Numerous consumer organizations, or those involved in the "ecological" defense of nature and our earth, have cried out loud and clear that genetically modified foods represent an enormous danger to the ecological balance of our planet, as well as to human health.

The latter claim that this type of intervention would entail irreversible and as yet poorly assessed ecological risks in the long term. These dangers include loss of biodiversity, increased pesticide use, the appearance of hyper-resistant or invasive animal species, the inevitable elimination of certain species, particularly insects, and other organisms beneficial to our environment. They also claim that the long-term health risks and repercussions are poorly understood. In their view, regular consumption of foods containing transgenic ingredients could lead to an increased risk of allergy, increased resistance to antibiotics...

It's time to set the record straight and find out what's really going on with GMOs.

In order to obtain accurate, high-quality information, I will refer in the following lines to the research of biologist Louis-Marie Houdebine, a specialist in animal genes and transgenic animals, and author of several scientific works including " Animal biotechnologies: necessity or pointless revolution ...".

His precise explanations are easy to understand. Each living species has its own specific genome made up of its own set of genes. All individuals of the same species therefore have the same genes and an identical genome, which defines the uniqueness of that species. A species can therefore be recognized by its genes.

In reality, there are spontaneous genetic variations and mutations that are totally due to chance. This results in what are known as allelic genes. This is particularly true at the moment of fertilization during reproduction, when the embryo is formed. It is these alleles that are directly responsible for individual differences within a species.

Our genetic information, numbering around 35,000, is contained in genes and organized in linear form, like a magnetic strip, in DNA, at the heart of the nucleus of each cell. Our uncoiled DNA is around 1.80 metres long and is divided into 23 pairs of chromosomes at the heart of the nucleus of each of our cells.

DNA consists of a string of letters. It contains multiple forms of messages coded in different ways, but always using the same alphabet. Just as our alphabet can be made up of different languages, DNA, through its different languages, governs all the metabolic operations of our organism. The very succession of letters in our DNA, i.e. the sequence of our genes, is itself controlled by another language made up of the same letters. The letters of our genetic code are proteins. Between the functional regions of the genomes of higher organisms, which control all the mechanisms of life, lie DNA sequences that appear to have no function at all. These sequences, often repeated, differ from one individual to another. It is extremely difficult to attribute a function to them, and their presence seems optional. Their origins are diverse: retroviruses originating from outside the race, or errors in the DNA replication process. Some of these untimely intrusions or errors can sometimes give rise to well-identified genetic diseases.

Here are a few essential points of clarification, to help avoid confusion. Clearly, the introduction of a DNA fragment into a cell or organism leads to a genetic transformation. This new cell is called "recombinant". This applies to isolated cells in laboratory culture. These cells may be plant or animal, or belong to single-cell organisms such as bacteria or yeast. Any organism that has undergone this type of genetic transformation is genetically modified. However, the terms "transgenesis" and "transgenic" apply only to multi-cellular organisms, i.e. plants and animals. This means that not all genetically modified organisms are transgenic. Only plants and animals are transgenic.

According to Louis-Marie Houdebine, in practice, the acronym GMO is used for transgenic plants currently being prepared for animal or human consumption, but the term GMO can also be applied to transgenic animals such as yeast, as well as recombinant bacteria.

Misinformation leads to many misconceptions, such as: taking a human gene and putting it in a mouse would be like making a human-mouse chimera. But an isolated gene does not have the specific characteristics of its own species. The same letter can be used to create hundreds of different words and languages.

Some genes are identical in different species, such as those of pigs and humans.

A closer look at species mixing reveals that gene transfer between species is not a human invention. In nature, foreign genes frequently enter a genome by accident, enriching the host's genetic material. This process significantly accelerates the evolution of host species, giving them a certain superiority without having to wait a long time for some of their own genes to mutate spontaneously.

This phenomenon has been demonstrated, notably for certain retroviruses, for wheat, formed by the assembly of the genomes of three different plants, and for rapeseed, also formed by the assembly of the genomes of two different plants.

