Orangutan Cont.

This is one of the best adverts I have seen - Enjoy
Posted by Keith Evans on Monday, November 2, 2015

Updates / Related

Call of the Orangutan: Research in the Midst of an Environmental Disaster / Scientific American / November 19, 2015

GM Crops

"Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection." 

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin [1]

I'm not sure this is what Darwin had in mind.

LIFE, the ultimate experiment. No one asks to be born. No parent knows in advance that they are equipped with the skills necessary to be a good parent: that they will have the time and patience required; that they will have the ability to always make the right choices for their kids. Nor do they know for certain if they will be able to provide the basic necessities of life: shelter, food, education and medical care. 

And that is why, to some extent, and in some geographies, we place a certain degree of faith in our governments to have support systems in place to assist us when, for reasons unforeseen we are unable to provide the necessities of life for ourselves and our families. 

We trust that education and healthcare will be available and accessible, and we trust that certain regulations will be in effect to ensure that the food and medicines we consume are safe. And that is where the subject of GM foods comes in.

Some people may refuse to take a medication or to have their children vaccinated. Some people may choose to educate their children at home. But when it comes to the food we eat, the feasibility of available alternatives becomes far more limited; be it on account of climate, geography &/or economy. So we rely upon the government regulators to ensure that if it is on the grocery store shelves, then it is safe. 

Despite Walkerton and Maple Leaf  and examples far too numerous to cite, the silent majority of people, continue to trust (either genuinely or complacently) that our governments would not allow corporations to proceed with practices, which, were they to get them seriously wrong, would have immediate and far reaching consequences. 

And perhaps that trust is not entirely misplaced.

Wt Salmon says: "Don't go messin' with my DNA!"

Consider the cautious governmental response to AquAdvantage, the GM Atlantic salmon which has been awaiting regulatory approval for near twenty years. 

Is the caution merely on account of anticipated consumer apprehension? The knowledge that once this leap from crop to fish is taken, it will become far more difficult to continue to drag their feet on the issue of labeling of GM products? Or, is it because the regulators are doing their utmost to prevent a product from entering the market until such time as they are assured its introduction will not adversely effect consumer health, aquatic ecosystems and the environment?

In reading through study after blog after editorial after study in an earnest attempt to present a balanced picture of the research and information available on this subject, I found my opinion volleying from one side to the other with equal vigor. And in the end I was left better informed, perhaps, but no more conclusive on the subject than when I started. (Though when clicking on some of the citation links to the actual scientific studies, I did in several instances notice how easily a “may” or a “could” became a “will” or a “does” in order to strengthen the author’s point of view—tread carefully.)

Understandably it conjures troubling images, this idea of inserting genetic material from one organism into another for the purpose of conferring favorable traits to a product that will ultimately (in one form or another) be consumed by additional organisms all the way up the food chain. 

So, will GMOs prove to be the 21st century's Horn of Amalthea or its Dr. Frankenstein’s monster? Will we continue to coast along as we have been, only allowing modifications to be done to a select group of crops? Or is it just a matter of time before a selection of jacked, reproductively insatiable, fast-growing fish and livestock are added to the menu? And what, if anything, might the trickle-down effects be when GM livestock are fed on GM feed and administered GM medicines? Or when a rebellious GM fish decides to hitch a ride from the farm to the ocean.

In theory I have no problem whatsoever with recombinant technology and its practical applications. It is a technology I have used myself many times, albeit back when it was far less automated. It is an invaluable scientific tool. But it is a huge leap to shuttle this technology from the lab bench, to the crop fields, to the grocery store shelf. And one which, to my mind, is seriously lacking in the types of regulations, oversight and independent research*, I would have thought a prerequisite to the marketing of such an essential product as food. 

*(Remember, it wasn't that long ago that scientists were engaged in heated public debates over the 'alleged' dangers of nuclear fallout; this is in no way intended to equate GM crops to fallout, just to illustrate the importance of independent research. That, and a shout-out to one of my favorite scientists, L. Pauling!)

And now, back to another one of my favorite scientists, C. Darwin:

"... which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection."

If tomorrow it was announced that a biotech company had discovered a way to make the human gestation period 20 weeks instead of ~40, would you be interested? There would be many obvious advantages to a shorter gestation period, but the question is: if nature, our nature, the nature of our physiological development has evolved over millions of years in such a manner so as to make ~40 weeks the required gestational time frame, should we really be interfering with it to such a drastic degree as to shave off 20 whole weeks? 

