Animals Avoid GM Food,
GM Crops Harm Wildlife, Cows Ate GM Maize and Died




The information on this web site is provided for educational purposes only. Please see Disclaimer, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

"The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease."
- Thomas Edison

Cancer is a political problem more than it is a medical problem.

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." 
- New York Times, October 25, 1998

"What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day." - Dr. Herbert Ley, Former FDA Commissioner

"The FDA serves as the pharmaceutical industry's watchdog, which can be called upon to attack and destroy a potential competitor under the guise of protecting the public." - Dr. James P. Carter  



Cartoon source



This page contains three articles.


The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability

General Enquiries Website/Mailing List ISIS Director

ISIS Press Release 13/12/03

Animals Avoid GM Food, for Good Reasons

Experimental and anecdotal evidence shows that animals seek to avoid GM food and do not thrive if forced to consume such food. Dr Eva Novotny reports.

In the course of preparing a submission to the public hearing on a genetically modified (GM) maize that the UK government wanted to put on the National Seed Register, I had the opportunity to review evidence on how animals respond to GM food. The evidence makes interesting reading.

Chardon LL experiments

Chardon LL is a GM maize engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. The whole plant is intended as cattle-feed, but no experiments on whether this is safe or suitable has been carried out.

Approval of the application of Aventis for commercial growing of this maize in the UK was granted on the basis of two animal-feeding experiments, one on feeding kernels to chickens and the other on feeding the isolated GM protein to rats. In both experiments, the investigators concluded that the tested animals consumed food and gained weight normally.

However, reanalysis of the data led to a different conclusion.

The first experiment fed Chardon LL maize kernels to 280 young broiler chickens over 42 days, purportedly to detect differences in nutrient quality of corn samples. All the chickens were allowed to eat at will.

The official report said: "Results of live bird traits ... show that source of corn ... had no effect on body weight, feed intake, ... or percent mortality over the experimental period ..." and "Glufosinate tolerant corn from the U.S.A. is comparable in feeding value, for 0-42 day broilers, relative to the commercially available corn hybrid. Therefore, the nutritive value of glufosinate tolerant corn hybrid is equivalent to a commercially available corn hybrid." The mortality rate was judged to be normal.

Closer examination of the data shows up many unexplained anomalies.

Although chickens on the GM diet have, on average, weights only 1% below the average weight in the control group, the error bars are much wider for chickens fed GM maize; and they grow progressively wider as the experiment progresses.

During the first phase of the experiment (days 0-18), the test group eating GM maize consumed 9 gm more than the control group; during the second phase (18-32 days), consumption had dropped to 7 gm less; and in the final phase (days 32-42) consumption by the test group had fallen to 63 gm less than that of the control group. Again, the error bars are much greater for the test group and increase with time.

Average body weights and feed intakes of the chickens do not vary significantly, as concluded in the study. Nevertheless, the much larger error bars for both these quantities give concern that the weight gains and the feeding patterns were erratic in the treated group, indicating that at least some of the chickens were not thriving on the glufosinate-resistant maize.

Information on deaths during the study is given only in the form of mortality: 7.14 5.47 % for chickens eating the glufosinate-resistant maize and 3.57 4.29 % for those fed commercial hybrid corn. Although the former values are twice those of the latter, the study points out that values of 5 to 8 % in male broilers are normal at that laboratory.

Nevertheless, it may be significant that the mortality rate was twice as high among the chickens eating the GM maize as compared with those fed commercial non-GM hybrid maize.

Another experiment involved feeding PAT-protein to rats. This study on rats, like that on chickens, has little relevance to cattle, as the digestive systems of these animals are very different. Furthermore, it was not the Chardon LL maize itself, but the isolated PAT-protein it contains that was tested; and the effects of feeding the isolated protein must be expected to differ from the effects of feeding the whole maize.

Also, the very short time during which the experiment was pursued (14 days) gives no indication of possible long-term effects of feeding over a lifetime, especially when the maize is to be fed to a very different animal species. Only five male rats and five female rats were used in each of the four groups, and the individual rats had substantial differences in weight even at the start of the experiment.

Nonetheless, the studies claimed, "Average mean food consumption over treatment was in the same range for treated groups and controls", "Occasionally recorded differences between controls and treated groups were generally small, showed no dose-relationship or consistent trend..." and "Mean body weights were similar for treated groups and controls. There were no differences which could be attributed to treatment with the test article."

Although the purpose of the study was to test for toxicity, the data provide evidence that the animals may not be thriving on a diet including the PAT-protein. The evidence for this suggestion comes from data on body weights and food consumption.

The 40 young, rapidly growing rats were divided into two control groups and two test groups, each containing 5 males and 5 females. All animals were allowed to eat at will.

Tables provided, separately for males and females, the average weight of each of the four groups as measured on several days of the experiment. For males eating a small amount of PAT-protein, weights remained nearly the same as for one of the control groups; while for those eating the high dose of PAT-protein, weights fell progressively below those of all other groups, even though these rats were marginally the heaviest group at the beginning of the experiment. Females in both groups consuming PAT-protein had weights falling gradually below those of the two control groups, although the females fed the high dose were the heaviest group at the beginning. For both males and females consuming high-doses of PAT-protein, weight gain per day, averaged over the duration of the experiment, was distinctly lower than for either control group.

During the latter half of the experiment, data for individual animals show that 2 males and 2 females on the low-PAT-protein diet were rapidly falling behind in weight as compared with other rats in the same group and in both of the two control groups. Of the rats on the high-PAT-protein diet, 3 males and one female were falling behind in weight during the latter half of the experiment.

While these data are not conclusive because too few animals were studied over too short a time, the low rates of weight-gain in several of the animals eating PAT-protein suggest that some individuals were not thriving on the diets that included PAT protein.

The data also showed unusual patterns in the food intake, averaged over the group, of animals consuming the high dose of PAT-protein, suggesting that the diet did not suit the rats. In the middle of the experiment, both males and females on this diet had an increase in food intake followed by a dip, unlike the other groups; then, over the last five days, their food consumption showed a sharp rise, again unlike other groups.

Stray cattle did not eat GM maize

The following press release -'Damage To Gm Maize National List Trial Site' - was issued by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on November 10, 2000:

"The NIAB (National Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology) have notified MAFF of damage to a national list trial of GM forage maize taking place in Somerset. The damage was caused by cattle straying onto the site in October. There is no evidence that the cattle ate any of the maize.

"Sheridan - the maize in question - has full approval under European GM legislation to be marketed for both animal and human food use. The undamaged maize at the site has since been harvested."

Sheridan is a GM forage maize that contains the same genetic construct (conferring herbicide tolerance) as Chardon LL. It is interesting to note that the cattle did not wish to eat any of the maize.

'When the Corn Hits the Fan'

American journalist Steven Sprinkel wrote an article with the above title in an ACRES, USA Special Report dated 19 September, 1999 (reproduced on the Natural Law Party Wessex website,, which contains the following excerpt.

"After four months of retrieving anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, I think its high time to sample the producer community more thoroughly to see how many stories are out there. About the hogs that wouldn't eat the ration when the GMO crops were included. About the farmer who said "Well, if you want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage." About the farmer who said that his cattle broke through an old fence and ate down the non-GMO hybrids but wouldn't touch the Round-up ready corn, and as a matter of fact "They had to walk through the GMOs to get to the Pioneer 3477 on the other side." About the cattleman who saw the weight-gain of his cattle fall off when he switched over to GMO sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible deer problem on his soybeans, and when he drives out at night there are forty of them mowing down his tofu beans while across the road there isn't one doe eating on the Round-up Readies. About the raccoons romping by the dozen in the organic corn, while down the road there isn't one ear that's been touched in the Bt fields. Even the mice will move on down the line if given an alternative to these "crops". What is it that they know instinctively that most of us ignore?"

Other incidents of cattle refusing to eat Bt maize

Various scientists working actively with the farming community in the United States have reported difficulties feeding GM maize to cattle. In April 2000, one of them (who has asked to remain anonymous) sent the following information:

"There have been dozens of such reports over the last two years. Generally, the reports are concerned with Bt maize. Many farmers feed maize to their cattle just as it grows, without mixing in other feedstuffs. Typical reports are that the farmer buys a new shipment of maize, which his cattle either refuse to eat or eat with reduced consumption. Upon making enquiries, he discovers that the maize is a genetically modified variety. When he replaces it with a non-modified maize, the cattle start eating again."

Scientific evidence for animal preferences

Although it may be difficult to credit animals with the ability to distinguish between GM and non-GM feed, this anecdotal evidence is supported by scientific evidence that they can indeed distinguish between organically- and non-organically-produced feed; moreover, they have a definite preference for the former (see "Do animals like good food?" this issue).


Re-analysis of experiments on chickens and on rats fed Chardon LL GM maize suggest that, contrary to the official conclusions, at least some individual animals do not gain weight as rapidly as they should when given a diet including GM feed. Furthermore, there appear to be irregularities in the feeding habits of at least some animals given GM feed. In the experiment on chickens, mortality was twice as high among those fed the GM maize as among those fed non-GM maize.

Existing scientific evidence indicates that farm animals prefer organically produced over conventionally produced feed; while a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence on both domestic and wild animals indicates that, given a choice, they will avoid GM feed and, if forced to eat GM feed, they do not thrive.

(This is an edited version of Report for the Chardon LL Hearing: Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals, by Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002.)


This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
  • If you would prefer to receive future mailings as plain text please let us know.

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8643 0681]   [44 20 7383 3376]   [44 20 7272 5636]

General Enquiries - Website/Mailing List - ISIS Director




The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability

General Enquiries Website/Mailing List ISIS Director


GM Crops Harm Wildlife


The UK's farm scale evaluations have shown conclusively that the herbicide regime linked with GM spring oilseed rape and beet is damaging to biodiversity.Lim Li Ching reports.


sources for this article are posted on ISIS Members' website. Details here.

The three-year farm scale evaluations (FSEs), results of which were published on 16 October in the Royal Society's house journal, examined three spring-sown GM crops - oilseed rape, beet and maize. They were undoubtedly the largest experiments of their kind, involving over 200 plots.

The FSEs were a compromise from the start. They did not focus on the many other key questions regarding environmental safety - gene flow, transgenic contamination, creation of 'superweeds' and 'superpests', but looked only at the impact of managing GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on farmland biodiversity.

About 60 to70 fields each were planted to beet, maize and spring oilseed rape. Each field was split, with half planted with a conventional variety managed according to the farmer's normal practice, and the other half sown with a GMHT variety. The GM beet was tolerant to glyphosate, the GM maize and oilseed rape were tolerant to glufosinate ammonium [1]. These allow farmers to indiscriminately spray the crops with herbicides, killing weeds and not the crop itself.

But killing weeds adversely affects biodiversity. Weeds provide food and habitat for countless animal species, including threatened birds. Populations of the skylark, corn bunting and other birds have declined over the past 30 years, partly due to intensive agricultural practices that suppress weeds.

The FSEs thus recorded levels of weeds and invertebrates in the fields and surrounding field margins. The researchers concentrated on the plants and more-or-less sedentary herbivores and detritivores that react rapidly to any major change in field management [2]. Selected groups of other organisms with wider foraging ranges (e.g. carabid beetles, bees, butterflies) were studied for comparison. The key question was: would the changes in management associated with GM crops exacerbate the trends perpetuated by conventional agriculture, of reduced weed levels and wider impacts on farmland biodiversity?

The verdict on GMHT spring oilseed rape and beet

In general, the GMHT crops received less herbicide-active ingredient per crop, with later and fewer applications than the conventional varieties [3], and this, GM corporations have long claimed, means that GM crops could benefit the environment. But the FSEs found otherwise. Overall results showed that GMHT oilseed rape and beet would reduce farmland biodiversity, as the stronger broad-spectrum herbicides used with GM crops control a wider range of weeds more efficiently.

In beet and oilseed rape, after the first application of broad-spectrum herbicide, weed densities were lower in the GMHT crop, reversing initial higher densities [4]. The biomass (weight of weeds collected from a fixed area) in GMHT beet and oilseed rape was one-sixth and about one-third, respectively, of that in conventional plots.

The effects on weed diversity were transient and mostly small, but the researchers concurred that, "it is only a matter of time before resistant plants become widespread" [4]. Then diversity is likely to drop, as evolved herbicide tolerance increases the dominance of a few species.

While reduction or removal of the visible flora temporarily reduces the food available to farmland animals, the key to longer-term impacts is the 'seed rain' (seeds falling from weeds) and its contribution to the seedbank (weed seeds left in soil). The GMHT beet and oilseed rape fields had one-third and one-fifth, respectively, of the seed rain of conventional fields [4]. The reduced seed rains had demonstrable effects on the seedbanks in the following year: densities in GMHT fields were about 20% lower than in conventional fields.