According to Louis-Marie Houdebine, "the species barrier is therefore only of relative significance, and we need to get our minds off the idea that a gene from one species integrated into another necessarily generates a monstrous chimera". But we must not lose sight of the fact that the insertion of new genetic information into a foreign genome creates a new and hitherto unknown situation in any case. And it is true that "due to the extreme complexity of the multiple relationships between genes and their products, it is more or less impossible to predict all the effects of the foreign gene, even if the normal function of this gene is known". The development of transgenic organisms, always with partly unknown consequences, will therefore require observation over a number of generations before mass use can be envisaged. This is how we proceed with the GMOs currently in use. Normally, all GMOs would be subject to such tests, but in practice this is not always the case.

A living organism can only survive if it is marvelously well adapted to its environment, and this is achieved through the evolution and adaptation of the genome. At present, however, foreign DNA is introduced into plants and animals at random, which can either inactivate or activate certain host genes. The consequences are virtually unpredictable, and past experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, these changes in a genome are of no consequence. In the animals or plants observed, malformations or stunted growth may have been observed, so the suspects are eliminated. In the end, the chances of meeting the demands of agriculture and livestock breeding remain very slim.

We must remain vigilant, however, for other, more subtle phenomena that are not directly observable, and which could represent a risk for the consumer of this type of product. According to Louis-Marie Houdebine, "The most extreme situation imaginable would be when the arrival of a transgene favors the infection of the organism by pathogens or awakens inactive endogenous viruses. This situation is unlikely to occur, but it is theoretically possible. It is by no means certain that the frequency of such an event would be higher after the introduction of a transgene than after the recombination and mutation of chromosomes that accompanies natural reproduction. In any case, only prolonged observation of the GMO can reveal that transgenesis has created a difficulty and that it would be better to stop using the GMO in question".

It seems that it's the proteins encoded and produced by the new genes that are causing problems. As I explained earlier, proteins are often endowed with diverse and precise biological activities, and it is generally for this reason that humans introduce them into certain organisms via transgenes. As these biological activities are well known, GMOs are not at all considered as experimental material, but as foodstuffs. However, new and as yet unknown interactions with host cell elements inevitably create new and dangerous situations for consumers. Only long-term hindsight will tell us the real consequences and answers to these questions.

It's important to know that all new foods, or foods imported from far-off lands, which are still unknown to us and introduced onto the market, are subject to in-depth testing and examination. The same applies to assessing the undesirable effects of GMOs. These include toxicity tests, which are widely used, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. They reveal with certainty the presence of toxic elements. Another type of test is allergenicity. Allergic reactions are generally triggered by proteins. For this reason, a theoretical examination of the protein's structure, as well as tests carried out on cells, are used to reveal the possible allergenic properties of these proteins. Although allergic reactions are complex and different for everyone, these tests can be considered reliable. Other tests are designed to measure oncogenicity, i.e. a substance's ability to induce tumor formation. These tests, however accurate they may be, are not sufficient to completely rule out the risk of oncogenicity associated with both novel foods and GMOs. Other tests aim to identify the nature of the molecules and their concentration in relation to the original plant, and to predict possible effects on consumers. Still others involve measuring certain stages in the metabolism of GMOs, which would once again highlight the differences with the original organisms.

To date, these last few methods have not been used systematically. As these plants are intended solely for animal feed, the authorities have not deemed it necessary.

The tests imposed on GMOs are already very strict, and their cost is twenty times higher than that of conventional foods. According to the results that are beginning to accumulate, the expenses that may seem excessive to some will probably be reduced in the future. Some believe that the severity of the tests applied to GMOs highlights the lightness of assessment applied to conventional products. Louis-Marie Houdebine writes that "the disproportion in the assessment of products, as well as in that of the probable risks entailed by their consumption, should invite experts to rethink procedures for assessing the risks that may be entailed by the consumption of conventional products, as well as that of organic products, which are particularly poorly understood".

This author assures us that "the GMOs we are offered have passed toxicity and allergenicity tests without the slightest hitch and without raising the slightest concern". The absorption of transgenic foods (maize, rapeseed and soy) by animals has so far not given rise to any metabolic disturbance. These tests have been carried out in a very significant proportion, removing any major concerns.

It would appear that the results of tests carried out before GMOs are placed on the market are surprisingly little known, and it seems that manufacturers publish them only very sparingly. To justify the paucity of information disclosed, manufacturers cite confidentiality concerns in relation to competitors. This is understandable, but lack of transparency always creates mystery and fuels opposition. That's why some people thought that the results could not be shown because they were unfavorable to GMOs. It should be borne in mind, however, that the American FAD has authorized the marketing of these products.