And therein lies my foremost concern over the application of this technology to GM foods; namely, the unrestrained swiftness with which the genetic changes are being introduced into the food chain. 

Sometimes pressing the fast-forward button serves to get us to the good parts faster; and other times, when we aren't paying close enough attention, it just brings us more quickly to the ending. 

From Teosinte to Maize

HAVING its origins in the domestication of wild plants, the practice of selective breeding has been around for millennia. Yes, our ancestors were domesticating wild plants, long before Mendel had penned his Laws of Inheritance; and long before Darwin and Wallace had embarked on their (and our) life-changing journeys. 

Indeed, there is not much we consume these days that is truly ‘wild’; that hasn’t had its ancestral DNA manipulated to suit our aesthetic and nutritional wants and needs. [2][3] 

Think, seedless watermelons and the Honeycrisp apple. Thousands of years of selective breeding transformed teosinte from a single kernel row of wild grass into modern maize. [74] 

Perhaps the most controversial difference between selective breeding and genetic modification is that genetic modification often involves a transfer of genetic material between species that would not occur biologically in nature. [4][74] 

This genetic modification can involve the introduction of new genes; gene silencing to reduce the expression of enzymes; as well as RNA interference to inhibit gene expression. [75]  

Consider an example:

“The tomato plant's beetle resistance relies on a gene from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which scientists inserted into the tomato plant's genome. This gene, called cry1Ac, encodes a protein that is poisonous to certain types of insects, including the beetle.” [5] 

Two more Examples of Commercially Approved GMO Products [7] 

Genetically Conferred Trait	Crop plant	Genetic Change
Herbicide Tolerance	Soybean	Glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) tolerance conferred by expression of a glyphosate-tolerant form the enzyme isolated from Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
Insect Resistance	Corn	Resistance to harmful insects through the introduction of the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis.

Solanum chacoense (a species of wild potato) being 

transformed using agrobacterium

How Does Genetic Modification Work?


Genetic engineering techniques include:[6][70]

• Electro-poration 
• Micro-injection
• Agrobacterium (top right)
• CRISPR
• TALEN 
• Gene guns (bottom right)

Another way in which genetic modification differs from selective breeding (in terms of crops) is through the continued threat of terminator seeds and a general sense of Monsantonopoly.

Perhaps you have heard some version of the story:

Monsanto’s seeds are carried in the wind onto the land of area farmers; Monsanto then strong arms the farmers into paying up through licensing agreements.

Excerpted, sliced and diced from, Patents and GMOs: Should biotech companies turn innovations over to public cost-free?:

When Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser (subject of the documentary: David versus Monsanto) discovered that his field had been contaminated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola seeds, he did not (as others had done) contact Monsanto to have the plants removed. Rather, he used the [Roundup tolerant] seeds from areas where he had sprayed with Roundup to replant the following year’s crops. 

Schmeiser’s legal team for the federal court case argued that by releasing the gene into the environment in an uncontrolled manner, Monsanto had lost or waived their rights to an exclusive patent. The judge ruled in favor of Monsanto. 

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the ruling.

“However, its decision was not unanimous. Canadian law excludes patents on higher life forms, and several of the Justices were of the opinion that Monsanto’s patent is enforceable over the cell or gene but not over the plant and its offspring, which is what Schmeiser had 'used'.”

GMOs, a brief TIMELINE: [37]

1988 – The use of genetically modified microbes to produce the enzyme Chymosin for cheese production was one of the earliest applications of GMOs in food production.

• By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using Fermentation Produced Chymosin. [8]

1990’s – Papaya was genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus.

Symptoms of ringspot virus on Papaya tree (a) and fruit (b)

From Genetically Engineered Distortions, The New York Times (2010): [9][37]

“In the early 1990s, Hawaii’s papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ringspot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state’s papaya industry would have collapsed. Today, 80 percent of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and there is still no conventional or organic method to control ringspot virus.”

1994 – The transgenic FlavrSavr tomato received FDA approval. 

• To delay fruit ripening, these tomatoes were genetically engineered with an anti-sense copy of the gene encoding the enzyme polygalacturonase.

