GMO Myths and Truths

Recommendations

Info

References to Section 1 1. Latham JR, Wilson AK, Steinbrecher RA. The mutational consequences of plant transformation. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2006; 2006(2): 25376. 2. Wilson AK, Latham JR, Steinbrecher RA. Transformationinduced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2006; 23: 209–238. 3. Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. Oct 2002; 20(10): 969. 4. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects. In: D’Mello JPF, ed. Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing 2003:347–372. 5. Pruned. Atomic gardens: Interview with Paige Johnson. 20 April 2011. http://pruned.blogspot.com/2011/04/atomic-gardens.html 6. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Mutant variety database (MVGS)2010. http://mvgs.iaea.org/ 7. Kodym A, Afza R. Physical and chemical mutagenesis. Methods Mol Biol. 2003; 236: 189-204. 8. Novak FJ, Brunner H. Plant breeding: Induced mutation technology for crop improvement. IAEA Bulletin. 1992; 4: 25–33. 9. Jain SM. Mutagenesis in crop improvement under the climate change. Romanian Biotechnological Letters. 2010; 15(2): 88–106. 10. Ahloowalia BS, Maluszynski M, K. N. Global impact of mutation-derived varieties. Euphytica. 2004; 135: 187–204. 11. Maluszynski M, Szarejko I. Induced mutations in the Green and Gene Revolutions. Paper presented at: International Congress “In the wake of the double helix: From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution”; 27–31 May 2003; Bologna, Italy. 12. Walsh B. The planet’s ultimate backup plan: Svalbard. TIME. 27 February 2009. http://www.time.com/time/health/ article/0,8599,1882288,00.html 13. BBC News. More seeds for “doomsday vault”. 26 February 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7912543.stm 14. Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL. Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 17 Apr 2007; 104(16): 6504- 6510. 15. Acquaah G. Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2007. 16. Van Harten AM. Mutation Breeding: Theory and Practical Applications. London: Cambridge University Press; 1998. 17. GM Science Review Panel. First report: An open review of the science relevant to GM crops and food based on interests and concerns of the public. July 2003: 9. 18. Kumar S, Fladung M. Controlling transgene integration in plants. Trends Plant Sci. Apr 2001; 6(4): 155–159. 19. Ow DW. Recombinase-directed plant transformation for the post-genomic era. Plant Mol Biol. Jan 2002; 48(1-2): 183-200. 20. Li Z, Moon BP, Xing A, et al. Stacking multiple transgenes at a selected genomic site via repeated recombinase-mediated DNA cassette exchanges. Plant Physiol. Oct 2010; 154(2): 622-631. 21. Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, et al. Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. NATURE. 21 May 2009; 459(7245): 437-441. 22. Townsend JA, Wright DA, Winfrey RJ, et al. High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. NATURE. 21 May 2009; 459(7245): 442-445. 23. Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenco T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 4 Mar 2008; 105(9): 3640-3645. 24. Academics Review. The use of tissue culture in plant breeding is not new. 2011. http://bit.ly/I7fPc9 25. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Regulating “novelty” and plants with novel traits. 2010. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/ english/plaveg/bio/pub/novnoue.shtml 26. Coghlan A. Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready soy beans cracking up. New Scientist 20 November 1999. 27. Rommens CM, Haring MA, Swords K, Davies HV, Belknap WR. The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends in Plant Science. Sep 2007; 12(9): 397-403. 28. Rommens CM. Intragenic crop improvement: Combining the benefits of traditional breeding and genetic engineering. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 2007; 55(11): 4281-4288. 29. Folta K. Cisgenics – transgenics without the transgene. Biofortified. 20 September 2010. http://www.biofortified. org/2010/09/cisgenics-transgenics-without-the-transgene/ 30. Milkovich M. Non-browning apples cause controversy. Fruit Growers News. 29 April 2011. http://fruitgrowersnews.com/index. php/magazine/article/non-browning-apples-cause-controversy 31. Viswanath V, Strauss SH. Modifying plant growth the cisgenic way. ISB News. September 2010. GMO Myths and Truths 22
