lbrt: on balance, the benefits of genetically key...

LearningLeaders – All Rights Reserved - 12/11/16 1

LBRT: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. Content:

1. Key Articles 2. Additional Resources


ARTICLE 1 HOW GMO CROPS CAN BE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT November 18, 2014

candidate in just about every competitive race, were foods containing genetically modified organisms. Ballot initiatives that would have mandated the labeling of GMOs on store shelves lost in both in Colorado (overwhelmingly) and Oregon (narrowly). Nobody knows exactly how the passage of those measures would have affected the sales of GMO products over the long run; consumers have shown a tendency to ignore the calorie counts on food labels.

foods containing GMOs less popular and therefore decrease the amount of farmland, in the U.S. and abroad, given over to modified crops. That was the goal of many labeling proponents, and a new study suggests it would have been a bad result.

independent studies have already done so and found that GMOs are perfectly safe to eat. The new research instead looks at the costs and benefits for agriculture and the environment, a question on which there is less consensus. Plenty of research, including this large study from the National Academy of Sciences, has found that GMOs have significantly increased farm yields while decreasing pesticide use and soil erosion. The idea is that because GM crops are engineered to produce insecticides in their tissues or to be immune to particular herbicides, they reduce the man-hours, fuel, and chemical inputs in farming, even while reducing losses to pests and weather. (Anti-GMO groups have looked at the same data and argued that the yield gains are minimal (PDF) and limited to special circumstances.) The new study, in the journal PLOS One, comes down strongly on the pro- -analysis that aggregates and examines the results of 147 existing research studies looking at GM soybeans, maize

, a

found that GM technology increased crop yields by 22 percent, reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. A few details jump out from the study. For one, the benefits were greater in those GM crops that produced their own pesticides rather than those engineered for herbicide resistance the latter trait has been


hugely convenient for farmers, but has also shown a greater rebound effect as weed species evolved resistance to the chosen herbicides. The yield and profit gains were also greater in developing countries than in developed countries. Finally, the studies in the meta-analyses that were published in peer-reviewed journals showed more dramatic effects, both in yield and profit gains, than those published elsewhere. Put another way, the more rigorously vetted a study, the more likely it has been to find benefits for GMOs. BY: Drake Bennett SOURCE: Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-18/how-gmo-crops-can-be-good-for-the-environment

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-18/how-gmo-crops-can-be-good-for-the-environment

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-18/how-gmo-crops-can-be-good-for-the-environment


ARTICLE 2 MILK April 2, 2011 The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections. The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute. They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company. The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health. But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows. He said: "The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.

-

China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe. The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.


Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme, Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life. They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows. The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties. Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to "humanise" cows milk. In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk. The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows. Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: "Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk. "The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk."

-

managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.

growth and development.


the basic source of

nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being." The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders. Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing. The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free. Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods. Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades. However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth. Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood. A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was "extremely concerned" about how the GM cows had been produced. She said: "Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern. "Why do we need this milk what is it giving us that we haven't already got."


Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: "We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes. "There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births. "There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people. "Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way." Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: "Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food? "Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products." BY: Richard Gray SOURCE: The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html


ARTICLE 3 FEEDING GMO CROPS TO LIVESTOCK March 30, 2016 Summary Everyone has seen the acronym GMO, whether in a press article or a

-defined, since most domesticated animals and crops

molecular biology and accurately describes the food and feed that is at the forefront of the global discussion. It is important to remember that GE is a breeding method, not a company, application or production system. It is simply one of the methods that can be used to develop improved crop varieties. Background Genetically engineered crops have been widely adopted since their introduction in 1996, with more than 95 percent of sugar beet, 94 percent of soy and 96 percent of cotton and corn acreage planted with GE varieties in the U.S. in 2014. As these crops are major components of feedstuffs, livestock populations have been the major consumers of GE crops, and multiple generations of food-producing animals have been consuming 70-90 percent of GE crop biomass for almost 20 years. Science has shown that GE crops do not differ from non-GE crops in terms of composition, and no significant differences in health or performance have been detected in animals that consume GE feed. Additionally, no traces of GE material (rDNA or protein) have been detected in meat, milk, or eggs from those animals. Discussion Performance Trends in U.S. Livestock Populations Sensational stories have been reported in the media based on a handful of highly controversial studies that claim to show deleterious health effects in a small number of animals that have consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that these studies have been widely criticized for experimental design, small sample sizes and methodological flaws, they


