In *actual* reality (not your made-up fantasy-land), there are many people who are affected by genetically modified foods. I know this first-hand, as I am allergic to genetically modified soybeans (and anything made from them).

My body handles organic, non-GM soy just fine... but if I have the modified stuff... pretty much my entire body starts feeling awful and I have severe breathing problems due to anaphalixis.

Why is this? Well, when Monsanto modified the soybean, the DNA formed additional allergenic proteins that do not exist in non-GM soy. They did discover this fact before releasing their product on the market, but chose to make it available anyway. Further research (done by a 3rd party, years later) discovered that were actually several differing proteins which may cause moderate to severe reactions in people.

Since GM soy is included in most foods in the US, every meal I eat in America is like playing Russian Roulette.

I'm not the only one, either... I actually know several others who are affected as well.

Please give this forum the citation.  It would be news of great interest to the entire food safety industry.

Here are a bunch of links from my bookmarks on the subject, from varied sources, over the years:

Soybeans Contain Unidentified DNA
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/08/46151

Unknown DNA in Monsanto's genetically engineered soya
http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/highlights/gmo/Monsanto_DNA_MP.htm

Mystery DNA Is Discovered In Soybeans By Scientistshttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/world/mystery-dna-is-discovered-in-soybeans-by-scientists.html?sec=health

Dead Babies (rats fed GM soy have heath issues; especially concerning their offspring)
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=497

As a Hormone Substitute, Soy Is Ever More Popular, but Is It Safe?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/health/24soy.html?ex=1251259200&en=11ada0cdf2a23458&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Should we worry about soya in our food?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/jul/25/food.foodanddrink

Food allergy and intolerance
http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Food_allergy_and_intolerance?OpenDocument

The Dark Side of Soy
http://www.utne.com/2007-07-01/TheDarkSideofSoy.aspx

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergieshttp://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=1007
Researchers Put a Microscope on Food Allergieshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/health/09allergies.html?_r=3&ref=research

Then, of course, there's my own reaction to GM soy. That's kind of hard to cite on the Internet. I can't provide a link to my own allergy. 
Also, while I am in contact with a couple people who also have a soybean allergy, I don't know if they'd want me to share their email address out in the open on this blog...
But anyway, I've cited a bunch of different sources above. A few a are somewhat related (the first three listed are from 2001 and cite the same original source, iirc), but they span many years (2001 - present) and different sources overall.
Since this is the Internet, there are more sources available. This just serves as a starter on the topic.

Oops. Sorry about the formatting. It looked correct in the text entry box. (How odd.) 
At least it's not a huge wall of text. *smile*

The short piece of DNA was not translated into a protein therefore there was no new undiscovered protein only found in GM soy as you have claimed.

DNA does not illicit an immune response when consumed.  Virtually every bite of every food you have eaten you whole life has DNA in it.

The baby rat story was dealt with in detail in Nature Biotechnology.  The so-called research failed to follow scientific protocols for food safety analysis.  If you would like I would be happy to supply the link to the Nature Biotechnology discussion of this poor quality research (oh and it was never published in any peer reviewed journal).  No one has been able to repeat the results obtained by the russian researcher, this of course repeatability is the hallmark of good science.

Are you aware that every time a new cultivar produced by ionizing radiation(about 3000 have been commercialized) or chemical mutagenesis there are substantial genomic alterations far in excess to the small number of base pairs of DNA you have linked to above.  In all these cases we have no idea if new proteins are made or what they may look like or if they are allergenic.  research has made it very clear the most precise method of breeding (at the DNA level) is GE.  We know far more about each and every GE crop than any other type of crop.

Here are a few exerpts from the 2008EFSA report on Animal feeding trials with GM crops. I can provide the link to the huge document if requested.

1.2.1. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plant derived food and feed

Risk assessment is defined as the evaluation of the probability of known or potential adverse health effects arising from human or animal exposure to the identified hazards (FAO/WHO, 1996; FAO/WHO, 2000; Section IV of EFSA, 2006a). The safety assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed follows a comparative approach,

i.e. the food and feed are compared with their non-GM

Such studies should be conducted according to internationally accepted guidelines and protocols, e.g. as developed by OECD and adopted by the European Union.

Many feeding trials have been reported testing GM maize, potatoes, rice, soybeans and tomatoes on rat or mice for prolonged periods, and parameters such as body weight, feed consumption, blood chemistry, organ weights, histopathology etc have been measured. The food and feed under investigation were derived from GM plants with improved agronomic characteristics like herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. The majority of these experiments did not indicate clinical effects or histopathological abnormalities in organs or tissues of exposed animals. These studies can be used to assist the safety evaluation of GM plant derived food and feed and to reach conclusions on whether they can be considered as safe as their conventional counterpart. In some cases adverse effects were noted, which are difficult to interpret due to shortcomings in the studies.

