Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern

Klaus Ammann, University of Bern, Neuchatel, Switzerland

“Genomic Misconception, an old and important mistake in the regulation of GM crops”

Urban Myth

Genetic Engineering is fundamentally different from Natural Mutation

Wrong:Natural Mutation and Transgenesis areidentical on the molecular level

Ammann, K. (20120706)Genomic Misconception: A fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops, a plea for a process agnostic regulation New Biotechnology, in press, pp 32 http://www.ask-force.org/web/NewBiotech/Genomic-Misconception-20120706-names-def.pdf

NAS National Academy of Sciences, Kelman, A., Anderson, W., Falkov, S., Fedoroff, N., & Levin, S. (1987) Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 24http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/NAS-Introduction-Recombinant-DNA-Engineered-Environment-1987.pdf

NAS National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, & National Research Council (2000) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation, Prepublication and IS: ISBN: 0-309-06930-0, def: 0-309-50467-8 pp 290http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9795.html AND prepublication: http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/National-Research-Council-GM-Pest-Protected-prepublication-2000.pdf http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/NAS-Introduction-Recombinant-DNA-Engineered-Environment-1987.pdf AND final copy: http://www.ask-force.org/web/NAS/National-Research-Council-GM-Pest-Protected-def-2000.pdf

“There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of R-DNA techniques or in the transfer of genes between unrelated organisms”, and:

“The risks associated with R-DNA engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction into the environment of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other genetic techniques.” and:

“Assessment of the risks of introducing R-DNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it will be introduced, not on the method by which it was modified.”

Interestingly, naturally occurring molecular evolution,i.e. the spontaneous generation of genetic variants hasbeen seen to follow exactly the same three strategies as those used in genetic engineering. These three strategies are (after W. Arber, Nobel Laureate 1978)

(a) small local changes in the nucleotide sequences,

(b) internal reshuffling of genomic DNA segments, and

(c) acquisition of usually rather small segments of DNAfrom another type of organism by horizontal gene

transfer.Arber, W. (2002) Roots, strategies and prospects of functional genomics. Current Science, 83, 7, pp 826-828 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Comparison-2002.pdf

Arber, W. (2010)Genetic engineering compared to natural genetic variations. New Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 517-521 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Arber-Werner-PAS-Genetic-Engineering-Compared-20101130-publ.pdf

However, there is a principal difference between the procedures of genetic engineering and those serving in nature for biological evolution. While the genetic engineer pre-reflects his alteration and verifies its results, nature places its genetic variations more randomly and largely independent of an identified goal.After ca. 10 years of testing the GM crops are brought to the field by millions in a few years

Arber, W. (2002) Roots, strategies and prospects of functional genomics. Current Science, 83, 7, pp 826-828 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Comparison-2002.pdf

Bau

do,

M.M

., L

yons

, R

., P

ower

s, S

., P

asto

ri, G

.M.,

Edw

ards

, K

.J.,

Hol

dsw

orth

, M

.J.,

& S

hew

ry,

P.R

. (2

006)

Tra

nsge

nesi

s H

as L

ess

Impa

ct o

n th

e T

rans

crip

tom

e of

Whe

at G

rain

Tha

n C

onve

ntio

nal B

reed

ing.

Pla

nt

Bio

tech

nolo

gy J

ourn

al,

4, 4

, pp

36

9-38

0ht

tp:/

/ww

w.b

otan

isch

erga

rten

.ch/

Org

anic

/Bau

do-I

mpa

ct-2

006.

pdf

Sh

ew

ry,

P.R

. &

Jo

ne

s, H

.D.

