Genetically modified food increases the risk of allergies

allergenA new research report released by the Institute of Responsible Technology has detailed the suspected effect of genetically modified food on the immune system.

Based on statistics obtained from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) extreme allergic reactions have increased over the past 15 years. It is common knowledge that a person experiencing an to one substance can become more vulnerable to reactions from other potential triggers until the allergen load reaches a critical threshold. As a result the person may react to many things that were tolerated before that point.

According to the institute of responsible technology the has suggested a mechanism of examining the properties of the newly expressed genetically modified protein to see if it shares characteristics with proteins that are known to trigger allergies. One method suggested is to compare the amino acid sequence of the protein with a database of allergens. If there is a match, according to WHO, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done.

Using this approach it was determined that a section of the protein produced by Roundup Ready soybeans does match a sequence in a dust mite allergen; Bt-toxin protein matches an allergen; and GM papaya protein also finds a match in the database.

The Bt protein in particular also fails two other tests recommended by the WHO. The protein remains stable for too long when exposed to heat and to simulated stomach acid and digestive enzymes.Thus, it shares the characteristic with many allergens of not being quickly degraded during digestion.In its natural state derived from soil bacteria, Bt-toxin has triggered immune responses in mice and in farm workers, and allergic- and flu-like symptoms in hundreds of exposed citizens.

The Bt-toxin is produced in GM by inserting the toxin-creating gene from the natural soil bacteria. It’s specifically designed to be more toxic; produced in concentrations that are thousands of times greater than the spray, and it doesn’t wash off or biodegrade in sunlight—like the natural version does. As a result an Italian government study showed that mice fed Bt had dramatic immune responses.Furthermore, thousands of Indian farm workers who harvest are also experiencing allergic-and flu-like symptoms.

When scientists exposed mice to natural Bt-toxin, not only did they react to the toxin directly, afterwards, their immune systems were triggered by substances that formerly did not cause a response. This illustrates how exposure to one GM food might cause an increase in allergies to many natural foods.

GM Bt , as well as GM soy and papaya, were all introduced before WHO criteria were established. Furthermore, their criteria are recommendations, not requirements. Thus, in spite of the fact that these three the allergen tests, additional in-depth tests were not conducted to confirm allergenicity and the foods remain on the market.

Studies have demonstrated that genes from foreign DNA transfer into the DNA of human gut bacteria and may thus continuously produce the protein from within intestines. This could trigger allergic reactions on a continual basis heightening the sensitivity of the immune response.

If the Roundup Ready soybean protein is an allergen, this might explain why soy allergies in the UK jumped by 50% just after GMOs were introduced in the late 1990s.51 The UK is one of the few nations to monitor incidence each year, so we don’t know the results in North America.

To test the immune reaction and the ability of GMO’s to act as a trigger for the immune response Australian scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) produced a genetically engineered pea with a gene from the kidney bean.The gene produces an anti-nutrient (alpha-amylase inhibitor) that interferes with the digestive system of the pea weevil larvae, causing them to starve to death. These bug-killing peas passed all the studies that are usually conducted on GMOs before regulators wave them onto the world market.

The developers of the peas decided to test the immune response to the GM peas by supplementing mice diets with GM peas, non-GM peas, or kidney beans, then subjected the animals to a battery of tests. Only mice fed GM peas had an immune response to GM protein. In addition, the mice fed the GM peas started to react to egg albumin, while those fed non-GM peas or kidney beans did not

Source

Jeffrey Smith. 2013. Can Genetically Engineered Foods Explain the Exploding Gluten Sensitivity/Celiac Epidemic? The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT)

Mortality in sheep flocks after grazing on fields – Warangal District. Report of the Preliminary Assessment. 2006.

Broderick NA, Raffa KF, Handelsman J. Midgut bacteria required for thuringiensis insecticidal activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103 (41):15196-15199.

DePaolo RW, Abadie V, Tang F et al. Co-adjuvant effects of retinoic acid and IL-15 induce inflammatory immunity to dietary antigens. Nature. 2011;471 (7337):220-224.

Paganelli A, Gnazzo V, Acosta H, Lopez SL, Carrasco AE. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010;23 (10):1586-1595.

Moeny J. Looking at agriculture for clues to the environmental factor involved in the development of celiac/gluten intolerance; evaluating two agricultural innovations. 2012. Accessed on 10/24/13 at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw2MWzAMqhjYMjZVUndRRlcyOXM/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1.

Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. 2001. Accessed on 10/24/13 at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agns/pdf/topics/ec_jan2001.pdf.

Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AA. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE – binding linear epitopes of allergens. Struct Biol. 2002;2 8.

Freese W, Schubert D. Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. 2004;21. Accessed on 10/24/13 at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/freese_safetytestingandregulationofgeneticallyebgineeredfoods_nov212004_62269.pdf.

Netherwood T, Martin-Orue SM, O’Donnell AG et al. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22 (2):204-209.

Townsend M. Why Soya is a Hidden Destroyer. Daily Express.1999.

Vazquez RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, De La Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J Immunol. 1999;49 (6):578-584.

Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M et al. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to thuringiensis pesticides. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107 (7):575-582.

Green M, Heumann M, Sokolow R, Foster LR, Bryant R, Skeels M. Public health implications of the microbial pesticide thuringiensis: an epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86. Am J Public Health. 1990;80 (7):848-852.

Noble M, Riben P, Cook G. Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray. Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi. 1992.

Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric . 2008;56 (23):11533-11539.

Gupta A. Impact of on Farmers’ Health. Investigation Report. 2005.

Vazquez RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, De La Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J Immunol. 1999;49 (6):578-584.

Latham JR, Wilson AK, Steinbrecher RA. The mutational consequences of plant transformation. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2006;2006 (2):25376.

Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG. Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications. J Proteome Res. 2008;7 (5):1850-1861.

Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL et al. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr. 1996;126 (3):702-716.

Pusztai A, Bardocz S. GMO in animal nutrition; potential benefits and risks. Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals. Elsevier; 2005.

Yum HY, Lee SY, Lee KE, Sohn MH, Kim KE. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Asthma Proc. 2005;26 (3):210-216.

Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A et al. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric . 2005;53 (23):9023-9030.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *