WARNING MY ANSWERS MAY NOT BE WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW as it is very alarming and scary!

Taking last question first. "Do I eat them?" I wish I could say no but in this day most of the time we have no way of knowing for sure what is genetically altered and what isn't as foods are not labeled GM... Sadly most all of our traditionally farmed foods have been altered and unless you eat strictly home grown, that you know isn't altered, or organic, that isn't altered, we can't know for sure! Even with home grown the seeds are not always labeled therefore we cannot know for sure. Right now most GM seeds are distributed to large farmers and are not in small packages but that is changing fast!

To answer the rest of your questions I am publishing Jeffrey Smith's article, who is looking out for us as best as he can.  His is a very extensive answer that is far better than something I could give you from my words and he has study records to back up his articles. The same reports are on the desk of those at the FDA pointing out the dangers, but being ignored... If you have read this ezine for a while you know that I try to find some good in all things but the only good I can see in GM foods is a decline in birthrates in our next generation, which can help our overpopulation problem. You will have to read this whole article to understand why I believe that!

Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures
By Jeffrey M. Smith

Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that genetically modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts that have existed for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific assertion. Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently described these newly introduced gene-spliced foods as cause for concern. In addition to their potential to produce hard-to-detect allergies and nutritional problems, the scientists said that "The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants? might produce "unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants."[1] GM crops, they said, might have "Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins, . . . appearance of new, not previously identified" toxins, and an increased tendency to gather ?toxic substances from the environment? such as ?pesticides or heavy metals.? They recommended testing every GM food ?before it enters the marketplace."[2] But the FDA was under orders from the first Bush White House to promote the biotechnology industry, and the political appointee in charge of agency policy was Monsanto's former attorney-later their vice president. The FDA policy ignored the scientists? warnings and allowed GM food crops onto the market without any required safety studies.

From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are disturbing-lab animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every system studied. Reports from farmers are even less encouraging-thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals are traced to GM feed.[3]

GM diet shows toxic reactions in digestive tract

The very first crop submitted to the FDA's voluntary consultation process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4] The director of FDA's Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a "reasonable certainty of no harm,"[5] which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that "unresolved questions still remain."[6] The political appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.[*]

According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world's leading experts in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes "could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots]."[7] Pusztai believes that the digestive tract should be the first target of GM food risk assessment, because the gut is the first (and largest) point of contact with the foods; it can reveal various reactions to toxins. He was upset, however, that the research on the FlavrSavr never looked passed the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.

Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their small intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls click here for stomach comparison image). [9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting from such growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of special concern.

GM diets cause liver damage

The state of the liver-a main detoxifier for the body-is another indicator of toxins.

• Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers.[11]
• Rats fed Monsanto's Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.[12]
• Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity.[13]
• The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%-16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.[14]
• And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes.[15] Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, "are not random and must reflect some "insult" on the liver by the GM soy." Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King's College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it "could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia."[16]

• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
• "High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GM soy flour."[26]
• The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27]
• In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]

This Ezine is available by subscription only and all subscriber requests are kept on file! Our subscriber list is confidential and we respect your privacy. A.N.E.H.F. does not make its list available to third parties. All subscribe and unsubscribe information can be found at the end of this issue. The Mission of this Ezine: 
  

Ask Lena Health Q & A Archives Click Here