(20

05

) T

ran

sge

nic

Wh

ea

t: W

he

re D

o W

e S

tan

d a

fte

r th

e F

irst

12

Ye

ars

? A

nn

als

of

Ap

plie

d B

iolo

gy,

14

7,

1,

pp

1

-14

h

ttp

://w

ww

.bo

tan

isch

erg

art

en

.ch

/Org

an

ic/S

he

wry

-Pe

rfo

rma

nce

-20

06

.pd

f

Baudo: comparison in genomic disturbance: GM crops are less disturbed (black dots) than classic breeds

Scatter plot representation of transcriptome comparisons, Baudo et al. 2006transgenic vs. controlendosperm 14 dpa

28 dpa 8 dpg

2 conventionallinesEndosperm14 dpa

28 dpa leaf at 8 dpg

transgenic vs. conventional Endosperm14 dpa

28 dpa leaf at 8 dpg

Institute of Radiation Breeding Ibaraki-ken, JAPAN http://www.irb.affrc.go.jp/

100m radius

89 TBqCo-60

source at the centerShielding dike 8m

high

Gamma Field for radiation

breeding

BetterBetter

spaghettis, whiskyspaghettis, whisky

1800 new plants1800 new plants

Radiation breeding as field experiments

Gamma Field for Radiation Breeding Radiation site for mutation breeding, Co-60 radioactivity source of 89 TBq in the center,

Radius of 100m.

In this radiation field a human being would receive 3 deadly Sievers units of radiation after the exposure times given below

89 TBq represents the 140-fold of all Radioactivity of material stored in the German permanent storage site of Morsleben insgesamt eingelagerten Radioaktivität.

3,5 min60 min

Was muss man sich darunter vorstellen?

Reuters, May 10, 2010

UN's International Atomic Energy Agency since 1963, 2,252 new plant varieties, including Italian durum wheat, have been created using radioactive substances such as cobalt and X-rays.

70% of the crops under cultivation worldwide are radiation mutation varieties

Charles Margulis of Greenpeace USA: "But now they tell us that scientists have been artificially hybridizing plants since the 1960s.That's, like, really uncool."

Activists, supported by Jane Rissler, called for a ban, since those irradiated varieties have never been tested for food safety, which would have wiped out 70% of the food products on shelfs.

Rissler:“Compared to these plants, genetically modified food is about as dangerous as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.”

But excellent repair mechanisms working like zippers are reducing radiation damage considerablyAnd worldwide there has been no correlation established between radiation mutation and negative food safety facts. (Reuters 2001 continued)

Durum Wheat, Triticum durum: all major breedshave gone thoughmassive and inprecise radiation breeding, but withImportant successunnecessary fearmongering

FRANKENSTEIN

European Biosafety and the Cartagena ProtocolThe biosafety protocol is based on the wrong Premises: See Genomic Misconception in this slides: Natural Mutationand transgenesis are the same on the molecular level.

www.strangevehicles.com

In the European Union decision making processes

are too complex, obscure and politically inefficient

System map of the principal issues, challenges and feedback loops in the risk management component of the legislation

EPEC-SANCO (2011)Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

EPEC-SANCO (2011)Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sancohttp://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

http://www.ghkint.com/

The comments from the EPEC-SANCO show the nearly un-surmountable difficulties of European Regulation, due to a disorganized mix of politics and wrong risk conception of GM crops, all this contrary to the food and environmental safety experience worldwide.EPEC-SANCO (2011)Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sancohttp://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

Nonetheless, consultees’ frustration with the risk assessment phase is modest compared to that caused by the risk management stage. The research conducted for this study suggests that it is the lack of decisions, whether positive or negative, that is of particular concern.

The lack of qualified majority is mainly attributed to the polarized views within and among Member States and a significant number of abstentions;

EPEC-SANCO (2011)Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sancohttp://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

This situation gives rise to comments, heard repeated in consultations, that the legislativeframework is not being implemented as intended. Empirically, the risk management aspects of the framework as implemented are not efficient, transparent or, in aggregate, fit for purpose. Consultees agreed that the current situation with GMO authorizations in Europe is not sustainable.

EPEC-SANCO (2011)Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sancohttp://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

Innovation in agbiotech. (a) Location and sector of organizations conducting R&D for the 558 transgenic product quality innovations identified. Private sector consists of corporate and privately held firms. Public sector consists of government research laboratories, universities and nonprofit research institutes. (b) Annual entry, exit and the numbers of innovations active in the R&D pipeline were calculated from observations of the 558 innovations tracked in the primary survey. The number of active innovations stopped growing in 1998, after which those new innovations that entered were more likely to be published and less likely to move toward commercialization. Fig.1 from (Graff et al., 2009b).