In 1994, the European Union approved tobacco engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil. [70, 73]

2005 – 13% of the zucchini grown in the US was genetically modified to resist three viruses. [10][11]

2011 – 95% of beet acres in the US were planted with  glyphosate-resistant seeds, making them tolerant to the herbicide Roundup. [12]

"The sugar produced from GM sugar beets contains no DNA or protein—it is just sucrose, chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugar beets." [13][14]

2013 – Approximately 85% of corn, 90% of soybeans, and 88% of cotton produced in the US are genetically modified. [15-17]

• Corn and soybeans have been modified to tolerate herbicides and to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that kills certain insects. [17][18]

98% of the US soybean crop goes for livestock feed. [27, 28]

"Despite methods that are becoming more and more sensitive, tests have not yet been able to establish a difference in the meat, milk, or eggs of animals depending on the type of feed they are fed. It is impossible to tell if an animal was fed GM soy just by looking at the resulting meat, dairy, or egg products. The only way to verify the presence of GMOs in animal feed is to analyze the origin of the feed itself." [29]

In an effort to reduce corn stem-borer infestations, corporate and 

public researchers partner to develop local Bt corn varieties suitable 

for Kenya. [38,39]  (Photo Credit: Dave Hoisington/CIMMYT.) 

"In 2013, GM crops were planted in 27 countries; 19 were developing countries and 8 were developed countries. 2013 was the second year in which developing countries grew a majority (54%) of the total GM harvest. 18 million farmers grew GM crops; around 90% were small-holding farmers in developing countries." [70, 72]

Country	2013– GM planted area (million hectares) [71]	Biotech crops
USA	70.1	Maize, Soybean, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeet, Alfalfa, Papaya, Squash
Brazil	40.3	Soybean, Maize, Cotton
Argentina	24.4	Soybean, Maize, Cotton
India	11.0	Cotton
Canada	10.8	Canola, Maize, Soybean, Sugarbeet

2014 – US Dept. of Agriculture approved a GM potato containing 10 modifications that prevent bruising and produce less acrylamide when fried than conventional potatoes. In this case, the alterations prevented a potato protein from being expressed. [30,31]

2015 – Arctic 'non-bruising' Apples (see previous blog)

GM in ANIMALS, briefly:

Meat

To date, no genetically modified animals have been approved for use as food. See Wired’s Genetically Modified Animals Will Be on Your Plate in No Time for a summary of where things currently stand.

Drugs

Genetically modified goats have been approved by the FDA and EMA to produce recombinant antithrombin, an anticoagulant protein drug. [32]

Milk

"Genetically modified bovine somatotropin (rBST), the bovine growth hormone used to increase milk production, may be present in milk from rBST treated cows. [33, 34] [37] It was believed that any rBST present in milk would be destroyed in the human digestive tract." [33-34, 37]  

However, in 2010 the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, found that milk from rBGH-treated cows (as compared to untreated cows) had: [35-37]

• increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1
• higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle 

LABELLING

Unless you consume only foods carrying a 100% organic / non-GMO label (that you know is legit), it is likely you are consuming GMO’s in one form or another. This is because many if not most foods lining a typical grocer’s shelves will have been manufactured using ingredients like corn, soy, cotton seed and canola oils, harvested and processed from GM crops. [51]

Presently, most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from GM crops of canola, [19] corn,[20, 21] cotton [22] and soybeans. [23]

• The refining process [24] removes all, or nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients (protein & DNA) from these products. [13, 25-26]

And this represents one of the challenges presented in labeling foodstuffs containing GM ingredients: 

How to identify GM crops as ingredients in an end product when they have been refined to such a degree that they no longer contain traceable or significant amounts of the recombinant material? 

In Canada and the US labeling is voluntary, [67] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed that contains greater than 0.9% of GMOs must be labelled. [37][68]

And you just know when something is voluntary that stuff like this is bound to happen:

A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa, found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%. [37][69]  

Green: Mandatory labeling; Red: Ban on import and cultivation of GMOs (Add Bonnie Scotland to the Reds) Source for data: Center for Food Safety (As of May 10, 2015) [37]

REGULATION (From World Health Organization, WHO website) [52]

The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on:

• direct health effects (toxicity);
• potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity);
• specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties;
• the stability of the inserted gene;
• nutritional effects associated with genetic modification;
• any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.

"GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the joint FAO/WHO intergovernmental body responsible for developing the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the international food code. 

