Danish Farmer Reverses Illnesses in pigs by reverting to a GM-free diet

Danish Farmer Reverses Illnesses in pigs by reverting to a GM-free diet for his animals, which is yet further evidence for the toxicity of glyphosate tolerant GM crops Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

A Danish farmer has gained huge public recognition for publishing his simple method for ridding his pigs of illness- removing genetically modified (GM) ingredients from their diet.

Published in the farming magazine Effektivt Landbrug on 13 April 2012 [1], the farmer Ib Borup Perderson describes how his pigs suffered from symptoms including chronic diarrhoea, birth defects, reproductive problems, reduced appetite, bloating, stomach ulcers, weaker and smaller piglets, and reduced litter sizes. This was not just a problem for the animals themselves but also the profitability of the farm, with fewer healthy animals, mounting costs of medicines and added labour costs.

After researching the health hazards of GM foods and associated herbicides, Pederson decided to stop feeding his 450 sows with GM soybean, replacing them with fishmeal and non-GM soybean instead. He began to notice health benefits after two days of a GM-free diet. The farmer’s account has since been published in an English dossier compiled by scientist Brian John of GM-free Cymru (Wales), with collaboration from Pederson, published online by GM Watch [2].

This finding adds to the continual flow of new evidence appearing in peer-reviewed scientific studies, farmers’ reports and witness accounts of the devastating health impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides and the associated GM crops modified to tolerate it. Birth defects from glyphosate exposure were detected in the 1980s in lab animals performed by Monsanto (see [3] EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity, SiS 51, [4] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS 48, 5 Glyphosate Kills Rat Testes Cells, SiS 54). Residents of heavy agrochemical-use zones in Argentina have seen startling increases in birth defects, adult and human cancer rates as well as other illnesses (see [6] Argentina’s Roundup Human Tragedy, SiS 48, [7] Pesticide Illnesses and GM Soybeans, SiS 53). Argentinian tobacco farmers have recently filed a lawsuit against Monsanto for birth defects suffered by their children following claims by the corporation that the chemical was safe to use [8]. Animal feeding studies have shown GM soya feed to cause sterility, stunting and death in rats (see [9] GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile, SiS 33). This is also not the first time that livestock illness including reproductive problems has been linked to glyphosate-tolerant crop derived feed. Professor Emeritus Don Huber of Perdue University, a senior scientist of USDA (US Department of Agriculture) has been studying crop health for over 20 years, and warned how reduced mineral content of glyphosate-tolerant crops lead to nutritional deficiencies in livestock that in turn cause reproductive problems (see [10] USDA Scientist Reveals All, SiS 53). Reduced mineral content in crops results from glyphosate’s metal chelating properties, rendering essential minerals unavailable. Nutrient deficiency effects are independent of direct glyphosate toxicity that causes endocrine disruption, birth defects and cancers among other illnesses. The identification of a novel pathogen in glyphosate-treated crops, reproductive organs of livestock as well as aborted foetal tissue may also be a contributing factor (see [11]Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?,SiS50).

The dossier [2] presents following effects since removing GM produce from the pigs’ diets, as described by Pederson:

1. Within 2 days, diarrhoea virtually disappeared in the farrowing house, whereas before, 50-100 ml Borgal / day [an antibacterial drug] had to be used.

2. Since switching, there had been no death from bloat in sows or death by ulcers, as opposed to minimum 1 per month previously (36 sows died due to stomach related sickness over the last two years before switching).

3. No sows have died through loss of appetite, whereas 2 sows died from this cause last year.

4. Even without washing between farrowings, diarrhoea does not reappear; previously failing to wash between sows would result in more diarrhoea.

5. Previously the farmer had struggled with diarrhoea in first layer sows, no more problems there.

6. Two years ago when the diarrhoea was as its worst, there were months with nearly 30% dead in the farrowing house. At that time it was impossible to find sows that could nurse piglets.

7. Before it was unusual to have a sow with 13 piglets weaned. The average was about 10.5 per sow plus spare mothers. Now the farmer is getting over 12 piglets on average weaned and 14 piglets weaned per sow is common. There are fewer nursing sows, simply because the sows are milking better and eating more.

8. Sows farrow better and there is 0.3 more live births per sow, of which 0.2 is gained from fewer stillborn. There have been 14.9 live born and 1.6 stillborn averaged over the past 7 months.

10. Man-hours are reduced by 20-30 hours per month, partly by washing less and because everything is easier.

Pedersen adds: “Independent researchers have shown Roundup to be both a powerful and non-selective biocide and an endocrine disruptor, leading to birth deformities, abortion, cancer and changes in microflora in the gut of mammals, so that clostridia becomes a problem. This, I think, is the direct reason for chronic Botulism in cattle. I know that the diarrhoea and bloated sow problems… which we had — and which disappeared with the changed diet — were due to clostridia bacteria”. Birth defects were a significant problem with “13 malformed piglets (about one in 700) [were] born over the last nine months on the GM diet, most of them live born”.

The widespread illnesses were burdening the farm with extra costs, including medical costs to deal with rampant stomach problems. Following 12 months of GM-free feed, Mr Pederson now uses half of the national average of antibiotics, compared to above average usage prior to the feed conversion. The savings made by reducing medicinal use by two-thirds was sufficient to cover the extra expense of GM-free feed which has totalled 28,500 DKr. Further, with an extra 1.8 piglet weaned per sow, and 12 less sows dying from stomach problems per year, the farm is making an extra profit of 250,000 DKr a year, translating to roughly an extra £55 per sow.