Graff, G.D., Zilberman, D., & Bennett, A.B. (2009)The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 8, pp 702-704 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Graff-Contraction-Agbiotech-Innovation-2009.pdf

But the world has seldom seen a greater discrepancy between the inherent hazard of a product and the level of regulatory burdenimposed on it than exists today for crops improved through biotech. It is important, here, to be very clear: there is no basis in science for regulation specific to crops and foods improvedthrough biotech or ‘GMOs’

Giddings, V., Potrykus, I., Ammann K., & Fedoroff, N. (2012)Confronting the Gordian knot, Opinion. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 3, pp 208-209 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Giddings-Confronting-Gordian-Knot-2012.pdf

By any honest reckoning, the level of scrutiny to which crops improved through biotech are subjected is completely unwarranted by the body of knowledge acquired over three decades of experience with such crops, including 15 years in commercial production.

This is true around the world, but nowhere is the chasm between regulatory regime and the implications of facts and experience greater than in Europe. Although Europe is sufficiently wealthy to buy its food, the indirect effects of European regulations and attitudes have had a unconscionably inhibitory effect on the introduction of biotech crops in less developed countries in most need of them, particularly on the African continent.

Giddings, V., Potrykus, I., Ammann K., & Fedoroff, N. (2012)Confronting the Gordian knot, Opinion. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 3, pp 208-209 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Giddings-Confronting-Gordian-Knot-2012.pdf

http://www.europabio.org/sites/default/files/position/120601_gm_approvals_status_may_2012.pdf#overlay-context=agricultural/positions/undue-delays-eu-approval-safe-gm-products

Check for updates at http://www.europabio.org/filter/agricultural/type/position or contact EuropaBio for more info

1. June 2012

Check for updates at http://www.europabio.org/filter/agricultural/type/position or contact EuropaBio for more info

Gómez-Galera, S., Twyman, R.M., Sparrow, P.A.C., Van Droogenbroeck, B., Custers, R., Capell, T., & Christou, P. (2012)Field trials and tribulations—making sense of the regulations for experimental field trials of transgenic crops in Europe. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 10, 5, pp 511-523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2012.00681.x AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/IP/Gomez-Galera-Field-Trials-Tribulatioins-2012.pdf

Gómez-Galera, S., Twyman, R.M., Sparrow, P.A.C., Van Droogenbroeck, B., Custers, R., Capell, T., & Christou, P. (2012)Field trials and tribulations—making sense of the regulations for experimental field trials of transgenic crops in Europe. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 10, 5, pp 511-523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2012.00681.x AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/IP/Gomez-Galera-Field-Trials-Tribulatioins-2012.pdf

Brookes, G., Cetiner, S., & Guzel, A. (2012) Economic impacts of the Biosafety Law and implementing regulations in Turkey on the Turkish importing and user sectors PG Economics pp 55 Dorset, DT1 1PW, UK (Report)http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/31/turkey%E2%80%99s-biosafety-law-causing-significant-economic-harm-to-agri-food-chain AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Turkey/Brookes-Cetiner-Guzel-Economic-Impacts-Biosafety-Law-Turkey-2012.pdf

The Turkish law on GM crops is even more strict than the European one and it alsoAffects heavily research, which is practically excluded from Turkey.

European Safety Attitude: let not the Europeans decide aboutBiosafety in Africa and the Near East, do your own safety assessment

European safety attitude: a problem for many countries in the developing world

Paarlberg, R. (2009)

Starved for Science,

How Biotechnology is kept out of Africa

Harvard University Press; 1 edition (August 5, 2009) Cambridge, USA,

IS: ISBN-10: 0674033477 ISBN-13: 978-0674033474 pp 256

http://www.amazon.com/Starved-Science-Biotechnology-Being-Africa/dp/0674033477/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331185222&sr=1-1#_

Royal-Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, Royal Socienty pp 89 RS Policy document 11/09 London (Report) http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35510 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Benefits/RS-Reaping-the-Benefits-200910.pdf

Urban Myth

Crop varieties have diminished dueto modern biotechnology breeding

Wrong:A new worldwide market study shows the contrary:

Crop varieties have steadily grown innumbers since WW II

van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., & Visser, B. (2010)Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: a meta analysis. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 120, 6, pp 1241-1252 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Biotech-Biodiv/van-de-Wouw-Genetic-Diversity-Trends-2010.pdf

Fig. 4 Wheat genetic diversity (a) and crop genetic diversity (excluding wheat) (b) in the twentieth century based on a weighted meta analysis of 20 publications. The diversity in the decade with the lowest diversity was set to 100

Ammann, K. (20120317)Biodiversity and the debate on GM crops - Can GM crops help to enhance biodiversity? . In ASK-FORCE AF-11, Vol. AF-11, pp. 103. K. Ammann, Neuchâtel http://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20120317-numbered.dochttp://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20120317-web.dochttp://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20120317-web.pdfhttp://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20120317-opensource.dochttp://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-11-Biodiversity/AF-11-Biodiversity-Biotechnology-20120317-opensource.pdf

Source: National Geographic, July 2011

A Century Ago

In 1930 commercial seed houses offered hundreds of

varieties as shown in this sampling of ten crops

80 Years Later By 1983 few of those varieties were found in

the National Seed Storage Laboratory

with completelywrong numbersbased on the old RAFI study

Fowler, C. & Mooney, P., R., (1990) US: Shattering : food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity GB: The threatened gene: Food, politics and the loss of genetic diversity US: The University of Arizona PressGB: Lutterworth Press P.O. Box 60 Cambridge CB12NTPrinted Billing & Sons Ltd, Worcester, US: Tucson GB: Cambridge, IS: ISBN 0 7188 2830 5. , pp xvi, 278 p http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816511810/sr=1-1/qid=1320748094/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1320748094&sr=1-1&seller= AND from the etc Group: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Biotech-Biodiv/Fowler-Mooney-The-threatened-Gene-1990.pdf

Heald, P.J. & Chapman, S. (2011)Veggie Tales: Pernicious Myths About Patents, Innovation, and Crop Diversity in the Twentieth Century. SSRN eLibrary, pp http://www.ask-force.org/web/IP/Heldt-Veggie-Tales-Pernicious-Myths-2011.pdf

Hea

ld,

P.J

. &

Ch

apm

an,

S.

(201

1)V

eggi

e T

ale

s: P

erni

ciou

s M

yths

Abo

ut

Pat

ents

, In

nova

tion,

and

Cro

p D

iver

sity

in

the

Tw

entie

th C

ent

ury

. S

SR

N e

Libr

ary,

pp

ht

tp:/

/ww

w.a

sk-f

orce

.org

/we

b/IP

/Hel

dt-V

egg

ie-T

ales

-Per

nici

ous-

Myt

hs-2

011.

pdf

Urban Myth

Organic Farming and ModernAgriculture including Genetic Engineeringcannot go together

Wrong:Organic farming needs cropsadapted to the special needs of agro-ecologyby modern biotechnological methods

Ammann, K. (2008)Feature: Integrated

farming: Why organic farmers should use transgenic crops, open source citations. New Biotechnology, 25, 2, pp 101 - 107

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/NewBiotech/Ammann-Opinion-Integrated-Farming-20080825-names-links-edited.pdf

Ammann, K. (2009)Feature: Why farming with high tech methods should integrate elements of organic agriculture. accepted, corrected proof, open links. New Biotechnology, 4, pp

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/NewBiotech/Integrated-Farming-Biotech-Org-20090803-openlink.pdf

Why high tech farmers should adopt Organic management

Ronald, P.C. & Adamchak, R.W. (2008) Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food Oxford University Press, USA (April 18, 2008) IS: ISBN-10: 0195301757 ISBN-13: 978-0195301755 pp 232 Book review by J. Gressel 2009 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Gressel-Book-Ronald-2009.pdf

Amish farmers in biotech-debate: subsequent partial adoptionof transgenic crops: 1999, see: http://www.ifpri.org/2020conference/PDF/summary_ammann.pdf

Bauer de Jonghe in Holland, produziert Gemüse im Bio-Standard ohne PestizideFoto Claus Lange, Text Michael Miersch Weltwoche 06 2003