One of the main concerns of manufacturers is to ensure that the rules are clear and identical for all competitors. Consequently, the argument used by some that manufacturers are systematically lobbying to reduce tests to their simplest form does not hold water. On the contrary, many companies, including some of the most powerful, have imposed highly restrictive and costly tests on themselves, which are not necessarily useful. The aim of this manoeuvre is to define a testing standard that can only be financed by the most powerful companies, thus penalizing and definitively sidelining the smallest companies. Once again, this strategy is undoubtedly aimed at establishing new lobbies and monopolies.

Louis-Marie Houdebine mentions an experiment carried out in the 90s by a group of researchers including Mr. Schubert.

"The aim was to follow the fate of DNA molecules absorbed orally. Science has long known that digestion destroys most of the food we eat. This process breaks down proteins into amino acids, which are then used directly to build our own proteins. The DNA of ingested food is itself reused to make our own DNA. Starch and slow sugars are broken down into glucose, most of which provides our body with energy. So it's all the foods we eat, whatever their nature, that, thanks to digestion, will constantly renew our body's structures. Whether we consume vegetable protein from soya or animal protein from pork, from a chemical point of view it remains a protein that will be digested and end up in the form of amino acids.

Mr. Schubert's experiment, involving the gavage of mice with a purified DNA solution, extracted from cells, immersed in water and derived from a bacterial virus, finally revealed, to everyone's astonishment, that a small proportion of this DNA could be found in a free state in the animals' blood, as well as in certain blood cells (mainly white blood cells) and other organs, notably the liver. These small DNA fragments were found even in the nuclei of the cells, but "they had all disappeared a few days later, and none of these fragments were found integrated into the genome of the mice".

This is precisely what seems to frighten GMO opponents, despite the fact that this phenomenon occurs on a daily basis in the degradation of food and the billions of genes it contains and that we consume every day. Every day, we consume diseased, degraded or malformed genes that are likely to cause cancer. These are known as oncogenes. They are present in both meat and GMOs. Let's look at the reassuringly positive side of Schubert's experiments, which show that after a few days, there is nothing left of the absorbed genes in the host genome.

The conclusion is as follows: despite all the arguments put forward, there is not yet sufficient hindsight with regard to the use of this type of food to bring it to market on a large scale. What's more, the arguments put forward are very similar to those used 20 or 30 years ago to promote pesticides and herbicides. With hindsight, and after all these years of use, people are realizing that the promises have not been kept, and that the repercussions on health are enormous. As consumers, this experience prompts us to remain vigilant and to be twice as careful with GMOs, despite the positive arguments.

Louis-Marie Houdebine's whole analysis and argument is very comforting; however, it is limited to a purely physical, chemical and biological point of view. If we look at the issue from a more subtle or energetic point of view, things seem to be different. Indeed, almost everyone knows today that every living organism is surrounded by an electromagnetic field (aura⁾¹ that disappears when the organism dies. In the 1950s, two Yale University professors, the philosopher F.S.C. Northrop and Dr. Harold Saxton Burr, suggested that the electromagnetic fields surrounding living organisms were at the origin of the genetic sequential organization of DNA. The very DNA that controls the specific characteristics and growth of each species. To demonstrate this theory, Burr set out to measure what he called the "life fields" around the seeds. He discovered that modifying a single gene (a tiny part of the DNA) in the mother plant led to significant changes in the electromagnetic fields of those seeds. He also discovered that by measuring the intensity of these fields around the seeds, he could predict the health of the plants that would emerge.

Can't we then generalize this conclusion, and think that humans who absorb GMOs will also see their aura disturbed and, as a result, their vital energy impoverished or diminished?

Burr's experiments also demonstrated that the electromagnetic fields of these seeds weakened if they were subjected to treatment with chemicals, various types of radiation or heat.

So the debate remains open. It's up to you to decide whether you want to stick to a low, material vibratory level, or whether you want to rise to a more subtle vibratory level!

Be that as it may, it seems that once again the whole GMO controversy is nothing more than a vast financial manipulation orchestrated by powerful corporate lobbies. The health of the population is probably not one of these financial considerations, and all the other arguments used, such as that of reducing famine in the world, are nothing more than false pretexts and misinformation used to make us swallow new snacks!

Excerpt from the book "Révélations-Santé" by Dr. Schmitz (Ed. Treddaniel)