continue to be used by some groups to suggest that GE crops are harmful to animal health. These claims are contradicted by the hundreds of carefully-conducted animal feeding studies that have been performed by independent scientists throughout the world, a list of which is maintained and made freely accessible online by the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) (http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=52). Numerous recent studies with a variety of food-producing animals fed with the current generation of GE crops consistently show no difference in performance and health in comparison to animals fed non-GE feeds. Most of those datasets are reflective of a controlled experimental environment, but what about out in production agriculture? Keeping in mind the significant increase in GE crop adoption rates between 2000 and 2013, and the fact that a very small proportion of the commercial livestock population (< 5 percent in 2011) was raised for certified National Organic Program (NOP) markets, it can be estimated that more than 100 billion animals in the U.S. consumed some level of GE feed in their diets between 2000 and 2011. If GE feed had detrimental effects on animal health or performance, it would have been reflected as a negative trend in the health of these commercial livestock populations during the past decade. In a 2014 review in the Journal of Animal Science (Van Eenennaam and Young, 2014), an analysis of publicly available data for health and production parameters across commercial poultry, dairy, beef and hogs showed no significant deleterious health or performance trends in any of these industries. Carcass condemnation rates were examined as an important production parameter in beef cattle over this time period. The data show that a total of 0.47 percent of carcasses inspected at USDA-inspected slaughter facilities from 2003 through 2007 were condemned. Cattle fed or finished in feedyards, and therefore typically fed diets rich in corn and soy (the vast majority of which are of GE varieties) before slaughter, made up the majority (82 percent) of cattle at harvest but were the minority (12 percent) of cattle condemned. The condemnation rate for non-fed cattle (typically old cows) was higher than that for fed cattle, but the 2007 rate of 2.49 percent was similar to the reported rate in 1994, before the introduction of GE crops, of 2.6 percent. These field data, representing billions of observations, did not show any unfavorable trends across any of these animal production industries after the introduction, and during the widespread adoption, of GE feed. In fact, available health indicators actually improved over time and productivity continued to improve, due likely to improved management


and genetic selection, and at similar rates as observed in 1996 before the introduction of GE crop varieties. GE Animal Feed in Global Trading Markets In a brief released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) in January 2015, it was reported that in 2014 a record 448 million acres of biotech crops were grown globally. This is an increase of 15 million acres since 2013. The U.S. remains the leader in biotech crop production, with 181 million acres, up 7 million acres since 2013, followed by Brazil (104 million acres) and Argentina (60 million acres). Herbicide-tolerant soybean and maize events continue to have the most approvals worldwide. Soybeans and corn, the two major components in commercial animal feed, make up two-thirds of the global grain trade. The U.S., Brazil and Argentina, the three countries with the highest levels of biotech crop production, are also the main countries that grow and export these crops. Estimates report that 4 percent of global soybean trade and 7 percent of global corn trade are required to be certified non-GE. For countries that rely on imported feed, sourcing non-GE products is becoming complicated due to the high GE adoption rate in the major feed exporting countries. Some countries that have previously committed to sourcing only non-GE feed for certain sectors have recently abandoned those plans. Further complicating matters, worldwide grain commerce has experienced trade disruptions due to asynchronous approvals. The amount of time needed to review and approve new GE crops varies considerably across different countries; leading to a situation in which GE crops may be cultivated and marketed in some countries but remain under evaluation in others. Significant trade disruptions have already

unapproved events, meaning that even minute traces of unapproved GE crops are illegal and must be withdrawn from the market. In the future, it is likely that trade between countries with asynchronous approvals will be increasingly problematic as countries with zero tolerance policies will be perceived as risky due to the high costs associated with finding even minute traces of unapproved GE material. Non-GE feed for animals in the U.S. is more expensive and the supply is increasingly come from other countries such as China and India. Genetically Engineered DNA in Animal Products and the Labeling Issue