Mukherjee, A., Speh, D., Jones, A.T., Buesing, K.M., & Diez-Gonzalez, F. (2006)Longitudinal microbiological survey of fresh produce grown by farmers in the upper midwest. Journal of Food Protection, 69, 8, pp 1928-1936 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Mukherjee-Longitudinal-MicrobiolSurvey-2006.pdf

Prevalence of E.coli on Semiorganic, organic andConventional farms from Which at least one contaminated sample wascollected in A 2003B 2004

Urban Myth

Agro-Ecology and organic farming result inmore yield compared to biotech crops

Wrong:All comprehensive statistics show thatagroecology in average has 20-30% less yield

Winter Wheat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

CA ID MI OH WI IL NY SD MO IA NE UT ND MT OK CO NM TX WY

Bu

sh

els

/acre

Organic Yield

US Yield

Organic Winter Wheat represented 0.8% of 2008 acres but only 0.5% of total production 100% conversion to Organic would have required 10.4MM additional acres, a 49% increase

Savage, S.D. (2008)A Detailed Analysis of US Organic Crops. (publ. Steve Savage) (Audio-Visual Material)http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Savage-Detailed-Analysis-US-Organic-2008.ppt AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Savage-Detailed-Analysis-US-Organic-2008.pdf see also Applied Mythology http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com

Soybeans

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NE NY IN PA MO KS OH KY SD NC GA MD ND

Bu

sh

els

/ac

re

Organic Yield

US Yield

Organic Soybeans represented 0.13% of 2008 acres in the US, 0.09% of total production, but 0.17% of total soybean payments. Organic soybeans sold at 2 times the price for conventional so with 66% of the yield that represented a net advantage of 1.3 times the gross per acre income. To have produced all the 2008 soybeans Organically would have required 38.2MM additional acres – a 51% increase

Savage, S.D. (2008)A Detailed Analysis of US Organic Crops. (publ. Steve Savage) (Audio-Visual Material)http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Savage-Detailed-Analysis-US-Organic-2008.ppt AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Savage-Detailed-Analysis-US-Organic-2008.pdf see also Applied Mythology http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/greenliving/1078/1077877.large.jpg

Organic Tomatoes:No better quality

There is scientific proof of the following

1. Tomato quality differs heavily on environmental conditionsChassy, A.W., Bui, L., Renaud, E.N.C., Van Horn, M., & Mitchell, A.E. (2006)Three-year comparison of the content of antioxidant microconstituents and several quality characteristics in organic and conventionally managed tomatoes and bell peppers. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 21, pp 8244-8252 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Chassy-AW-Three-Year-Comparison-Tomatoes-2006.pdf

2. The claim that organic tomatoes have higher content of antioxidants is falseMitchell, A.E., Hong, Y.J., Koh, E., Barrett, D.M., Bryant, D.E., Denison, R.F., & Kaffka, S. (2007)Ten-Year Comparison of the Influence of Organic and Conventional Crop Management Practices on the Content of Flavonoids in Tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem., pp http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Mitchell-tenyears-tomato-2007.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Mitchell-2007-Fig-4.ppt AND rebuttal Hudson Institute http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Tomato-Flavonoids-Hudson-2007.pdf

3. The claim that organic food has higher quality has been falsified by several studiesDangour, A.D., Dodhia, S.K., Hayter, A., Allen, E., Lock, K., & Uauy, R. (2009)Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review, including controversy. Am J Clin Nutr, 90, pp ajcn.2009.28041 and 680-685 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Dangour-Nutritional-Quality-Organic-2009.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Benbrook-Methodological-Flaws-Dangour-2009.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Gibbons-Reply-Dangour-2009.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Dangour-Reply-to-Gibbon-Benbrook2009.pdf

Type: GIF

Slavo Mac (20110824)Complexity Theorists Predict Food Crisis, Riots and Civil Unrest By April 2013. In SHTFplan.com http://www.shtfplan.com/forecasting/complexity-theorists-predict-food-crisis-riots-and-civil-unrest-by-april-2013_08242011

http://www.genepeace.ch/index.html

Smyth, S. & McHughen, A. (2008)Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 6, 3, pp 213-225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00309.x AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Smyth-McHughen-Regulating-Innovative-Crop-Technologies-Canada-2008.pdf

