to do who shake the money purse or the whip over their heads; and their faces, I have known several, and I still feel alas, that I have known them, were either distorted by an accommodatingly smile or hang gelatinously in front of their head, so that you had in vain searched for expression in it, like organic structure in a glass of water.
*) International biotechnology-agency who has also many centers in developing countries and whose aim is to spread genetically engineered seeds and other biotech-products.


"One studies and observes today only those connections which are actually visible very roughly. One calls something harmful, if one can see the damade, which follows, with the eyes, and useful, if one can see with one's eyes in a very rough sense the utility". (Rudolf Steiner)

Only the most dramatic biotechnological errors are being perceived to be harmful as for instance 74 transgenic goats created by GTC in Framingham (Massachusetts) for "red genetic engineering" purposes.

In that case it is said: "The american Biotech company GTC Biotherapeutics has fallen to the ground in Europe" or „As the fast growing transgenic salmon, who is somehow swimming in american loboratory lakes for about one decade, the transgenic pharmagoat remains a lab-construct" and one estimates the situation correctly if it is said, the social opposition against green genetic engineering is still strong. (FAZ 2006, 51, p. N1)

However, are the errors of "green" and "red" genetic engineering not so obviously visible, one tries to focus on a somehow threadbare utility. Thus it can't be called real science anymore. But this kind of science is practiced in most scientific research institutes today, on which decision makers rely on.

Also the Europien Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), a socalled "research-based policy support organisation", has qualified itself as pseudoscientifical and now it is calmly "working for the EU policy-maker".

Director General of Joint Research Centre, Mr. Roland Schenkel tells us very accommodatingly: "Europe faces public concern about complex issues such as food contamination, genetic modification, chemical hazards, global change, environment and health, and nuclear safety. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) supports EU policy makers in the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of policies to tackle such trans-national and global problems. In effect, the JRC is a research-based policy support organisation working for the EU policy-maker"

It would be great, if they can really "tackle such trans-national and global problems" like genetic modification, but considering their investigations, one must fear that they even don't get the real problems into sight.

The Europien Commission's Joint Research Center together with other research institutes* has published now a book-long report which considers co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and seeds. The result of this study backs genetic engineering (FAZ 2006, 51, p. N1). In a Press-release of JRC it is said:

"The EU legal framework for traceability and labelling of GMOs and GMO-derived products defines a threshold of 0,9% for the adventitious presence of GM material in non-GM food and feed and provides a baseline for existence measures in agriculture. Based on simulations and expert opinions, the report finds that coexistence in crop production at the 0,9 % threshold is feasible with few or no changes in agricultural practices"

And here these research institues say good-bye to true science and rely on opinions and simulations, which have no connection to reality. There is only one possible threshold, which is 0,00 %. All, what exceed this threshold, need to be called a contamination.
*) Genetic engineering friendly research institutes working together with Europien Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC):  JRC-Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France, University of Applied Sciences of Weihenstephan (Germany), Desarrollo Agrario Y Pesquero (DAP, Spain)

Further reading and references:

Online-Magazines:recently published scientific research and practical advices on this topic can be found in the quarterly magazine Apiculture and Supplement Apicultural Review Letters
as well as in Natural Science and Science Review Letters
Genetically Modified Seeds Cause More Harm Than Good I-VI. More...
Cancer Caused By GMO's. More...
Genetically Engineered Plants Or Animals In Landscape - Who Is Responsible For It, Like Authorities Who Release The Rules, Can Be Taken To Court For It
Monsanto And The GM-Crop Disaster
Biosafety? Unscientific Assumptions The Basis Of Approvals? - Blatant Propaganda Exercise Stands Validated As Exemplary Science - Toxic Genetically Engineered Foods Could Have Been Approved.
Genetically Modified Foods And Seeds Are Unhealthy And Unsafe - Evidence Links GM Foods To Allergies
Green Biotechnology And Red Biotechnology In The Retreat
On The Risks Of Agro-Biotechnology I-V  - Negative Side Effects Of Genetically Modified Crops On Honeybees
"Genetic Engineering - Wrong In The Premises?"

Sign up for bee-therapy | Beauty-cure | Anti-aging | Infertility | Cancer of the breast | Hashimoto-Thyreoiditis | Crohn's disease
Rheumatism | Juvenile idiopathic arthritis | Heart diseases | Arteriosklerosis | MS | Diabetes | Neurodermitis | Obesity | Depression and Psychosis
 Allergies | Alzheimer / Parkinson | Diseases of the kidneys | Pancreas | how to improve fitness of the body
Propolis | Beeswax | Royal Jelly | Organic Honey | Comb in the Comb | Raw Honey | Organic Beekeeping Basic Course
Expertise | Courses | Home | Research | Save Beecolonies-Bienenpatenschaft | Certification | Training Apitherapy

Copyright: Centre for Food Safety