It has been well-established that it is not possible to detect differences in the nutritional profiles of milk, meat and eggs from animals fed GE feed versus animals that have consumed non-GE feed. No reliable traces of GE DNA or protein have been detected in products from GE-fed animals. Livestock and humans regularly digest DNA and protein without any adverse consequences, and DNA from GE crops is chemically the same as DNA from non-GE crops and broken down no differently during the process of digestion. A freely available publication from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST, 2006) provides details on the safety of products from animals fed GE crops. Currently, only a small number of livestock producers feed non-GE diets to their animals, meaning that well over 95 percent of the milk, meat and eggs on the US market today come from animals that have consumed GE feed. Since there are no detectable traces of GE material, labeling of such products would rely on documenting the absence of GE crops all the way through the production chain, a costly and time-consuming proposition for producers and importers. There would be no way to test finished products to guarantee the complete absence of products from GE-fed animals. A 2014 study from Cornell University estimated that the costs to implement labeling based on maintaining product identity, as well as the costs of labeling itself, for a family of four for a year are $348-401 in California, $360-490 in Washington state and $500 in New York. Consumer surveys taken in Europe show that labeled products are likely to be dropped, actually resulting in fewer options on supermarket shelves. In the United States, voluntary, process-based labels, such as Organic and the Non-GMO Project verify that GE crops were not used in the production process and are available for those consumers that choose to purchase such products. Conclusion Overall, there have been substantial benefits from the adoption of GE crops in the US and worldwide. These include economic and environmental benefits such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields. The overwhelming consensus of data shows that GE feed is safe for animal consumption and does not result in animal products that are compositionally different from those produced by animals that were fed feed derived from conventional crop varieties. Field data sets representing billions of observations are in agreement with the many controlled animal feeding studies that have reported no detrimental health effects in animals fed GE feed and revealed no deleterious trends


in U.S. livestock health and productivity data since the introduction of GE crops. BY: Alison L. Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., and Amy E. Young, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis SOURCE: Beef Issues Quarterly - Cattlemen's Beef Board and National Cattlemen's Beef Association. http://www.beefissuesquarterly.com/beefissuesquarterly.aspx?id=5672

http://www.beefissuesquarterly.com/beefissuesquarterly.aspx?id=5672


ARTICLE 4 GMOs WITH HEALTH BENEFITS HAVE A LARGE MARKET POTENTIAL January 13, 2015 Genetically modified crops with an increased vitamin and/or mineral content have large potential to improve public health, but their availability for consumers is still hampered, as a result of the negative public opinion. Research from Ghent University, recently published in Nature Biotechnology, has demonstrated that these crops have a promising market potential. Over the last years, various GM crops with health benefits have been developed in which genes, mostly originating from other organisms, have been added. Notable examples include rice enriched with pro-vitamin A (also known as 'Golden Rice') and folate-enriched rice, developed at Ghent University. Fifteen years after the development of 'Golden Rice', which was the first GMO with health benefits, the developers of such transgenic biofortified crops have little reason to celebrate. To date, none of these GMOs are approved for cultivation, unlike GMOs with agronomic traits. Despite this, six major staple crops have been successfully biofortified with one or more vitamins or minerals. Clearly, these GMOs with health benefits have great potential. In a recent study, from Ghent University, not only the impact of GM crops on human health, but also their market potential was convincingly demonstrated. Market potential Research at UGent reveals that consumers are willing to pay more for GMOs with health benefits, with premiums ranging from 20% to 70%. This differs from GMOs with farmer benefits, which are only accepted by consumers when they are offered at a discount. Especially in regions, such as China and Brazil -- which are considered as key target markets for these nutritionally improved crops -- , where a large part of the population suffers from nutrient deficiencies, the potential market share of these GMOs is high. Improving public health Several studies show that these GMOs have positive impacts on human health. As expected, the enhancement of multiple micronutrients in the


same crop by genetic modification, yields the best results. This method generates aggregated health benefits at a relatively low cost. Valuable alternative to tackle malnutrition Although GMOs with health benefits are not a panacea for eliminating malnutrition, they offer a complementary and cost-effective alternative when other strategies are less successful or feasible. BY: Ghent University SOURCE: Science Daily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150113090428.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150113090428.htm