Because of this, government evaluators carefully assesspotential impacts before these modified plants can bereleased into the environment. Environmental safetyassessments examine five broad categories of possibleimpacts of a PNT. (Plant Novel Trait)1. The potential of the plant to become a weed or to beinvasive of natural habitats.2. The potential for gene flow to wild relatives.3. The potential for a plant to become a plant pest.4. The potential impact of a plant or its gene products onnon-target species.5. The potential impact on biodiversity (CFIA, 2004b).

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (2004b)Directive 94-08: Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plantswith Novel Traitshttp://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir9408e.shtml [accessed on 4 December 2004].

Smyth, S. & McHughen, A. (2008)Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 6, 3, pp 213-225 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Smyth-McHughen-Regulating-Innovative-Crop-Technologies-Canada-2008.pdf

Novel food notification/submission.Source: Health Canada (2006d).

Health Canada (2006d)Processing a Novel Food Notification/Submission in the Food Directoratehttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/legislation/guide-ld/novel_notification-avis-nouveaux_e.html[accessed on 8 March 2007].

piss off !!

Always saywhat you think!

you can only die once

http

://k

ruem

elm

onst

era

g.bl

ogsp

ot.c

om

/200

9/0

5/m

otiv

atio

n-de

s-ta

ges.

htm

l

Seralini Gilles-Eric, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, & Joel Spiroux de Vendomois (2012)Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize preprint. Food and Chemical Toxicology, ---, ---, pp --- www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemtox AND http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Seralini-Long-Term-Toxicity-RR-2012.pdf AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Seralini-Press-Sustainable-Trust-20120919.pdf

Seralini Gilles-Eric, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, & Joel Spiroux de Vendomois (2012)Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize preprint. Food and Chemical Toxicology, ---, ---, pp --- www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemtox AND http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Seralini-Long-Term-Toxicity-RR-2012.pdf AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Seralini-Press-Sustainable-Trust-20120919.pdf

Wahle, B.S., Sangha, G.K., Lake, S.G., Sheets, L.P., Croutch, C., & Christenson, W.R. (1999)Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity testing in the Sprague–Dawley rat of a prospective insect repellant (KBR 3023) using the dermal route of exposure. Toxicology, 142, 1, pp 41-56

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Wahle-Chronic-Toxicity-Tests-Sprague-Dawley-1999.pdf

See also:

Schardei.Jl, Fitzgera.Je, & Kaump, D.H. (1968)SPONTANEOUS TUMORS IN HOLTZMAN-SOURCE RATS OF VARIOUS AGES. Pathologia Veterinaria, 5, 3, pp 238-& <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1968B942900005 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Schardein-Spontaneous-Tumors-Holtzman-Rats-1968.pdf

Durbin, P.W., Williams, M.H., Jeung, N., & Arnold, J.S. (1966)DEVELOPMENT OF SPONTANEOUS MAMMARY TUMORS OVER LIFE-SPAN OF FEMALE CHARLES RIVER (SPRAGUE-DAWLEY) RAT - INFLUENCE OF OVARIECTOMY THYROIDECTOMY AND ADRENALECTOMY-OVARIECTOMY. Cancer Research, 26, 3P1, pp 400-& http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Durbin-Development-Spontaneous-Mammary-Tumors-1966.pdf

This study has shown that old Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats get cancers and other diseases. This has been shown before (see the slides)What this study does not show is that exposing these rats to GM corn and/or Roundup makes any difference to the frequency of cancers or other diseases. It can’t because no statistical tests have been applied, and perhaps most worryingly, the authors do not comprehensively report on why rats in the control group died.And most unusually: the authors refuse explicitly to present the raw data

– the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or the herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable.

