Search OCA
Get Local!

back to Organic Consumers Assn. Genetic Engineering page

February 3, 2001

Tell The Journal of Nutrition to reveal the names and funding histories of peer reviewers who accepted faulty conclusions of equivalency between Roundup Ready soybeans and conventional soybeans in a Monsanto-funded study.

What you can do


Summary

On January 4, 2001, an opinion piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times. It challenged Monsanto's claim that Roundup Ready soybeans were "equivalent" to conventional soybeans and pointed out deficiencies in a study by Monsanto researchers published in The Journal of Nutrition. The authors of the opinion piece state that compared to controls, untoasted Roundup Ready soy meal had almost 27% more trypsin-inhibitor, an antinutritional and allergen. This important measurement was camouflaged in a table of macronutrients, and omitted from the discussion of the table. Thus, the measurements were absent from the online versions of the study, minus tables, that are available in most libraries. They add that "the FDA did not see or ask to see all the data, specifically, that from Experiment 1, the first of the study's three experiments. [The omitted data showed] significantly lower levels of protein and one fatty acid in Roundup Ready soybeans. Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid that can potentially affect levels of key estrogen-boosting phytoestrogens, for which soy products are often prescribed and consumed. Combined (emphasis added) data from the study's three experiments showed significant differences in fat, carbohydrates, ash and some fatty acids."

Despite these differences between Roundup Ready soybeans and conventional soybeans, the conclusion drawn, as stated in the published abstract of the published study, is that "The analytical results demonstrated the GTS (glyphosate [Roundup] tolerant soybeans) lines are equivalent to the parental, conventional soybean cultivar." The FDA used this study in deciding that Roundup Ready soybeans are "equivalent" to conventional soybeans.

The Organic Consumers Association contacted The Journal of Nutrition and asked them to reveal the names and funding histories of the reviewers for the journal who accepted the study for publication despite the difference between the data and the conclusion. Following is the Journal's response:


The response from The Journal of Nutrition to a letter from OCA requesting the names and funding histories of the reviewers of the Monsanto article:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding an article published in The Journal of Nutrition in 1996. It is the policy of the Journal of Nutrition to have submitted manuscripts handled by an Associate Editor who selects one reviewer from our Editorial Board and one ad hoc reviewer for his/her expertise in the research area. As with all scientific journals, the names of the reviewers are confidential.

Sincerely,
J.W. Suttie, Ph.D., Editor
cc: R. Pennington


Abstract of the study

Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, et al, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans," Journal of Nutrition 126(3):702-16, 1996 March

One important aspect of the safety assessment of genetically engineered crops destined for food and feed uses is the characterization of the consumed portion of the crop. One crop currently under development, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GTS), was modified by the addition of a glyphosate-tolerance gene to a commercial soybean cultivar. The composition of seeds and selected processing fractions from two GTS lines, designated 40-3-2 and 61-67-1, was compared with that of the parental soybean cultivar, A5403. Nutrients measured in the soybean seeds included macronutrients by proximate analyses (protein, fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrates), amino acids and fatty acids. Antinutrients measured in either the seed or toasted meal were trypsin inhibitor, lectins, isoflavones, stachyose, raffinose and phytate. Proximate analyses were also performed on batches of defatted toasted meal, defatted nontoasted meal, protein isolate, and protein concentrate prepared from GTS and control soybean seeds. In addition, refined, bleached, deodorized oil was made, along with crude soybean lecithin, from GTS and control soybeans. The analytical results demonstrated the GTS lines are equivalent to the parental, conventional soybean cultivar.


This is the letter OCA sent to The Journal of Nutrition.

January 7, 2001

Manuscript Editor
Journal of Nutrition
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
9650 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3990

Re: Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, et al, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans," Journal of Nutrition 126(3):702-16, 1996 March


To the editor:

A study you published raised my concern about your peer review process. Recently an opinion piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times (attached) that challenges the study's conclusion of equivalence. The opinion piece states,

"Combined data from the study's three experiments showed significant differences in fat, carbohydrates, ash and some fatty acids. Also, the brain-boosting vitamin choline was 29% lower in Roundup Ready lecithin, which is commonly used as a source of choline�.While both the tested beans and those on the market carried the Roundup-tolerant gene, the Roundup Ready beans now common in food products were actually treated with Roundup; the ones Monsanto tested and fed to animals were not�.One table in Monsanto's study shows that, relative to conventional soy meal, raw Roundup Ready soy meal contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen that interferes with protein digestion and has been associated with enlarged cells in rat pancreases. This important measurement was camouflaged in a table on unrelated information."

