'Science' of GMO crops is completely wrong: gene modifications affect far more than targeted proteins

Friday, February 12, 2016 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Tags: gene modification, targeted protein, genetic engineering

---

(NaturalNews) A basic premise of the official biotechnology narrative is that genetically-modified (GM) food crops contain genes that affect only specific proteins in isolation, and that the rest of the organism functions as normal and is substantially equivalent to its natural counterpart. But this is hardly the case, as the genetic blueprints of individual organisms are vastly complex and operate from a basis of interconnectedness rather than specificity, as is claimed by the biotech industry.

An extensive, four-year research effort pioneered by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) proved this back in 2007, demonstrating that individual genes function much like the individual load-bearing beams in a house or other structure. Each one relies on all the others to hold the building up and keep it from collapsing - or in the case of organisms, to keep them functioning as they should.

Reprogramming targeted gene has a cascade effect that manifests over time

Swapping out a gene or reprogramming it to perform another function, in other words, not only affects the so-called "targeted" gene or protein, but also all the other genes and proteins and how they express themselves. This means that changing just one facet of an organism could end up changing the entire organism, though the full consequences of this cascade of changes could take many years to fully manifest.

"... genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood," reads an analysis of this NHGRI study published by The New York Times (NYT) back in 2007.

"Evidence of a networked [interacting] genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk [safety] assessment of today's commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals."

Regulatory paradigm for GMOs inherently flawed; current safety testing ignores how genes actually express themselves

What this means is that GM crops specifically designed to resist Roundup herbicide, for instance, also interact with organisms in many other variant ways as well, though these interactions don't have to be reported to regulators. The long-term effects of these deviations on humans is thus not fully understood, nor is their effect on the natural environment and other crops with which they come into contact.

This is all too convenient for biotechnology companies like Monsanto, which are able to easily conceal the many other hazards associated with GMOs that are not required by government agencies to be reported. These companies are getting away with murder by only reporting what they observe concerning altered genes and their direct interactions just with targeted proteins.

"Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently, [government] regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network [interacting] effects," states Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

This is the impetus behind a recent paper published by Cornell University, which stresses that a much more stringent precautionary principle is necessary to avoid the "black swans" associated with biotechnology, or the unforeseen and unforeseeable events of extreme consequence that accompany modified organisms.

"Many biotech companies already conduct detailed genetic studies of their products that profile the expression of proteins and other elements," adds Heinemann, as quoted by investigative journalist Jon Rappoport. "But they are not required to report most of this data to regulators, so they do not. Thus vast stores of important research information sit idle."

Sources for this article include:

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com

http://www.nytimes.com

http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787