Although in the short term, any resulting decline is buffered by existing seedbanks, and the loss of one year's seed return itself did not produce a large difference in future weed populations, relatively small differences could sum to produce a large effect if sustained over several crop rotations. The unavoidable conclusion was that GMHT crops would have a large impact on weed populations in the longer term.

When the researchers looked closely at 12 individual weed species, which are frequent and abundant in British agriculture, and important in the diet of farmland birds, they found that biomass in the GMHT fields was significantly reduced for five species in beet and oilseed rape [5]. Subsequent survival was significantly lowered for eight species in GMHT beet and six in GMHT oilseed rape. In general, reproductive rates were lower (by about 50%) for most species; and for many species (19 out of 24 cases), seed densities were lower in the seedbank after GMHT cropping.

They concluded, "These differences compounded over time would result in large decreases in population densities of arable weeds". And, "With a few exceptions, weed species in beet and spring oilseed rape were negatively affected by the GMHT treatment" [5].

Correspondingly, the abundance of invertebrates on the soil surface is generally lower in GMHT beet and oilseed rape [6]. Such invertebrates are food for mammals, birds and other invertebrates, and many are important for controlling pests or recycling nutrients within the soil. The distribution of invertebrates is affected by weeds in the field, and hence mirrors that of weed levels.

Specifically, there were less carabids that feed on weed seeds in GMHT beet and oilseed rape. However, collembolan detritivore counts were larger under GMHT crop management, most likely due to additional detritus produced following efficient and later application of herbicides in the GM crops [6, 7]. While Collembola are part of the diet of some farmland birds, the long-term effects are uncertain. If GMHT crops lead to long-term decline in weed abundance, there would be less biomass to produce detritus and subsequent reduction of the effect on Collembola.

The FSEs also examined epigeal (species that spend most of their life on plant and soil surfaces) and aerial (those whose main activity in the crop involves a substantial proportion of time spent in flight) species [7]. These invertebrates play important roles in pollination and recycling of detritus; many are dependent on flowering weeds and flowering crops for nectar or pollen, or have larvae that feed directly on plants.

Most taxa were insensitive to management regimes. However, actively foraging taxa, such as bees and butterflies, showed lower abundances in GM fields. The abundances of all bees, honeybees and bumblebees in GMHT beet crops were 55%, 27% and 58%, respectively, of those in conventional crops. Similarly, there were 22% less butterflies in GMHT oilseed rape than in conventional. Butterfly numbers were also lower in GMHT beet, especially in August when the abundance was 68% of that in conventional fields. These smaller counts were associated with lower abundance of flowering weeds.

Within-field findings are mirrored in the field margins [8]. Field margins can support a high diversity of plant species and are important for conservation within farmed landscapes. They are habitat for numerous invertebrates, a food resource for mammals, and a refuge for beneficial parasitoids and predators. Margins provide resources for birds and may be the only source of nectar and pollen in arable landscapes through much of the season.

However, field margins receive direct and indirect applications of chemicals. Scorching of vegetation by herbicide-spray drift was on average 1.6% on verges beside conventional crops and 3.7% beside GMHT crops [8]. Less plant cover (by 25%), which produced fewer flowers (by 44%) and less seed (by 39%), were found on tilled margins of GMHT halves of spring oilseed rape fields. The tilled margins of GMHT halves of beet also had less flowering and seeding (34% and 39% lower, respectively).

All this had pronounced knock-on effects on butterflies. There were 24% fewer butterflies in margins of GMHT oilseed rape [8]. The likely cause is the lower nectar supply. If sufficient forage is available elsewhere, then populations of this mobile group will be buffered, but not if forage reductions occur over large contiguous areas. Of the butterfly species common to arable ecosystems, those with lower dispersal ability are likely to be most vulnerable.

Similar effects may be expected for other flower- and nectar-feeding groups such as solitary bees, moths, hoverflies and other flies, as well as less frequent nectar feeders such as beetles and wasps. Effects on such a range of species groups could have implications for the pollination of arable plants.

The FSEs also looked at the effects on invertebrate trophic (or functional) groups [9]. Where the weeds were less abundant in GMHT beet and oilseed rape, there were fewer herbivores, pollinators and natural enemies (predators and parasitoids). Detritivores increased under GMHT management across all crops due to the greater input, later in the season, of dead weeds on which they feed. This shift in resources from the herbivore to the detritivore food web resulted in a general trend of greater increases in the ratio of detritivores to herbivores under GMHT than under conventional cropping. The reduced number of pollinators may influence seed production of insect-pollinated weeds, amplifying direct effects of herbicide on the weed flora.