The premise of these principles sets out a premarket assessment, performed on a case by case basis and including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new gene). 

Codex also developed three Guidelines:

• Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants
• Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA microorganisms
• Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals

Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and WTO Members are encouraged to harmonize national standards with Codex standards. 

If trading partners have the same or similar mechanisms for the safety assessment of GM foods, the possibility that one product is approved in one country but rejected in another becomes smaller. 

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties which took effect in 2003, regulates transboundary movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material."

IN DEFENSE OF GM CROPS

Gene Transfer 

"Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility." [50]

"Researchers have examined the effects of feed processing on DNA to ascertain whether modified DNA remains intact and moves into the food chain. It has been found that DNA is not fragmented to any great extent in raw plant material and silage, but remains partially or fully intact. This means that, if GM crops are fed to animals, animals would be likely to be eating modified DNA. In order to consider whether modified DNA or derived proteins consumed by animals have the potential to affect animal health or to enter the food chain, it is necessary to consider the fate of these molecules within the animal. Digestion of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) occurs through the action of nucleases present in the mouth, the pancreas and intestinal secretions. In ruminants, additional microbial and physical degradation of feed occurs. Evidence suggests that more than 95 percent of DNA and RNA is completely broken down within the digestive system." [76]

Toxicity

(Séralini et al)

In his oft cited 2012 GM corn study, Gilles-Eric Séralini claimed that rats fed genetically engineered corn developed grotesque cancerous tumors. [49]

The study (published in 2012, retracted in 2013 and republished in 2014)  remains controversial.

One of the arguments in opposition to his and similar studies is that the safety of GM crops cannot be effectively evaluated through 'one-off' studies conducted in controlled laboratory environments; that only animal feeding studies should be considered as the basis for evaluating the safety of GM crops. [49]

From the 2014 open access study, Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations, published in the Journal of Animal Science: [41]

“Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed. These field data sets, representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops, did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.”

“Estimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick animals would literally litter farms around the world.” [49]

Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies, courtesy of forbes.com. [49]

Antibiotic Resistance

"It is not clear what sort of risk the possibility of conferring antibiotic resistance to bacteria presents. No one has ever observed bacteria incorporating new DNA from the digestive system under controlled laboratory conditions. The two types of antibiotic resistance genes used by biotechnologists are ones that already exist in bacteria in nature so the process would not introduce new antibiotic resistance to bacteria." [58]

*See 'Creation of an Insect Resistant Tomato Plant' diagram above: desired genes are inserted into vectors with selectable antibiotic resistance marker genes.


Increased Yield

Crop varieties including insect resistance (cotton, maize), herbicide resistance (maize, soybean), delayed fruit ripening (tomato) [1][4] are more productive and have a larger yield. 

Bigger yields create more efficient use of land, less use of herbicides and other pesticides. [3]

This 2014 PLOS ONE meta-analysis, [42] examining all available English publications (147 studies) published between 1995 and 2014 on the impact of GM crops (herbicide-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton, as well as insect-resistant maize and cotton), found that:

“On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.” [42]

The Environment 

Biotech soy, corn and cotton have decreased soil erosion by 90%, preserving 37 million tons of topsoil. Biotech crops also provide a 70% reduction in herbicide runoff. [3]

Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of PG Economics, a “specialist provider of advisory and consultancy services to agriculture and other natural resource-based industries,” co-authored the report, GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2012. [44]

From the PG Economics website:

“Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2012, this was equivalent to removing 27 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 11.9 million cars from the road for one year.”

Identification of Allergenic Genes

Although the transfer of allergenic genes is commonly cited as a concern, molecular biology could potentially be used to characterize allergens and remove them. Indeed, it was the Brazil nut study (often cited as a negative) that led to identification of the allergenic protein. [33]

Food Quality & Sustainability

GM crops bruise less easily and stay ripe for longer so they can be shipped long distances or kept on shop shelves for longer periods.