ARTICLE 5

July 15, 2015 A new study commissioned by the Norwegian government, and conducted by a nationally recognised scientific authority on the safety of biotechnologies, concludes that available scientific data on GM crops is inadequate to prove their safety. The scientific report was commissioned by the Norwegian Environment Agency and completed last year, before being publicly released in June by the Genok Centre for Biosafety, located in the Arctic University of Norway. The Genok Centre is a nationally-designated centre of competence on biosafety issues. The new study analyses a dossier by giant agribusiness conglomerate, Monsanto, submitted to the Brazilian government, and conducts a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature from other sources. Its focus is on Monsanto's GM soybean Intacta Roundup Ready 2 Pro, which is grown in Brazil, and also authorised in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, and probably also present in Bolivia due to illegal introductions from neighbouring countries. Major gaps in the scientific literature The report, titled 'Sustainability Assessment of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops' concludes that due to major gaps in the scientific literature, it is not possible to give a scientific verdict on their safety. Monsanto's dossier, the report concludes, demonstrates a range of methodological weaknesses, and highlights the problem of incomplete information and research on GM crops in the available literature. According to Monsanto, genetically modified organisms do not harm human or animal health, and therefore do not have any adverse effects on crops and the environment. But according to the new Norwegian study: "Contrary to this assertion, the literature provides indications of harmful and adverse effects to the environment and to health (both animal and


human), as well as to socio-economic conditions, particularly over the medium- and long-term." The new study is authored by Georgina Catacora-Vargas, a researcher at the Agroecology Centre (AGRUCO) at the Faculty of Agricultural, Livestock and Forestry Sciences, University Mayor de San Simon, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Catacora-Vargas was until recently technical biosafety advisor at Bolivia's Vice-Ministry of Environment, Water and Forestry Management. "Statements of the safety of GM crops rely principally on the absence of evidence of harm in specific research tests, rather than actual evidence of safety", said Catacora-Vargas. "Absence of evidence of harm is a too low standard for adequate protection of human and environmental health ... "Moreover, today, a large portion of the research on GM crops is based on short-term studies that have inherent methodological weakness for detecting subtle yet significant effects that materialise in the long-term.

- -sufficient analytical rigour to derive any meaningful conclusions." According to her report, the large number of studies indicating positive impacts of GM crops are questionable because of such "methodological limitations", which largely ignore "possible long-term effects" and used a "reduced and repetitive set of indicators." Most of this research does not compare GM crops with other production systems, such as IPM (integrated pest management), organic, and agroecological; focuses exclusively on 'single-trait' GM plants rather than, more realistically, "the combinatorial and additive effects of multiple-trait GM crops"; and is based on experiments which do not adequately consider "real field conditions." "These limitations", the Norwegian report concludes, "partially explain the kinds of findings reported by the applicant [Monsanto]: all of them showing no possible adverse effects in contrast to a significant body of literature." Monsanto: GM crops 'in some cases safer' Mark Buckingham, a spokesman for Monsanto, dismissed the report's findings: "We are confident that GM crops can be and are being properly assessed for safety and that GM crops being used by farmers


are just as safe and in some cases safer than conventional crops and foods." According to a compendium of EU-funded research published by the European Commission in 2010, "there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms." Buckingham added that GM crops are "designed to be safe" by scientists and plant breeders, and that national and international regulators whose job is "to check that a crop is safe and to protect consumers" have certified GM: "Since GM crops were first grown on a large scale 19 years ago in the mid 1990's, billions of meals including ingredients from these crops have been safety consumed by people around the world. No health effects