All these negative impacts of GMHT beet and oilseed rape on biodiversity are so conclusive that several NGOs demanded an immediate ban on GM crops. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds agreed that the risks are too great for wildlife and called for the two GM crops to be banned. Many farmland birds rely on seeds from weeds for their survival and GMHT beet and oilseed rape may be the final nail in the coffin for some species.

In trying to downplay the negative impacts, some alleged that the effects are not due to the GM crops per se, but to the herbicide regime, and hence can be somehow 'managed' away. However, the GM crops are inextricably linked with the proprietary herbicides they are engineered to tolerate, and it is the GMHT practice - the modified plant and the herbicide as a package - that has been damaging to the environment. Moreover, the FSEs' herbicide regime was recommended by the GM seed companies, so presumably is realistic under commercial conditions.

Maize trials questionable

The effect of growing the third GMHT crop - maize - seemed to be positive, with higher weed density throughout the season, as well as higher late-season biomass and seed rain [4, 5]. This had a corresponding effect on invertebrates, with higher abundance on the soil surface, specifically of carabids [6], and more butterflies during some months [7]. There was greater plant cover and flowering in field margins of the GMHT field, but no butterfly differences were observed [8].

However, the apparent harmlessness of the GMHT maize is primarily accounted for by the relative toxicity of the herbicide atrazine used on most of the conventional maize, which resulted in lower weed densities. In contrast, the GMHT maize allowed farmers to spray with a different, albeit weaker, herbicide, leading to more weeds. Compared to the conventional, the biodiversity measurements in GMHT maize thus looked relatively good.

A week before the publication of the FSE results, the EU announced a ban on atrazine in agriculture. This means that atrazine would have to be phased out in Britain within 18 months and that it would probably be withdrawn from use before GM maize - if it mustered approval - was grown commercially. This effectively invalidates the maize trails, which no longer reflect the real conditions under which non-GM crops will be grown.

The researchers were only confident that their findings represent what would actually happen "unless the management regimes altered somewhat, for example if... atrazine was no longer allowed on maize crops...". They acknowledged that the results might need to be 'recalibrated' and that extra field research might be needed to gather new data on whatever regime replaces atrazine in conventional maize.

But, there's more to this story than has been alluded to by the media or admitted by the researchers (see "Cynical & dishonest science" in GM maize trials,

What next?

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) will now consider the FSE results and advise the UK government on their implications. ACRE will likely suffer some well-deserved embarrassment, as it had blithely approved, in 1997, the GM oilseed rape tested in the FSEs, saying that it "did not pose a risk in terms of human health and environmental safety for the United Kingdom". On their recommendation, the UK Government had agreed to marketing of the oilseed rape, but this was prevented because other European countries opposed it.

If ACRE's advice had been followed, farmers could have been growing this damaging crop for the last five years. It was only public opposition that forced more research on environmental effects.

And the public have made their opinion on GM crops clear. The GM Nation? debate found widespread unease about GM crops and scepticism about its benefits. An overwhelming 86% of the 37 000 people who responded said they would not be happy to eat GM food, and 54% said they never want to see GM crops grown in the UK.

Additionally, a report into the economics of GM crops by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit forecast found that the overall economic benefit to the UK, at least in the short term, was "likely to be limited".

The GM Science Review report, flawed as it is, also failed to give blanket approval for GM crops and instead highlighted the gaps and uncertainties in our knowledge.

Moreover, while the FSEs showed up the damaging effects of GMHT crops, they were still narrow, and say nothing about impacts on human or animal health or agronomic performance. They also failed to ask any questions about the transgenic nature of the crops, choosing instead to focus only on a secondary effect, the impact of changing patterns of herbicide use. But neither did the FSEs compare the GMHT crops with ecologically-managed crops that use no herbicides, nor did they study effects on below-ground biodiversity (and thus soil fertility). They say nothing about gene flow, coexistence with other forms of agriculture and liability if anything goes wrong.

The UK government simply has no case for approving the commercial growing of GM crops.



This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
  • If you would prefer to receive future mailings as plain text please let us know.

