Fishing For the Truth about Genetically Modified Ice Cream

Cummins adds, “This is about as genetically modified a product as you can get.”

According to Jeffrey Smith, author of “Seeds of Deception,” although the ISP is an isolated protein and not a GM crop, it still carries some of the risks described by FDA scientists, who had acknowledged that genetic modification may create unpredicted, hard-to-detect side effects, including possible allergens, toxins, anti-nutrients and new diseases (in memos made public from a lawsuit).

“Since there are no special safety requirements mandated for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), however, the manufacturer has failed to adequately guard against the uncertainties. They, like other GMO producers, rely on unproven assumptions or inadequate testing protocols,” Smith adds.

The ISP produced by the yeast has the same 66 amino acid sequence as the natural form found in fish, Smith explains. “On that basis, Unilever says it’s the same. GMO regulators at the Food Standards Australia New Zealand even use the word ‘identical’,” he says. “Since the pout has been consumed by people in the past, they reason that the protein has a history of safe use.”

In spite of the matching sequence, he says proteins can differ in the way they are folded. Also, a wide array of molecular chains can attach themselves, depending on which cell or which species produces the protein. These differences, Smith says, can transform a benign protein into a harmful, even deadly version.

“There is no indication that Unilever’s research looked for changes in the folding patterns of their yeast-born ISP. They did discover, however, that a sugar chain has been added,” he says.

“Glycosylation (the attached sugar chain), carries the potential for producing allergic or immune system responses,” Smith says. “A protein produced in one species can have completely different glycosylation patterns when produced in another species. When a gene from a kidney bean, for example, was inserted into a pea plant, the protein had a very subtle difference in glycosylation.”

The two proteins, which were thought to be identical, had very different effects, he adds.

“The transgenic version from peas caused inflammation in mice,” Smith explains. “If the GM peas similarly caused inflammation or allergies in humans, it could be lethal. This surprise difference between the proteins forced developers to scrap their $2 million 10-year GM pea project in 2005.”

Unilever claims that since the glycosylation pattern is typical of yeast, and since yeast does not cause immunity problems in humans, the sugar pattern imposed on the fish protein would likewise be harmless.

This assumption may have some truth, but it is untested, Smith says. “Furthermore, the scientists point out that when yeast was used to create human pharmaceutical proteins, the glycosylation did cause problems related to immunity and enzyme functioning,” he says. “Scientists had to change (humanize) the yeast’s sugar patterns to solve the issue. No such effort has been made with ISP.”

According to The Independent, the scientists are also disputing the adequacy of Unilver’s safety checks, not least because it checked the protein against the blood of people allergic to cod, not the pout fish.

There are other skeptics of GM foods.

“The Soil Association is alarmed to hear that Unilever is trying to get approval to use a GM protein created from an eel for a new low-fat ice cream,” says Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager, Bristol, UK. “We consider this a frivolous application of a dangerous and unwanted technology. Just because there won’t be any traces of the GM material in the ice cream, this does not mean that the product is safe. It should certainly not be marketed as a ‘healthier alternative’ simply on the grounds that it is low-fat.”