- rack record of safety." The author of the new study, however, disagreed. At the request of the Norwegian Environment Agency, the report focused on analysing the herbicide tolerant trait of Monsanto's 'Intacta' crop. "The literature contains a number of recent scientific studies which do indicate potential adverse effects", said Catacora-Vargas, noting that Monsanto's comment solely concerned Intacta's insect resistance. By selectively focusing on studies of only certain impacts of the crop, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies are misleading the public. She added that the EU's 2010 compendium, which is also cited in the new Norwegian study, "is one of the very few with specific research on

- -that Intacta is safe to the environment and human health. "If integral analysis of GM crops' sustainability is incomplete, it is just because the knowledge available on GMO safety and sustainability is also incomplete. There are more unknowns than evidence on the safety of GM crops." Monsanto's flagship product condemned by WHO The release of the new Norwegian report coincided with a spate of bad news for the biotechnology food industry. An expensive two-year research trial to test GM wheat's ability to repel aphids (also known as


plant lice), conducted by Rothamsted Research, failed spectacularly to produce the desired results. Most GM crops contain the Roundup Ready trait patented by Monsanto. But in March, an assessment by the World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer arm published in The Lancet, found that Roundup is "probably carcinogenic to humans." The study evaluated evidence of human exposures to Roundup since 2001, largely for agricultural workers in the US, Canada and Sweden. Alarmingly, it found "limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma", along with "convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals." According to Dr. Helen Wallace of the campaigning group, Genewatch UK, Monsanto's GM crops "are now failing in the field due to the growth of superweeds resistant to the weedkiller RoundUp which is blanket sprayed on these GM plants." Despite the "high failure rate of experimental GM crops", Genewatch UK notes ongoing efforts at "collaboration between government-funded scientists, ministers and industry on a PR strategy to try to rehabilitate GM crops in Britain and weaken regulations." Large quantities of industry and public money therefore incentivises academic scientists to produce research on GM crops that favours the industry, and underplays contrary evidence. The harder we look, the worse it gets The author of the new Norwegian study, Catacora-Vargas, said that given the current level of knowledge, "it is premature to assert that GM crops are safe. Currently, the more research we do on GMOs the more questions and uncertainties arise." She added that non-GM based forms of agriculture such as low input agriculture, agroecological approaches and even peasant and family farming are receiving insufficient attention from governments. These non-GM production systems "have shown their capacity to produce adequate volumes of healthy and safe food and feed, besides being less energy and resource demanding. We still have a long way to go in designing scientific research that will provide the evidence needed to make justifiable claims of safety of GM crops, and their benefits in comparison to other production systems."


These findings will add to growing public concerns over the addition of GM crops into the food-chain, and the role of the industry in suppressing scientific research that contradicts its claims. BY: Dr Nafeez Ahmed SOURCE: The Ecologist http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2948747/gmo_study_finds_indications_of_harmful_and_adverse_effects.html

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2948747/gmo_study_finds_indications_of_harmful_and_adverse_effects.html

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2948747/gmo_study_finds_indications_of_harmful_and_adverse_effects.html


ARTICLE 6 GMO HEALTH RISKS: WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SAYS March 30, 2013 Many Americans are concerned about the spread of genetically modified organisms throughout agriculture -- and the perception that some members of the U.S. Congress are in the pocket of the Monsanto

But just what are GM crops, and what evidence do we have to suggest that they are dangerous to human health?

saccharine. By the middle of the 20th century, Monsanto had expanded into the manufacture of many other chemical products, including plastics, herbicides and insecticides, including DDT, now largely banned from agricultural use worldwide. From 1965 to 1969, Monsanto produced Agent Orange for U.S. military use in the Vietnam War -- as did several other companies, including the Dow Chemical Co. (NYSE:DOW) -- and has since been subject to numerous lawsuits related to the herbicide's contamination with a toxic dioxin compound.