You're *completely* missing the point.

I am allergic to genetically modified soy, and not to non-GM soy. There's a difference. My body knows it — and by allergic, I mean *actually* allergic (with swelling, breathing problems, etc.)... and there are others; I'm not the only one.

Soy is also in most food in the US; so this is a pretty widespread thing, and greatly compounds the problem. It's not a matter of just steering away from one food item (like, say, if one is allergic to strawberries, that's pretty easy to avoid). Soy, corn, and gluten are in most food items in the US, and all happen to be the most genetically modified crops.

I did not say I was affected by the DNA directly, but by the results of additional proteins that are in GM soy (causing my allergy). Regardless of what some article at some URL says (or doesn't), I, myself, am evidence that there is indeed a difference between GM soy and non-GM soy. (And like I said before, I know others who also have this same allergy.)

I understand that genetic modifications happen all the time, but a natural genetic modification (or even something like irradiation) is different from splicing in DNA from a completely different species (often from non-food sources).

Also, why are you so defensive about GM foods? Do you work for the industry that produces this sort of stuff?

I want better labeling of foods (including GM) so I can make a choice. For me, it matters greatly (to the point of possibly life-or-death).

(It would be nice if soy weren't in so many foods and other products also.)

You may be allergic to soy or GM soy specifically but that would be an extremely rare occurance.  I am not trying to deminish your health issue but if you are in fact allergic to GM specific soy you would be the first person ever documented in the world.  There are people allergic to every food on the planet but the vast majority are not.  Rules are made to give the most safety to the most individuals.  We do not ban kiws because some people are allergic to them nor do we ban any one food because a small percentage of the population are allergic or have intolerance to them.

I assume you avoid any food with soy unless it is specifically labelled as Non-GM soy (organic) so this means you are exercising your choice already with the present product besed labelling system.

Cheers

It's not as extremely rare as you're pretending. It isn't overly common, of course, but I have happened to meet others and then later coincidentally discover that we had this allergy in common.

Just like with most other allergies, there's a gradient between feeling bad and dying — different people react differently at different times. Therefore, some people are slightly affected and may not know what's causing it, so it may be underreported. (Like I said, this is true for many allergies.) Also, since GM crops are so new (relatively speaking), the amount of cases are underreported.

The world is a big place. To actually claim that I'm the very first person affected or documented with this allergy is quite foolish... you can't prove your assertion, because I know for a fact that there are others in the 6.79+ billion people inhabiting the Earth. (There's no way you have read every allergy-related document on the face of the planet, to come to that conclusion, either.)

I'm guessing that you're referring to "kiwis", but kiwis are not in >80% of the food in the US. Soy is... and much of the time, it's not labelled clearly (passing merely as "vegetable oil", "margarine", or "textured vegetable protein"... just for starters).

Also, in the US, there is no labelling of GM products, making it impossible to determine what is GM and what is not. It's not the case over in Europe, where genetically modified foods *must* be labelled.

It's impossible to avoid soy in the US, because of its prevalance in everything. (Seriously try shopping and avoiding soy for a week, both in grocery shopping and in restaurants, just as an experiment.)

When eating, it's a matter of when — not IF — due to being used in nearly everything! This is with being super-careful and necessarily obsessing over every single ingredient of everything, too!

Of course, the reactions are intensified with the amount of soy consumed... but even a little bit can be pretty devestating. (I almost died from eating a single cracker which happened to soy, for instance.)

You are quite lucky to not have developed a food allergy. Be thankful. You could wake up tomorrow with a brand new allergy (that's what happened to me several years ago) that drastically changes your life.

I have to be careful with not only I eat, but where I go and who I interact with. (Soy is not only included in food, but in fragrences, candles, newspaper ink, detergents, some clothing, etc.)

Anyway, be thankful you're fine... but please try to show some sort of courtesy and empathy to those of us who have to go through the nightmare of trying to find something adaquate to eat. (This includes people who are allergic to corn, gluten, dairy, etc. in addition to soy.)

We just want to know what's in the food. That's all. *If* GM is safe (and obviously it's not 100% safe), then — sure — go ahead and include it in food. It should be labeled and there should be some non-GM alternatives provided. We should be able to have a choice.

It isn't the same, no matter how much people might claim otherwise. And we've been around the other varieties for a much longer time than these new crops, more time to mutually adapt.

Um no.  You see the average commercial lifespan of a cultivar is four years.  That means that every four years (on average) a new cultivar with significantly different genomic structure (unknown except for GE crops) is eaten.  Hardly time to mutually adapt.