GM creates foods with better texture, flavor and fortified with vitamins and minerals:

• Transgenic potato plants have been produced which can deliver an immunization against diarrhea. [1]
• 'Golden Rice' has been enhanced with pro-vitamin A. [2]
• As more GM crops can be grown on relatively small parcels of land, they can create a sustainable way to feed the world. [1][31]

Global Socio-Economic Impact

~54% of the total global GM crop area is now being grown in developing countries. [43]

From the aforementioned PG Economics website:

“Between 1996 and 2012, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional 122 million tonnes of soybeans and 231 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 18.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 6.6 million tonnes of canola.” [44]

"Cotton accounts for 30% of India’s agricultural GDP. Indian farmers often lose up to 50-60% of their crop to the cotton bollworm. With the commercialization of Bt cotton in India in 2002, the cyclic infestation of bollworm, which often damaged 50-60% of their crop, has been suppressed. In 2013, India ranked first in biotech cotton production worldwide, which produced 10.8 million hectares." [43]

Qaim and Khouser (2013) conducted a study involving 533 farm households (or a total sample size of 1431) in India from 2002 to 2008 to investigate the effect of Bt cotton on farmers’ family income and food security. 

"According to the findings, the adoption of Bt cotton has significantly improved calorie consumption and dietary quality, leading to increased family income. The technology reduced food insecurity by 15-20% among cotton-producing households." [43]

Adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines provided the following benefits to small-scale farmers: [46 - 48]

• 30% yield increase over conventional corn hybrids
• Pesticide cost reduction by as much as 56%
• Increased net profitability by 4-7% during wet season, and 3-9% during dry season

A more thorough presentation of data, and many more examples of the global impacts of GM Crops can be found at the ISAAA website:  International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications

* “ISAAA is a not-for-profit international organization that shares the benefits of crop biotechnology to various stakeholders, particularly resource-poor farmers in developing countries, through knowledge sharing initiatives and the transfer and delivery of proprietary biotechnology applications.”

IN OPPOSITION TO GM CROPS

The 2014 report, Sustainability Assessment of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops commissioned by the Norwegian Environmental Agency, and released by the Genok Center for Biosafety at the Arctic University of Norway, concluded that: [61] 

"... due to major gaps in the scientific literature, it is not possible to give a scientific verdict on their safety. 

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.

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."

Risks posed to livestock [64]

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn 

The Bt Controversy

Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. [50]

The 2000 paper, Field Deposition of Bt Transgenic Corn Pollen: Lethal Effects on the Monarch Butterfly presented evidence that the pollen of transgenic Bt corn naturally deposited on milkweed in cornfields, and that this was causing significant mortality to Monarch larvae. [50]

Debate ensued, with teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigating the issue and concluding that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low". [50]

The Human Experiment

In 1995, biochemist Arpad Pusztai and his research team modified potatoes using a gene coding the protein, lectin, from the snowdrop plant. His group fed rats on raw and cooked versions of these modified potatoes, using unmodified potatoes as controls. 

The rats fed the genetically modified potatoes developed health problems, including damage to intestines and immune systems, which were reported in a 1999 Lancet article.  [55]

"It is impossible to accurately predict the long-term effects of GM Crops on humans and the environment. Scientists can choose which genes to manipulate, but they don't yet know where in the DNA to precisely insert these genes and they have no way of controlling gene expression. Genes don't work in isolation, changing a few could change the whole picture, with unpredictable results." [54]

“'Humans should not have to serve as the guinea pigs for this technology,' says Genna Reed, a researcher with Food and Water Watch, which has asked McDonald’s not to use genetically engineered potatoes." [51]

Health Risks

"Statements on the safety of GM crops rely on the absence of evidence of harm in specific research tests, rather than actual evidence of safety. That is a too low standard for adequate protection of human and environmental health." [61]

Allergies: There is concern that the protein products of introduced genes may be allergenic to certain individuals. [53][56, 57]

Toxins: The toxins naturally produced by the plants we eat are at levels low enough so as to not cause us harm. There is concern that inserting genes into crops could disrupt this balance by stressing the plant, interfering with metabolic pathways, or by damaging other genes during the insertion process. [58]

"Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants." [58]

Decreased Nutritional Value:

"Phytate is a compound common in seeds and grains that binds with minerals and makes them unavailable to humans. An inserted gene could cause a plant to produce higher levels of phytate decreasing the mineral nutritional value of the plant." [58]

"Another example comes from a [2003 study], showing that a strain of genetically modified soybean produced lower levels of phytoestrogen compounds, believed to protect against heart disease and cancer, than traditional soybeans." [58]

Antibiotic resistance:

"By attaching the desired gene to an antibiotic resistance gene the new GM plant can be tested by growing it in a solution containing the corresponding antibiotic. If the plant survives scientists know that it has taken up the antibiotic resistance gene along with the desired gene. There is concern that bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals could pick up an antibiotic resistance gene from a GM plant before the DNA becomes completely digested." [58]

A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Organic Systems (2013) measured the effects of a GM vs. non-GM corn and soy diet in pigs. Pig were chosen as test subjects because of the similarities between porcine and human digestive systems: [62]

"Two groups of pigs, containing equal numbers of males and females, were fed one of the two diets from weaning until 22.7 weeks of age, the typical life span of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. The pigs’ living conditions were identical to those of commercial pigs in the United States, and the particle size of the feed was standardized. At the study’s conclusion, two veterinarians performed necropsies. To avoid observational bias, neither veterinarian knew which pigs had been fed GM vs. non-GM feed.

The study found that GM-fed pigs had significantly higher rates of severe stomach inflammation than non–GM-fed pigs. In addition, the uterine weights of GM-fed females were 25% higher than non–GM-fed females. (Male sexual characteristics couldn’t be measured because male pigs that are grown for food are neutered shortly after birth.) There were no differences in weight gain or routine blood biochemistry between the two groups." 

*The study was not without controversy.

Regulations are ineffective at protecting consumers

“...the agricultural food industry claims that GM foods are tested rigorously, but the food companies conduct all their own testing. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration never reviews the studies, just the conclusions that agricultural food companies provide to the FDA.” [57]

In 1989 a genetically modified dietary supplement of L-tryptophan  triggered an outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome in the US. Hundreds of people fell seriously ill with this rare blood and muscle disorder. [59]

“On July 11, 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 7 published a study showing that 98 percent, and possibly 100 percent, of the EMS cases in Oregon had taken L-tryptophan product made by one manufacturer, Showa Denko, and that there was a significant correlation between these case patients and product manufactured by the company between January and June 1989. The JAMA study also noted that Showa Denko produced L-tryptophan by bacterial fermentation using a genetically engineered Bacillus species that had been introduced in its manufacturing process in December 1988.” [59]

Here's the link, but study is is only available to subscribers.


Global Socio-Economic Impact

"World hunger is not caused by a shortage of food production, but by sheer mismanagement, and lack of access to food brought about by various social, financial and political causes." [54]

GM Crops create an unbalanced distribution of benefits and risks between developed and developing countries, "problems compounded by patenting practices that place an advantage on the strongholds of scientific and technological expertise." [52]

Labeling

"Not labeling is wrong and unfair to the consumers who should have the right to know what they are buying so they can decide for themselves whether they want to buy the food or not. Even if health safety factors are not an issue, some people might have moral or religious objections." [54]

Risk to food diversity

"When farmers start growing genetically modified crops, they stop growing the old varieties. These old varieties are important sources of diverse genes that give plants other desirable characteristics. For example, a new pest or disease could come along and destroy the genetically modified rice. If one of the old rice varieties has a gene that makes it resistant, it could be cross-bred to make the saltwater rice resistant as well. If we lose the old varieties, we also lose their useful genes." [56] 

Also, i t is very difficult to prevent the seeds from GM crops from dispersing into fields close by that grow regular crops. 


Horizontal gene transfer / Rise of the mutants

Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other plant species could cause ecological imbalances, "allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled." [50] This would necessitate the formulation and application of chemical agents even stronger than those previously applied to crops. [54]

Consensus among the scientific community [65]

In 2015, over 300 independent research scientists and academics signed a joint statement in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe challenging claims of a consensus among the scientific community, "over the state of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)." 

Claiming that, "the consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora."  The joint statement, "does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature."

Open Letter from WorldScientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

LASTLY, I happened across two websites that offered a study by study point-counterpoint on some areas I have already covered and others I have not. 