– Séralini et al. argue that the exceedingly long time-frame of their study was necessary to reveal the experimental effects, but animal researchers long ago established that such lengthy studies add no additional meaningful or valid information beyond that which can be collected in shorter times;

– there is no documentation of the rats’ food intake, which strongly affects the incidence of tumors in this strain;

– the experiment included 180 rats (9 groups of 20) fed the genetically engineered or herbicide-containing diets (the “treated rats”), while only 20 rats were fed a standard (control) diet. Both common sense and a rudimentary understanding of statistics tell you that even if there were no actual differences between the groups, the greater numbers of animals in the pooled treated groups increases the odds that one of the treated rats would die first (one of the parameters reported in the paper);

Miller Henry I. & Chassy Bruce M. (20120925)Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study Forbes, OP-ED, pp 4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/ and http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Miller-Scientists-Smell-Rat-Fraudulent-20120925.pdf

– the statistical methods employed were unconventional and appeared to be selected specifically in order to give a certain result. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, called the treatment of data “a statistical fishing trip”; – absence of statistical analysis for mortality or tumor incidence. Statistical analysis is a basic requirement of scientific research, and given that the claims of the study allege tumor and mortality effects, the omission of statistical analysis is inexcusable; – the investigators have refused to release all the data from the experiment, which constitutes scientific misconduct; – insufficient information is provided about the source and quality of corn varieties used in the rats’ diet (contamination with molds could be a critical factor); – absence of data concerning liver or kidney histopathology and liver function tests; – insufficient explanation of the absence of a dose-response relationship between the experimental variables and supposed effects; – inappropriate, unnecessary suffering of the rats, which should have been euthanized long before the tumors became so huge – an especially egregious ethics violation given that the study is, in any case, worthless. – the reported results conflict with innumerable experiments conducted by laboratories around the world on both genetically engineered corn and glyphosate, and also with vast real-world experience. Miller Henry I. & Chassy Bruce M. (20120925)Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study Forbes, OP-ED, pp 4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/ and http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Miller-Scientists-Smell-Rat-Fraudulent-20120925.pdf

A collection of links of rebuttals coming in the first few days

Keogh, B. (2012)Biotech Crops Seal of Safety Does Not Convince Skeptics. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, pp http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/22/jnci.djs196.short AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Keogh-Biotech-Crops-Seal-Safety-2012.pdf

Koerth-Baker Maggie (20120921)Electronic Source: Authors of study linking GM corn with rat tumors manipulated media to prevent criticism of their work published by: http://boingboing.nethttp://boingboing.net/2012/09/21/authors-of-study-linking-gm-co.html AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Koerth-Baker-Authors-Manipulted-Media-20120921.pdf

Morandini Piero (20120920)Letter to the Editor Prof. Hayes of Food and Chemical Toxicology, related to Seralini-Study. Food and Chemical Toxicology, --, --, pp -- http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Morandini-Letter-to-Editor20120920.pdf

Ng Ashley (20120925)Electronic Source: Genetically modified corn and cancer - what does the evidence really say? , The Conversation, Academic Rigour, Journalistic Flairhttps://theconversation.edu.au/genetically-modified-corn-and-cancer-what-does-the-evidence-really-say-9746

Revkin Andrew C. (20120921)Electronic Source: Group Promoting Rat Study of Engineered Corn Forced Coverage Rush, published by: New York Timeshttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/group-promoting-rat-study-of-engineered-corn-forced-coverage-rush/ AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Revkin-Group-Promotion-Coverage-Rush-20120921.pdf

Scientific-Alliance (20120921)Electronic Source: Legitimate fears over GM crops? , published by: The Scientific Alliance · St John's Innovation Centre · Cowley Road · Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB4 0WShttp://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f1e3eeb023e7d88eff0dda8a2&id=2823730491&e=af721f4e26 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Scientific-Alliance-Seralini-Newsletter-20120921.pdf

Kuntz, M. (2011)Electronic Source: Seralini Critique: The latest opus of «parallel science » of Criigen from March 2011 (ed M. Kuntz), Parallel Sciencepublished by: Marcel Kuntzhttp://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/1/39/38/37/Critical_views_on_Seralini_20110710.pdf

Miller Henry I. & Chassy Bruce M. (20120925)Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study Forbes, OP-ED, pp 4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/ and http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Miller-Scientists-Smell-Rat-Fraudulent-20120925.pdf