Roundup, a weed killer made from the chemical glyphosate. Roundup kills plants by mucking with their ability to synthesize certain essential amino acids. It accomplishes this by inhibiting an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, or EPSPS. In 1996 -- expired in 2000 -- the company began introducing genetically modified

farmers to use the herbicide without fear of harming their plants. Roundup Ready crops contain a version of EPSPS that is unaffected by glyphosate, as noted in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2006. This pesticide-resistant enzyme was taken from a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory. Genetic traits used to be literally shot into plants with a gun, using little metal bits coated with DNA. Nowadays, Monsanto employs a slightly different process, using a bacterium called Agrobacterium tumefaciens to infect plant cells with pieces of DNA containing the desired traits, as


pointed out by Colorado State University's Department of Soil and Crop Sciences. Monsanto also makes corn, potatoes, cotton and soybeans that can synthesize their own insecticide called Bt toxin, a trait grabbed from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Other GM crops are being developed to resist drought via the introduction of genes from other plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, aka thale cress; moss; and yeast. Genetic modification is the cornerstone of agriculture -- through generations of breeding, humans took one species, the wild cabbage Brassica oleracea, and turned it into a host of different foods, including broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and kale. Now, biotechnology has accelerated the process and allowed breeders more precision in designing their crops. There is much disagreement about the cost of these advances.

Pamela Ronald, a Univeristy of California at Davis professor, wrote for Scientific American in 2011. But the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned of

of GM foods. And much of the public is convinced that genetic modification is a health danger -- hence the fierce push to label GMO food and broad restrictions on GM crops in Europe. Some of the health concerns of food-safety advocates are warranted. There is plenty of scientific evidence to recommend caution with respect to certain kinds of genetic modification, especially if there are genes involved that confer antibiotic resistance. But some of the studies that portray the most dramatic health effects of GM crops have been called out by other scientists as deeply flawed. One of the first major concerns that arose with the birth of GMOs was the possibility that grafting genetic traits from different plants onto other crops could be dangerous to people with food allergies. If you

would you also have to keep away from GM crops that contain nut genes? And how would you know which GM crops to stay away from? In 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine published a paper that identified a possible allergic reaction to GM soybeans. A team led by University of Nebraska scientists found that a Brazil nut protein


introduced to improve the nutritional quality of GM soybeans was able to provoke an allergic reaction in people with Brazil nut allergies. However, this problem can likely be nipped in the bud with proper safety testing. U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher Eliot M. Herman noted in the Journal of Experimental Botany in 2003 that the GM soybean injec

Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require biotechnology companies to do premarket safety testing, including allergen testing (although the agency does recommend it). Calls for making premarket safety testing mandatory have come from numerous groups, including the American Medical Association, as reported by the Chicago Tribune. The prospect of hidden allergens could also be an arrow in the quiver of those who are pushing for labeling GMOs in the U.S. Another health concern related to GMOs rests on the possibility that genes might be transferred elsewhere. The nightmare scenario would be an antibiotic-resistance gene getting inadvertently passed to

been done indicates that the rate of horizontal gene transfer from plants to animals and bacteria is probably very low. But, admittedly, there's a real gap in our understanding of how genes may or may not be transferred from GM crops -- or other crops, for that matter -- into the cells of the gut and the bacteria that live in the digestive tract. Authors of a 2012 report on animal-feeding studies in the journal Critical

amount of DNA from the diet can survive digestion, we have yet to see evidence that such dietary DNA can be integrated into the genome of an animal or even into the genome of a bacterium residing in the gut.

mechanistic aspects of [horizontal gene transfer] calls for methodological improvements and further studies to understand the fate of various types of dieresearchers at the University of Milan wrote. The one major study of GMO feeding in humans that looked at horizontal gene transfer was published in 2004 in the journal Nature Biotechnology. Researchers looked to see if the Roundup Ready transgene -- the one that codes for the herbicide-resistant enzyme -- showed up in waste collected from seven volunteers who had had their


large intestines removed for medical reasons. While a small amount of the transgene was found in bowel microbes in three of the seven subjects, the gene-transfer rate did not increase after they ate the transgenic soy, leading the researchers to conclude that whatever gene transfer occurred did not happen during the experimental period. In subjects with fully intact intestinal tracts, the transgene did not survive passage. The results indicate that while horizontal gene transfer after eating GM crops might be feasible at low rates in certain medically compromised people, it would probably be quite rare in most consumers. A 2008 paper in the journal Environmental Biosafety Research by an Australian researcher who reviewed the risks of GMOs associated with horizontal gene transfer concluded the potential danger was