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health (2014) 

10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters (2015)

Three more recommended reads:

Traditional Agriculture Has Bought The Farm / Popular Science / September 22, 2015
GMO Thought Experiment: What Would A World Without GM Crops Look Like? / International Business Times / March 6, 2014 / By Roxanne Palmer

Organic food starts to prove its worth / student.societyforscience.org / August 21, 2015 / By Rachel Cernansky

And a watch:
Creating Artificial Life 

Updates/Related:

U.S. Government Approves Transgenic Chicken / Scientific American / December 9, 2015

In a First, the FDA Clears Genetically Modified Salmon for Eating—It Just Took 20 Years / wired.com / November 20, 2015

Salmon Is First Transgenic Animal to Win US Approval for Food / Scientific American / November 19, 2015

Watch: The terrifying truth about bananas / Science Alert / November 18. 2015

***FIN***

References

[1] Darwin Online from On the Origin of Species First Edition (1859) Chapter IV: Natural Selection

[2] Buffum, Burt C. (2008). Arid Agriculture; A Hand-Book for the Western Farmer and Stockman. Read Books. p. 232. ISBN 978-1-4086-6710-1.

[3] Lush, Jay L. (2008). Animal Breeding Plans. Orchard Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-4437-8451-1.

[4]The Advantages & Disadvantages of Genetically Modified ...

[5] Genetically Modified Foods

[6] Creation of an Insect Resistant Tomato

[7] Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology

[8]  "Chymosin". GMO Compass.

[9] Ronald, Pamela and McWilliams, James Genetically Engineered Distortions The New York Times, May 14, 2010.

[10] Johnson, Stanley R. et al Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC, February 2008.

[11] GMO Compass. Page updated November 7, 2007. GMO Database: Zucchini (courgette) 

[12]  James, C (2011). "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

[13] Jaffe,Greg (Director of Biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest) (February 7, 2013). "What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food". Atlantic.

[14] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009). Sugar Beet: White Sugar (PDF). p. 9.

[15] Center for Food Safety About Genetically Engineered Foods

[16] Acreage NASS National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report, 30 June 2010. 

[17] Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo. "USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.". usda.gov.

[18] For a list of all traits, see table at National Corn Growers Association website As of September 2012 that site listed 13 traits in nearly 30 different products.

[19] "Soyatech.com". Soyatech.com.

[20]  "Poster of corn products" (PDF).

[21] Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, 2006. Food Fats and Oils 

[22] National Cottonseed Producers Association Twenty Facts about Cottonseed Oil

[23] Michelle Simon for Food Safety News. August 24, 2011. ConAgra Sued Over GMO ’100% Natural’ Cooking Oils

[24] How Cooking Oil is Made". Madehow.com. 1991-04-27.

[25] Crevel, R.W.R; Kerkhoff, M.A.T; Koning, M.M.G (2000). "Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils". Food and Chemical Toxicology 38 (4): 385–93. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00158-1. PMID 10722892.

[26] "USDA Protein(g) in Fats and Oils".

[27] David Bennett for Southeast Farm Press, February 5, 2003 World soybean consumption quickens

[28] "Soybean". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved February 18, 2012.

[29] Staff, GMO Compass. December 7, 2006. Genetic Engineering: Feeding the EU's Livestock

[30] Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. 7 Nov 2014. U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans

[31] Federal Register. May 3, 2013. J.R. Simplot Co.; Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Potato Genetically Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise

[32] Andre Pollack for the New York Times. February 6, 2009 F.D.A. Approves Drug From Gene-Altered Goats

[33] Dale E. Baumana and Robert J Collier. September 15, 2010 Use of Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production

[34]  Staff, American Cancer Society. Last Medical Review: 02/18/2011; Last Revised: 02/18/2011. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

[35] Greg Cima, November for JAVMA News. November 18, 2010. Appellate court gives mixed ruling on Ohio rBST labeling rules

[36] "INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FOODS ASS'N v. BOGGS – Argued: June 10, 2010". Leagle.com.

[37] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

[38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

[39] Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks

[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaya_ringspot_virus

[41] Van Eenennaam, A. L.; Young, A. E. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations (2014) Journal of Animal Science Vol. 92 no. 10 10.2527/jas.2014-8124

[42] Matin Qaim & Wilhelm Klümper  GMO meta-study: Pesticide use down 37%, yields up 22%, profits rise 68%| November 5, 2014 | PLOS ONE

[43] Documented Benefits of GM Crops - Pocket K | ISAAA.org

[44] GM crop use continues to benefit the environment and farmers

[45] Hsiaoping, C. 2005. Rice Consumption in China: Can China Change Rice Consumption from Quantity to Quality? Rice is life: scientific perspectives for the 21st century. Session 17. 497-499.