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8731 7714]   [44 20 7383 3376]   [44 20 7272 5636]

General Enquiries - Website/Mailing List - ISIS Director




The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability

General Enquiries Website/Mailing List press-release@i- ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-

Announcing Science in Society #21

Spring 2004

Please note that free copies of the magazine will be no longer be mailed out by the Third World Network; nor will the pdf of the complete issue be made available on ISIS' website.

To continue receiving a hard copy of the magazine, or to view the pdf online, please subscribe or become member of ISIS. Details here.

From the Editor

Cows ate GM maize and died - Public enquiry needed

Could this be the "three mile island" or the "thalidomide" of GM: the clinching evidence that there is something seriously wrong with most if not all GM food and feed? Twelve dairy cows died in Hesse, Germany after being fed Syngenta's Bt176 GM maize; and other cows had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses. Protestors in front of the Robert Koch Institute suspect a cover-up. But is there a news blackout as well?

There has been no coverage in the mainstream media; not even after ISIS circulated a detail report, showing how Bt176 has the worst of features common to practically all commercially approved GM crops. Not only is Bt176 unstable like all GM varieties analysed so far, it is also non-uniform, so that different samples of the variety gave different results. Either of those features would make the GM variety illegal under European law.

The dead cows in Hesse are not an isolated case. In 1999, Pusztai and colleagues reported that GM potato engineered with the snowdrop lectin adversely affected every organ system of young rats, in particular, it made their stomach lining twice as thick. Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed a Bt potato. Several years earlier, the US Food and Drug Administration already had data showing that rats fed a GM tomato with an antisense gene to delay ripening developed holes in their stomach. Add to that the report from Aventis (now Bayer) which showed that glufosinate-tolerant T25 GM maize (about to be approved for growing by the Blair government) killed twice as many broiler chickens compared to non-GM maize, and a host of anecdotal evidence that livestock, wildlife and lab animals avoid GM feed when given the choice, and failed to thrive or died when forced to eat it.

There must now be a public enquiry, not only into the safety of GM food and feed, but especially on why this and other evidence have been systematically misrepresented, suppressed, ignored and denied in the rush to commercialise GM crops and GM food and feed. It amounts to a serious abuse of science and scientific evidence, and our governments' scientific advisors must be called into proper account.

Britain's pro-GM scientific establishment appears to have entered into an elicit relationship, willingly or otherwise, with a gang of biotech corporate warriors - remarkably metamorphosed from their previous Marxist tendencies - who promote their agenda by infiltrating the establishment and using smear tactics borrowed from America's far-right to discredit critics.

Read the evidence and judge for yourselves. There's plenty more: US Department of Agriculture's own data showing that GM crops increased pesticide and herbicide use by more than 50 million pounds between 1996 and 2003; Roundup Ready herbicide linked to sudden death of GM soya and fusarium head blight in wheat; and the regulatory sham surrounding Bt crops that's allowing synthetic, altered toxins of both known and unknown toxicities to enter our ecosystems and food web.

Send a copy of this issue to your government representatives demanding a public enquiry. (Contact for bulk purchase at cost.)

Nanotech & nanotox

Another area where science and technology have gone way ahead of safety considerations is nanotechnology, in particular, nanoparticles and nanotubes.

The science is fascinating, and the possibilities enormous, but that's precisely why it raises a host of new safety concerns. It seems that all kinds of substances acquire entirely new properties when shrunk to the nanoscale (about a billionth of a metre). They become super-efficient catalysts, they concentrate light energy enormously, acquire new electrical properties, and so on.

But the first evidence of the hazards has already emerged. Nanotubes could be worse than asbestos, and both nanotube and other nanoparticles can accumulate in organs and tissues.

Fortunately, at least some scientists involved in developing the technology are much more willing to consider and discuss the safety concerns openly and engage in real dialogue with the public; in contrast to those scientists involved in exploiting GM.

Biology's theory of everything and the obesity epidemic

When the "Living energies" series was circulated, we received an unprecedented number of positive responses from people who know too well that the secret of life is not to be found in genomes and genes or other molecular nuts and bolts.

I think it may well be in how organisms capture, store and transform energy.

Indeed, a universal metabolism appears to lie at the basis of all life, which can explain its patterns of biodiversity and many other biological phenomena. This brings together diverse fields that have hitherto developed independently, such as bioenergetics, ecology, physiology and yes, even the new field of food quality research, where it is found that animals do tend to prefer organically produced food!