2. SCIENCE AND REGULATION 2.1 Myth: GM foods are strictly regulated for safety Truth: GM food regulation in most countries varies from non-existent to weak “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” – Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications 1 (the FDA is the US government’s Food and Drug Administration, responsible for food safety) “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.” – US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2 “It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.” – European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 3 Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated. 4 But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health. 2.1.1. The regulatory process in the USA “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review... The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.” Section at a glance u The regulatory regime for GM crops and foods is too weak to protect consumers from the hazards posed by the technology. Regulation is weakest in the US, but is inadequate in most regions of the world, including Europe. u The US regime assumes that GM crops are safe if certain basic constituents of the GM crop are “substantially equivalent” to those of their non-GM counterparts – a term that has not been legally or scientifically defined. The European regime applies the same concept but terms it “comparative safety assessment”. However, when systematic scientific comparisons of a GM crop and its non-GM counterpart are undertaken, the assumption of substantial equivalence is often shown to be false. u Pro-GM lobbyists have weakened the regulatory process for GM crops, including through the industry-funded group ILSI. No long-term rigorous safety testing of GMOs is required and regulatory assessments are based on data provided by the company that is applying to commercialise the crop. u The GM industry restricts access to its products by independent researchers, so effects on health and the environment cannot be properly investigated. u Independent researchers who have published papers containing data that is not supportive of GMOs have been attacked by pro-GM industry groups and individuals (the “shoot the messenger” tactic). – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peerreviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored 5,6 GM foods were first commercialised in the US in the early 1990s. The US food regulator, the Food GMO Myths and Truths 23
Page 1 and 2: GMO Myths and Truths An evidence-ba
Page 3 and 4: About the authors Michael Antoniou,
Page 5 and 6: 3.1.5. Regulators currently do not
Page 7 and 8: Truth: Co-existence means widesprea
Page 9 and 10: 1. THE GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNIQU
Page 11 and 12: 1.2 Myth: Genetic engineering is pr
Page 13 and 14: ornamental plants. 9 It also includ
Page 15 and 16: successfully incorporate the GM gen
Page 17 and 18: “conventionally bred” varieties
Page 19 and 20: inspection. Their scrutiny cannot e
Page 21: Conclusion to Section 1 GM proponen
Page 25 and 26: of a protein (prion), a difference
Page 27 and 28: data on GMOs available on the Inter
Page 29 and 30: 2.1.8. GM corporations and the US g
Page 31 and 32: the defamation and intimidation cam
Page 33 and 34: lacked proper controls. Both claims
Page 35 and 36: 18. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB.
Page 37 and 38: 3. HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM FOODS 3.1 M
Page 39 and 40: their lambs showed cellular changes
Page 41 and 42: well known to have different effect
Page 43 and 44: developing multi-trait crops becaus
Page 45 and 46: 3.2.2. Schrøder (2007) 23 A study
Page 47 and 48: 3.4 Myth: GM foods have been proven
Page 49 and 50: However, the authors of a 1990 stud
Page 51 and 52: 3.6 Myth: GM Bt insecticidal crops
Page 53 and 54: 3.7 Myth: GM foods are properly tes
Page 55 and 56: acute allergenicity problems to a l
Page 57 and 58: 3.9 Myth: Genetic engineering will
Page 59 and 60: poor and hungry in the Global South
Page 61 and 62: 30. European Food Safety Authority
Page 63 and 64: sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready ca
Page 65 and 66: 4.1 Myth: Roundup is a safe herbici
Page 67 and 68: 100% of air and rain samples taken
Page 69 and 70: 11. Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi
Page 71 and 72: “Over the past decade, corporate
Page 73 and 74:
supposedly high-yielding GM soybean
Page 75 and 76:
often use more glyphosate herbicide
Page 77 and 78:
5.4 Myth: GM Bt crops reduce insect
Page 79 and 80:
has called GM crops “pesticide pl
Page 81 and 82:
5.6 Myth: Roundup is a benign and b
Page 83 and 84:
fixation and reduce the growth of r
Page 85 and 86:
5.9 Myth: GM crops bring economic b
Page 87 and 88:
5.10 Myth: GM crops can “coexist
Page 89 and 90:
5.11 Myth: If GM contamination occu
Page 91 and 92:
acterium, thereby creating a “sup
Page 93 and 94:
een found to be unreliable and inco
Page 95 and 96:
emergence of resistant and secondar
Page 97 and 98:
mycorrhizal symbiosis in experiment
Page 99 and 100:
Canada: Organic Agriculture Protect
Page 101 and 102:
6.1 Myth: GM will deliver climate-r
Page 103 and 104:
6.3 Myth: GM will solve the nitroge
Page 105 and 106:
Agriculture cannot continue to depe
Page 107 and 108:
7.1 Myth: GM crops are needed to fe
Page 109 and 110:
A 2003 report on the project calcul
Page 111 and 112:
Previously, agricultural markets we
Page 113 and 114:
and the Caribbean have found that o
Page 115 and 116:
7.3 Myth: GM is needed to provide t
Page 117 and 118:
King produced this example when und
Page 119 and 120:
IAASTD report, commissioned by the
Page 121 and 122:
LifeScientist. 12 March 2012. http:
Page 123:
mixtures of chemicals in an attempt
show all

GMO Myths and Truths

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?