In response to the public interest generated by Mr Pederson’s story, the Danish National Pig Research Centre has decided to investigate effects of non-GM and GM Soya on pig health, stating that there has been no clear scientific study performed to date. The research aims to map stomach changes in pigs fed GM soya-treated with glyphosate from 30 kg bodyweight to slaughter at 110 kg, compared to GM- and glyphosate-free soya.

Brian John, although welcoming the positive move to address the problem, has rightly questioned some of the study design. Feeding pigs from 30 kg instead of 7 kg onwards may miss an opportunity to observe effects that would take place at a younger age, and there is no information as to what they will be fed prior to the GM diet. Effects on reproduction will not be addressed by this study either, which appears to be one of the major concerns.

Scientific investigations have until now been stifled. Regional and national records in many EU countries and the US where GM feed is widely used are inadequate, as government regulators are abandoning their obligations to monitor harmful effects of livestock feed in order to protect food security and public health. Nonetheless, other farmers are sharing personal experiences; another farmer in Denmark, Mr Christensen, has similarly improved his pigs’ health through switching to GM-free feed last year.

Farmer’s testimonies need to be taken seriously. They are witness statements from experts in field whose findings are corroborated by laboratory and clinical studies exposing the detrimental and even lethal effects of glyphosate-tolerant crop technologies.

1. “Svineproducent høster gevinst af gmo-fri soja”, Effektivt Landbrug , April 13 2012 (in Danish).

3. Sirinathsinghji E and Ho MW. EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity.Science in Society 51, 46-48, 2011

4. Ho MW. Lab study establishes glyphosate link to birth defects. Science in Society 48, 32-33, 2010

5. Sirinathsinghji E. Glyphosate Kills Rat Testes Cells, Science in Societ4 54, to appear.

7. Sirinathsinghji E. Pesticide Illnesses and GM Soybeans. Ban on Aerial Spraying Demanded in Argentina. Science in Society 53, 42-43, 2012

9. Ho MW. GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile.Science in Society 33, 4-6, 2007

10. Sirinathsinghji E. USDA scientist reveals all – glyphosate hazards to crops, soils, animals and consumers. Science in Society 53, 36-39, 2012

11. Ho MW. Emergency! Pathogen new to science found in Roundup Ready GM crops?Science and Society 50, 10-11, 2011

“Corps who use the their influence w Gov’t to manipulate markets are not free-marketeers.”

Who cares? Corporations are supposed to make money, not support free market values. To expect them to do so is just foolish. Monsanto also isn’t any exceptional case when it comes to lobbying the government for special favors. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a major company that doesn’t do that.

What's truly amazing is that none of the anti-Monsanto crowd seems able or willing to articulate exactly what it is that makes Monsanto so reprehensible. Reflexively bashing, indeed.

From what I read it looks like Monsanto:

Makes products that people willingly purchase over and over again, because they find value in doing so.
Provides seeds that allow farmers to grow more food, at lower costs, and in a more sustainable manner.
Makes seeds that grow food that no legitimate scientific evidence can be offered to question the nutritional content or safety of that food.
Makes seeds that have been used for almost 20 years without any proven negative effects.
Makes seeds that grow food that requires less land, less water, less tilling, less fertilizer, less pesticides, less toxic pesticides, less herbicides, less toxic herbicides and less soil erosion, so the ecosystem is less impacted.
Protects its intellectual property so that its massive spending for research and development delivers a return for the millions of people who own their stock.
Wants not to be sued into oblivion by frivolous lawsuits brought by money hungry lawyers, rabid collectivists, scientific illiterates, and competitors in the organic industry and elsewhere.
Believes success should be rewarded.

Bastards. They're Satan personified, I tell ya.

Well, the most legitimate sounding points I’ve heard are just that they lobby the government to get favorable legislation (like every other company and industry) and try to get a chunk of our tax money (also like every other company and industry).

Sure, those may be legitimate concerns, but what makes Monsanto special in that regard that they deserved to be targeted for our ire? Why not an oil company or a pharmaceutical company? And why are all of the “hit piece” style articles focused on the sensational, but unsubstantiated accusations related to food safety and unethical practices, instead of these run of the mill complaints that might actually be legitimate?

After being termed a luddite by you in the past, I did some research on Mosanto. You are correct. They have done some great things in the past and continue to do so. They have and still make some great products. But, like other companies, they have had some issues with one or two of their products. So for the sake of the GMO argument, let’s take Monsanto completely out of the picture.

Now, let say you have a passion of not buying products made in countries other than America. However the label showing that the product was Made in China is not required (The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act). You want to buy only American made items. Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Nike has some, but not all of their products, made in China. You go in to buy some Nikes. And you buy the shoes thinking they were made in the US. You will never know. But by having been made in China, American jobs are lost and child labor may have been used to make this product. Don’t you, as a consumer, have the right to know where a product was made?

Given this example, is it not more important to know what you put in your body more important than what you wear? GMO is an amazing process. So what is the problem with labeling a food that uses ingredients made with this amazing process? The companies should be proud of this process and should say so.

Maybe I don’t want to drink milk made from cows that have been given rBGH. One of the local chains has “rBGH” free on all of their milk cartons. That is what I buy. Am I a bad person for doing this?

What if the maker of Advil thought “You know we don’t need to be put the actual ingredient on the package of Advil. We know more about pain relief than the common folk do.”

Can we not compare the same argument to GMO made food to those examples listed above?

Signed, the “Coolaid drinking luddite” ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.