And, it could also enable us to better understand a range of fundamental problems from sustainable systems to the obesity epidemic, and what to do about it.

Biology is groping its way towards a theory of everything. Thank goodness not all biology has been swallowed up by genomics and related research.

There are signs that the National Institutes of Health in the United States, at least, have read the writing on the wall with regard to genomics; and are actively inviting generous grant applications from scientists (US citizens only) that can "change the current paradigms of medical research."

All other governments should take heed.


From the Editor

GM Food Safe?
Cows Ate GM Maize & Died
Bt Toxin Binds to Mouse Intestine
Liver of Mice Fed GM Soya Works Overtime
Syngenta's Spanish GM Trojan Horse
Animals Avoid GM Food, for Good Reasons
Transgenic DNA & Bt Toxin Survive Digestion


Good Food
Food Quality? What's That?
Do Animals Like Good Food?
Assessing Food Quality by Its After-Glow


Rethinking Health
The Obesity Epidemic
How Carbohydrates Make Fats
How to Survive 40 Days Starvation


ISP News
Approving GM Crops is Abusing Science


GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use
Unstable Transgenic Lines Illegal
Roundup Ready Sudden Death Syndrome
New GM Toxin Looms over Our Food
Transgenic Fish Coming
Keeping Europe GM-Free
Regulatory Sham on Bt Crops


Corrupt Science
Rotten to the Corp
Biotech Critic Denied Tenure


Pollution Watch
Mercury A Growing Scourge
Methyl Bromide Ban


Nanotech & Nanotox
Metal Nanoshells, Cure or Curse?
Nanotubes Highly Toxic


Rethinking Agriculture
GM Crops Threaten Cultural & Ecological Integrity
Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes
"The Answer Lies in the Soil"


Living Energies
No System in Systems Biology
Biology's Theory of Everything?
Energy, Productivity & Biodiversity
Why Are Organisms So Complex?



This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
If you like this original article from the Institute of Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation or purchase on our website. ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science.
  • If you would prefer to receive future mailings as plain text please let us know.

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8643 0681]   [44 20 7383 3376]   [44 20 7272 5636]

General Enquiries - Website/Mailing List - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-





 Home Contents Library


Geiger Counter
Geiger Counter

The GQ GMC-320-Plus digital Geiger Counter is the latest model developed by GQ Electronics LLC, USA.

As an enhanced version of GMC-300E plus, it has larger internal flash memory to facilitate data processing capability. It also has temperature sensor & electronic gyroscope, LCD contrast control, front LED indicator, analog data port output, new graphic type.

This product can be used for industrial, commercial or test equipment, such as universities, laboratories, environment evaluation measurement, hospital research, scientific analytical applications, antique evaluation, building material testing research and so on.

Comparing to other brand products, the most prominent advantages of this product are: having most features and cost effective . It also has unique features, such as, record data first play it back later; open protocol for easy application integration; visualize real-time graph, data Logging.

Portable and convenient with built-in audible and visual signals, it features automatic data recording. It is able to continually monitor the radiation and log the data each second into internal memory. When connected to a PC, GQ software can download the radiation history data to the computer and the user is able to analyze those data later.

The device uses USB port for communication and power. The internal battery can be charged via wall adapter or car adapter. Using the adapters, continuous data monitoring is possible and no worry about batteries charge or any data loss. The main board has a real time clock for time related data logging purposes.

The USB port communicates with GQ GMC-320 Plus Soft Geiger Counter software and GQ Geiger Counter Data Viewer software. For professional data logging, a more advanced version, may be purchased at low cost from GQ.


Trifield EMF Meter from Sper Scientific

    • Measures extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields from electrical power lines and transmission equipment, appliances, computer, HVAC, audio/video, and other electrical equipment


In 1904 there was very little cancer. Now there is an abundance of cancer. What has changed? Can this be reversed? If you have cancer or do not want to get cancer the information you and your family need is on this web site.


Note: there are two ways to navigate this site. You can follow the pages in their logical sequence, or you can access every page from "Contents".


For your assistance, there are Google search boxes on each page that will allow you to search this web site or the entire Internet for more information.


Alkalize For Health Site Search 

Custom Search

Search the Internet with Google



Copyright 2000 - 2018 AlkalizeForHealth
All rights reserved.

Home               Contents               Library