"�the FDA did not see all the data, specifically, that from Experiment 1, the first of the study's three experiments. According to FDA representatives, the agency did not ask to see the data."

"What did the omitted data show? Significantly lower levels of protein and one fatty acid in Roundup Ready soybeans. Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid that can potentially affect levels of key estrogen-boosting phytoestrogens, for which soy products are often prescribed and consumed. And higher levels of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal than in the control group of soy. Even more unsettling was one measurement of trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal that exceeded what the authors reported as the highest levels measured for soybeans by other researchers. After a second toasting, the levels of another allergen, called lectin, in Roundup Ready soy meal, were nearly double those in conventional beans."

Given the pivotal nature of this study for regulatory policy (the researchers were from Monsanto), your readers and the public deserve to know the names of the peer reviewers that passed this study, and in addition their history of funding from biotechnology departments at their institutions and the biotechnology industry, and any past or present financial ties with Monsanto, including stock holdings.

The senior author of the opinion piece, Marc Lappé, can be contacted at CETOS, P.O. Box 673, 39141 South Highway One, Gualala, California 95445, (707) 884-1700, e-mail: cetos@cetos.org.

Sincerely,


The opinion piece:

Some Food for FDA Regulation
Los Angeles Times, Opinion Page (Section M, page 2)
Sunday, January 7, 2001