[46]James, C. 2013. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. ISAAA Briefs No. 46. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

[47]Sankula, S., G. Marmon, and E. Blumenthal. 2005.  Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2004 - Impacts on US Agriculture. Available at http://www.ncfap.org

[48] Brooks, G. 2003. The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Crop Biotech Brief, 3(3), Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology, ISAAA SEAsiaCenter. http://www.isaaa.org/kc

[49] The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study / Forbes.com / Sept. 17, 2014

[50] Phillips, T. (2008) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education 1(1):213

[51] GMO 2.0: genetically modified foods with added health benefits / theguardian.com / June 10, 2014

[52] Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods / www.who.int

[53] Statement on Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Foods for Human Health and Nutrition / iuns.org

[54] The Advantages & Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food: Both Sides of the Debate / brighthub.com

[55] http://www.drdach.com/Dr_Dach_on_GMO_Food_Scandal.html

[56] Genetically Modified Foods / learn.genetics.utah.edu/

[57] Genetically Modified Organisms: Pros and Cons of GMO Food / decodedscience.com / January 2013

[58] GMO: Harmful Effects / enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

[59] http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/L-tryptophan/background-information

[60] Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/.../en/        

[60] [61] Eat Right Ontario - Understanding Genetically Modified Foods

[62] The Advantages & Disadvantages of Genetically Modified ...

[61]GMO study finds 'indications of harmful and adverse effects' / theecologist.org / July 2015

[62] Can GMOs Harm Digestive Health? — A Controversial Animal Study Suggests GMOs May Cause Stomach Inflammation / todaysdietitian.com / December 2013

[63] Are GMOs Really That Harmful to Eat? / health.usnews.com/ April 2015

[64] 10 IRREFUTABLE evidence that GMO can harm you  / www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/

[65] 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health / collective-evolution.com/ April 2014

[66]10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters /www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ January 2015

[67]  "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food"

[68] Davison, John (2010). "GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations". Plant Science 178 (2): 94–8.doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005.

[69] Botha, Gerda M.; Viljoen, Christopher D. (2009). "South Africa: A case study for voluntary GM labelling".Food Chemistry 112 (4): 1060–4.doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.06.050.

[70] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

[71]  ISAAA 2012 Annual Report Executive Summary

[72]  ISAAA 2013 Annual Report Executive Summary, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013 ISAAA Brief 46-2013

[73] Debora MacKenzie (18 June 1994). "Transgenic tobacco is European first". New Scientist.

[74] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

[75] Rebecca Boyle for Popular Science. January 24, 2011. How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step

[76] Genetically Modified Crops / greenfacts.org

Image Credits

"GloFish" by www.glofish.com - http://www.glofish.com/images/glofish_005.jpg. Licensed under Attribution via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GloFish.jpg#/media/File:GloFish.jpg

"Salmo salar GLERL 1" by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/photogallery/Fish/pages/1037.html. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salmo_salar_GLERL_1.jpg#/media/File:Salmo_salar_GLERL_1.jpg

"Cornselection" by John Doebley - Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks Gewin V PLoS Biology Vol. 1, No. 1, e8 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000008 http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000008&id=39332. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cornselection.jpg#/media/File:Cornselection.jpg

"Transformation with Agrobacterium" by Original uploader was Seb951 at en.wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformation_with_Agrobacterium.JPG#/media/File:Transformation_with_Agrobacterium.JPG

Creation of an Insect Resistant Tomato / Learn Genetics Centre / learn.genetics.utah.edu

"Amsterdam - Cheese store - 1605" by © Jorge Royan / http://www.royan.com.ar. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amsterdam_-_Cheese_store_-_1605.jpg#/media/File:Amsterdam_-_Cheese_store_-_1605.jpg

"Papaya Ringspot Virus Symptoms" by APS - http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/viruses/Pages/PapayaRingspotvirus.aspx. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Papaya_Ringspot_Virus_Symptoms.jpg#/media/File:Papaya_Ringspot_Virus_Symptoms.jpg

"Btcornafrica" by Dave Hoisington/CIMMYT - Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks Gewin V PLoS Biology Vol. 1, No. 1, e8 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000008 http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000008&id=39336. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Btcornafrica.jpg#/media/File:Btcornafrica.jpg

"Genetically Engineered (GE) Food labeling laws map 2" by Heaviside glow - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Genetically_Engineered_(GE)_Food_labeling_laws_map_2.png#/media/File:Genetically_Engineered_(GE)_Food_labeling_laws_map_2.png