Ridiculous. Every four years, traditional plant breeders don't have to cross corn with a bacteria, or a snowdrop flower, or whatever else, in order to get a new variety. They select from a palette of proven corn strains with sets of traits that have been in cultivation previously and cross-pollinate more or less like we've been doing for thousands of years.

It isn't the same and if you were at all honest, you'd admit it. Moreover, the seed industry consolidation has sharply reduced the number of available plant varieties, driving many of these proven strains extinct and reducing the variety accessible to traditional plant breeding. So the industry's done a two-fer, cutting out the competitive species and convincing everyone to buy their barely tested crap.

Thats correct traditional breeding uses random mutation induced with radiation of chemicals to generate new traits.  We never have any idea what DNA or how the DNA is changed with these tgypes of breeding.  And yes the average cultivar lasts four years before a newer cultivar replaces it.

Robert, how did I know, even before clicking to look, that most of these comments would be the tedious spam of one, Robert Wager. Hmm ...

A person would have to eat several times the typical daily serving of rice to get enough benefit from Golden Rice to replace a couple handfuls of dark, leafy greens. And though the government of India has been heavily promoting export-oriented crops, their agriculture minister is now saying that their facing disaster if people don't start pursuing organic cropping techniques that can substitute knowledge for the irrigation water and fossil-fuel inputs required for conventional agriculture.

Just because governments have convinced millions of people to join in turning their landscape into a desert, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Oh, no, Natasha--good news: the v2 Golden Rice has much more than the prototype that folks on the internet always talk about. 

A new paper came out on that recently:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19369372

I know it is hard to keep up with the science when it isn't your field, but as always it continues to progress.  Woot!

And don't forget the research that showed the beta carotene in GRII is bioavailable as well.  Seems just eating the same rice they do now with the added trait (given to them for free) will alleviate 500,000 children from going blind and dying each year. 

And you are against it why?

Why are you against field greens, aka weeds, which grow almost everywhere in the world for free?

Field greens ... have no technology fees associated with them, aren't patented, have many secondary traits that promote health, won't contaminate your neighbor's crop with patented traits that can't be cheaply saved and replanted from year to year, their beta carotene DNA machinery isn't stacked with other traits that can increase insect resistance or make local weeds more pesticide resistant ... I don't know, take your pick of any of those as to why I think it's a better idea to source vitamin A in the diet from things we've always eaten in good health.

Well why wasn't that happening then?  If your solutions are so cheap and easy why are people letting their kids lack vitamin A?  Are they stupid?  Do they hate their kids? 

The numbers of affected kids in that Golden Rice paper makes me think Natasha isn't running around handing out the field greens from her CSA box to all the third world kids who need it.  But maybe I'm wrong....How do you get them to the kids?

Organic spinach with E.col 0157:H7 in/on was reponsible.  The work by researchers in Minnisota found organic crops had between 4-19 (I think) times the coliform numbers compared to conventional crops at the farm level.  Other research has demonstrated leafy green vegetables internalize E.coli and lastly E.coli 0157:H7 has an infectious dose of less than 10 bacteria (compared to salmonella of one million).  All this means there is reason to have concern about organic leafy green vegtables.

Oh and the deadly bacteria were the exact same strain as those found in the livestock in the neigbouring fields.  It was never determined how the manure from the cows and wild pigs got onto the organic field. The CDC report is very interesting read and I can link you to it if you are interested.

It wasn't the spinach, it wasn't the handlers, it was the manure.

This argument has zero to do with 'organics.'

If growing greens was the answer the world would have already done it.  For a variety of reasond that is not the answer but by simply added a couple (three to be exact) to local varieties of rice that do well locally vitamin A defficiency can be reduced greatly.

Please tell this forum how manure has nothing to do with organic agriculture. 

Here is part of the abstrat i mentioned earlier:

"The percentages of E.coli-positive samples in conventional and organic produce were 1.6 and 9.7%, respectively. However, the E. coli prevalence in certified organic produce was 4.3%, a level not statistically different (not sure how the author figured this) from that in conventional samples. Organic lettuce had the largest prevalence of E. coli (22.4%) compared with other produce types. Organic samples from farms that used manure or compost aged less than 12 months had a prevalence of E. coli 19 times greater than that of farms that used older materials."

 Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 67, No. 5, 2004, Pages 894-900

 Preharvest Evaluation of Coliforms, Escherichia coli,and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Organic and Salmonella, Conventional Produce Grown by Minnesota Farmers

AVIK MUKHERJEE,1 DORINDA SPEH,2 ELIZABETH DYCK,2† AND FRANCISCO DIEZ-GONZALEZ1*

Sorry Larry that is not how it happened.  If you go to my website there are two stories (some court links as well) that explain what really happened.  The two articles are "How did we get here from there Biotechnology threatened in Canada" and "Goliath vs Goliath"

http://web.viu.ca/wager

cheers