By BARBARA KEELER, MARC LAPPE

WASHINGTON--Despite consumer pleas, the Food and Drug Administration has declined since 1992 to require that genetically modified food seeds be proved safe for consumption before their release into the food supply. Nor does the FDA require ingredient labels for genetically modified foods. Instead, the agency encourages producers to voluntarily submit safety data. Its rationale is that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to their conventionally grown counterparts. In other words, food is food, and according to food and drug law, foods are presumed safe.
The flaw in this policy is that the presumption of equivalence does not rest on a substantial body of research comparing genetically modified and conventional foods. Far from being confirmed by extensive research, this presumption is challenged even by the producers themselves, notably in a study that Monsanto conducted on one of its biotech foods. Rather than prove safety, this study raised red flags that should have prompted researchers and the FDA to call for more testing. Instead of requiring further testing, the FDA allowed the most commonly consumed genetically modified soybeans, which are produced by Monsanto, to flood the market and rapidly pervade the food supply.
To create its soy, Monsanto scientists spliced a gene from a bacteria into a soybean seed that instructed it to grow even when sprayed with Monsanto's potent weed killer, Roundup. Accordingly, when Roundup is sprayed on soy fields, Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy plants are left standing while nearly everything else is smoked. This strategy is not exclusive to Monsanto. The most common genetically modified foods that the FDA regulates tolerate a specific herbicide manufactured by the company engineering the seed. Consumers don't benefit, but sales of the companies' herbicides soar.
Herbicide-tolerant plants survive weed killers, but what about the health of consumers who eat genetically modified beans? According to the FDA's 1992 policy, Monsanto was not required by law to prove the safety of its beans to the FDA before marketing Roundup Ready soybeans. This regulatory effect must be corrected. Toward that end, legislation compelling the FDA to require premarket proof of safety for all genetically modified food seeds should be passed.
Monsanto did turn over a study to the FDA in 1994. Eventually published by the Journal of Nutrition in March 1996, the study claimed to prove that Roundup-tolerant soybean seeds are equivalent to conventional ones. But combined data from the study's three experiments showed significant differences in fat, carbohydrates, ash and some fatty acids. Also, the brain-boosting vitamin choline was 29% lower in Roundup Ready lecithin, which is commonly used as a source of choline.
Monsanto's researchers decided in advance to test Roundup Ready soybeans that would differ in important respects from the beans people would eventually eat. While both the tested beans and those on the market carried the Roundup-tolerant gene, the Roundup Ready beans now common in food products were actually treated with Roundup; the ones Monsanto tested and fed to animals were not.
Beyond differences in nutrient content, the findings also raised questions about allergens. Allergic reactions are most commonly triggered by undigested proteins. One table in Monsanto's study shows that, relative to conventional soy meal, raw Roundup Ready soy meal contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen that interferes with protein digestion and has been associated with enlarged cells in rat pancreases. This important measurement was camouflaged in a table on unrelated information.
Because its policy does not require premarket proof of safety or equivalence for genetically modified food, the FDA had little basis for rejecting the study's results. Perhaps more important, the FDA did not see all the data, specifically, that from Experiment 1, the first of the study's three experiments. According to FDA representatives, the agency did not ask to see the data.
What did the omitted data show? Significantly lower levels of protein and one fatty acid in Roundup Ready soybeans. Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid that can potentially affect levels of key estrogen-boosting phytoestrogens, for which soy products are often prescribed and consumed. And higher levels of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal than in the control group of soy. Even more unsettling was one measurement of trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal that exceeded what the authors reported as the highest levels measured for soybeans by other researchers. After a second toasting, the levels of another allergen, called lectin, in Roundup Ready soy meal, were nearly double those in conventional beans.
Monsanto also conducted a study of the effects of consuming its genetically modified beans, which was also presented to the FDA. Besides possible allergic reactions, what might be expected from consuming higher levels of trypsin-inhibitor and lectin? Slower, or lower, growth, for starters. That is what happened to male rats fed unprocessed meal from Roundup Ready soybeans. Compared with controls, cumulative body weight gains were significantly lower in male rats fed Roundup Ready soy. Although the growth of dairy cattle was not affected, higher levels of fat were measured in the milk of cows fed Roundup Ready soy meal.
These analyses did not reveal all the differences between Roundup Ready and conventional beans. In May 2000, Monsanto reported to the FDA the discovery of a genetic surprise package in its soybeans. When company scientists spliced the Roundup-tolerant gene into the bean, they accidentally threw in two extra gene fragments. Not to worry, according to Monsanto representatives: The gene fragments were contained in the Roundup Ready beans approved by the FDA in 1994 and have been consumed nearly worldwide ever since.
But this discovery further challenges the presumption of equivalence between genetically modified and conventional foods, while undermining the contention that genetic engineering is precise or predictable. Even so, the genetic hitchhikers, like the red flags in the 1994 study, were barely mentioned in the U.S. media and did not appear to raise FDA concern.
Do Monsanto's own findings prove that Roundup Ready soy products will slow or stunt growth in animals and children, or change the fat content of milk in cows and breast-feeding mothers? Of course not. Do they prove that all Roundup Ready soy will always contain more allergens and less protein? No.
But the studies do confirm that transgenic foods need rigorous testing--by someone other than the affected industries and the researchers they fund--before they're released into the food supply. They also suggest that consumers may not be adequately protected when the FDA leaves the question of biofood safety up to the companies selling the biofoods.
A promised and long-awaited revision of FDA biotech-food policy is expected to make some improvements in oversight, but as outlined in the agency's press release, it is expected to fall far short of what is needed to ensure the safety of biotech foods. In drafting its 1992 policy, FDA representatives relied primarily on an opinion by FDA attorneys that food and drug law did not give the agency responsibility for labeling transgenic foods, and the relevant food and drug law has not changed.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have introduced legislation calling to alter this situation. The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act, co-authored by Kucinich, provides for mandatory safety testing of genetically modified foods before they are released into the food supply.
Many food-safety activists target food manufacturers, food retailers and fast-food chains when demanding a recall of genetically modified foods. Given the pervasiveness of biofoods in the marketplace, and the challenges in detecting them, their time and energy would be better spent supporting legislation proposed to change regulatory policy that victimizes food manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike.
- - -

Barbara Keeler Is a Medical Writer. Marc Lappe, Former Head of California's Hazard Evaluation System, Is the Author of "Against the Grain" and Director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics


What you can do

Write a letter to the Journal of Nutrition asking them to reveal the names of the peer reviewers that passed this study, and their history of funding from biotechnology departments at their institutions and the biotechnology industry, and any past or present financial ties with Monsanto, including stock holdings. State that you make this request because the study is crucial for the FDA's regulatory policy, and the conclusions of the study appear to be at odds with some of the data.

Address and reference:

Date:


Manuscript Editor
Journal of Nutrition
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
9650 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3990

Re: Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, et al, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans," Journal of Nutrition 126(3):702-16, 1996 March

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Forum | Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Volunteer | Donate | About Us | Contact Us | Email This Page

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.