clear more research is needed about the ability of genes to move from GM crops into the animals or humans who eats them. Meanwhile, some individual studies have conclusively found GMOs to be harmful. But many of these have been harshly criticized for loading the dice. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a researcher at the University of Caen in France, took a second look at Monsanto data on experiments feeding GM corn to rats in three papers, and claimed the numbers actually showed the animals fed GMOs suffered organ dorgan weights. But several European Food Safety Authority reviews

within an acceptable range, and that his team's conclusions were not supported by the evidence. A 2012 paper by Seralini and other researchers purportedly found that a GM corn diet led to cancer in rats. But the study was released under extremely odd circumstances -- Seralini made reporters sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from asking other scientists to give their opinions on his research before an embargo lifted. And once other scientists got a look at the paper, the reaction was almost universally condemnatory, as exemplified by the European Food Safety Authority. One main objection stemmed from the fact that the rats used in the study belong to a strain called Sprague-Dawley, which is extremely prone to tumors later in life. While Monsanto did use Sprague-Dawley


rats in its own experiments with GM corn, such trials lasted for 90 days,

Many critics also said the number of rats used for such a long experiment -- 10 rats for each experimental condition -- was far too small, as Discover noted. In addition, there were curious gaps in the

developing tumors. A 2011 paper by Canadian researchers supposedly found Cry1Ab, an insecticidal protein made in certain GM crops, in the blood of women and in the cord blood of fetuses. But the study, examining just 30 pregnant women (and their fetuses) and 39 non-pregnant women, also came under attack for its methods and conclusions by critics such as Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The method the researchers used to detect Cry1Ab in the blood has been called into question, and the authors provided no dietary evidence on any of the study subjects.

w a link between anything found in the blood and GM crops.

-food debate, generalizations and extremism lead to sterile public and political discourse that obscures key issues: what sorts of GM crops might bring true benefits to agriculture and consumers; how to avoid monopolization of farming choices; and what

BY: Roxanne Palmer SOURCE: International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-health-risks-what-scientific-evidence-says-1161099


ARTICLE 7 EPA WATCHDOG TO INVESTIGATE MONSANTO GMOs AND SUPERWEEDS MARCH 28, 2016 Genetically modified corn and soybeans were supposed to reduce

creating herbicide-resistant "superweeds" and increasing the use of

Protection Agency's internal watchdog wants to know how this chemical war on weeds is affecting human health and the environment.

an investigation into the spread of superweeds, and how farm workers are affected by the toxic chemicals used to combat them. Weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup. These superweeds were spawned by overuse of the chemical on fields planted with herbicide-resistant crops, mostly GMO corn and soybeans from Monsanto. To combat superweeds, farmers have been spraying more and more of the chemical and are looking to new, more powerful chemicals and chemical mixtures. The investigation will look into the human health impacts of chemicals used to fight superweeds. Last year, glyphosate was determined to be a

In recent years glyphosate use has exploded. A study released in February found that glyphosate use by U.S. farmers rose from 12.5 million pounds in 1995 to 250 million pounds in 2014 a 20-fold increase. To fight the superweeds created by overuse of one herbicide, chemical companies' solution is to use even more herbicides, combining mixtures of a number of different chemicals. Dow has introduced Enlist Duo a combination of glyphosate and an old herbicide called 2,4-D. The EPA recently retracted its approval for the use of Enlist Duo after the manufacturer, Dow Agropotentially more toxic than disclosed.

good for the environment or the health of farm workers. The Inspector General's investigation is likely to add more proof.


BY: Emily Cassidy SOURCE: Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/epa-watchdog-investigate-monsanto-gmos-and-superweeds

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/epa-watchdog-investigate-monsanto-gmos-and-superweeds

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/epa-watchdog-investigate-monsanto-gmos-and-superweeds


ARTICLE 8 CANCER ROW OVER GM FOODS AS STUDY SAYS IT

EARLY DEATH IN HUMANS September 20, 2012 Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumours and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today. Scientists said the results raised serious questions about the safety of GM foods and the assurances offered by biotech companies and governments. The first lifetime trials involving rats fed on GM corn found a raised incidence of breast tumours, liver and kidney damage. Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at

tumours developing earlier and more aggressively particularly in

The research was carried out by Caen University in France, and has been peer reviewed by independent scientists to guarantee the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid. It is the first to look at the impact of eating a GM diet over a lifetime in rats, which is two years. To date, safety assessments of GM crops have been based on rat feeding trials lasting 90 days. The corn was genetically modified to withstand spraying with glyphosate, the main chemical in the weedkiller Roundup, developed by Monsanto. The idea is that the corn can be sprayed without being damaged, while weeds are destroyed. The tests looked at the impact of several scenarios including eating the GM corn (NK603), eating the GM corn sprayed with Roundup, and consuming Roundup at low doses in water. The results were compared against those for a control group fed a

The researchers found:


Between 50 to 80 per cent of female rats developed large tumours by the beginning of the 24th month, with up to three tumours per animal. Only 30 per cent of the control rats developed tumours

Up to 70 per cent of females died prematurely compared with only 20 per cent in the control group

Tumours in rats of both sexes fed the GM corn were two to three times larger than in the control group

The large tumours appeared in females after seven months, compared to 14 months in the control group. The team said the

making it difficult for the rats to breathe and causing digestive problems.

Significantly, the majority of tumours were detectable only after 18 months meaning they could be discovered only in long-term feeding trials The study led by molecular biologist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a critic of GM technology, and published yesterday in US journal Food and Chemical Toxicology said the GM corn and Roundup weedkiller

physiological pathwa

highlighted problems with the lack of rigorous safety assessments for GM crops and food. Although GM corn is widely used in the US, British consumers have turned their backs on the technology because of concerns about its impact on human health and the environment. Although it is not available in British supermarkets, it is fed to farm animals including chickens, pigs and dairy cows. Mustafa Djamgoz, professor of Cancer Biology at Imperial College, London, said the findings relating to eating GM corn were a surprise.

There is evidence what we eat affects our genetic make-up and turns genes on and off.


Dr Julian Little, of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which speaks

takes all health concerns regarding biotech food and feed very

Anthony Trewavas, professor of cell biology at Edinburgh University, questioned the way the research had been conducted, saying the number of rats involved in the study 200 was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

ank, it looks like random variation to me in a rodent line likely

He also claimed Professor Seralini was an anti-GM campaigner and that

scrutiny. BY: Sean Poulter SOURCE: The Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html




ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

1. Genetically modified food, explained http://www.vox.com/cards/genetically-modified-foods/what-is-genetically-modified-food

2. Study of 100 Billion Animals Finds GMOs Safe http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-study-100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock/

3. Could GMOs Save Endangered Plants and Animals? http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2015/08/could-gmos-save-endangered-plants-and-animals

4. Are genetically modified foods safe for human consumption? Yes, but ...

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/1695755/are-genetically-modified-foods-safe-human-consumption-yes

5. A DARK Act looms: Evidence mounts about the GMO-breast cancer connection

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/DARK-Act-gmo-breast-cancer-1534.html

6. The Economic Argument Against GMOs: a Top Ten List http://inspiredeconomist.com/2013/02/26/economic-argument-against-gmos/

http://www.vox.com/cards/genetically-modified-foods/what-is-genetically-modified-food

http://www.vox.com/cards/genetically-modified-foods/what-is-genetically-modified-food

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-study-100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock/

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-study-100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock/

http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2015/08/could-gmos-save-endangered-plants-and-animals

http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2015/08/could-gmos-save-endangered-plants-and-animals





http://inspiredeconomist.com/2013/02/26/economic-argument-against-gmos/

http://inspiredeconomist.com/2013/02/26/economic-argument-against-gmos/

lbrt: on balance, the benefits of genetically key...

Documents