GMO Myths and Truths

More documents

Recommendations

Info

13. Gabriel R, Lombardo A, Arens A, et al. An unbiased genome-wide analysis of zinc-finger nuclease specificity. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(9):816-823. doi:10.1038/nbt.1948. 14. Fu Y, Foden JA, Khayter C, et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9):822-826. doi:10.1038/nbt.2623. 15. Then C. Free trade for “high-risk biotech”? Future of genetically engineered organisms, new synthetic genome technologies and the planned free trade agreement TTIP – a critical assessment. Munich, Germany: Testbiotech; 2013. Available at: http:// www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Future_Biotech.pdf. 16. Cibus. BASF and Cibus achieve development milestone in CLEARFIELD® production system [press release]. Undated. Available at: http://www.cibus.com/press/press012709.php. 17. Cibus. What is RTDS TM ? The Rapid Trait Development System in brief. 2013. Available at: http://www.cibus.com/rtds. php. 18. Cibus. The evolution of plant breeding: RTDS TM versus other technologies. Undated. Available at: http://www.cibus. com/pdfs/RtdsSketch4_LoRes.pdf. GMO Myths and Truths 42
1.3 Myth: Genetic engineering of crops is no more risky than mutation breeding, which is widely accepted and not regulated Truth: Genetic engineering and mutation breeding are both risky and should be strictly regulated Myth at a glance GM proponents often compare GM with radiation- or chemical-induced mutation breeding (mutagenesis) and claim that these methods are even more mutagenic than GM and at least as disruptive to gene expression. They argue that crops developed by mutation breeding are widely viewed as safe and have not caused health problems; and that therefore GM crops should not be subjected to stricter regulation than mutation-bred crops. Some GM proponents imply that mutagenesis is equivalent to conventional breeding. However, while mutagenesis is used in conventional breeding, mutation breeding is not the same as conventional breeding. Mutation breeding is unpredictable and risky, and crops produced in this way should be as strictly regulated as GM crops. GM proponents often compare GM with mutation breeding (mutagenesis), which they say has been used for decades in conventional plant breeding and is not controversial. They argue that mutation breeding is used by conventional plant breeders and that mutationbred plants have a history of safe use and do not cause ill health. 1 GM proponents also say that genetic modification is more precise than mutation breeding, and imply that therefore, GM plants should not be regulated any more strictly than those produced by mutation breeding. 2 However, these arguments are flawed, for the reasons explained below. What is mutation breeding? The physical form of an organism’s genetic blueprint is the sequence of the four “bases”, or “letters” (A, G, C, T) of the genetic alphabet. The sequence in which these four “letters” are linked together to form the DNA molecule determines the information contained in that molecule, just as the sequence in which the 26 letters of our alphabet are placed on this page determines its information content. GMO Myths and Truths 43
Page 1 and 2: GMO Myths and Truths An evidence-ba
Page 3 and 4: First edition published in Great Br
Page 5 and 6: 1.4 Myth: Cisgenesis is a safe form
Page 7 and 8: Myth at a glance...................
Page 9 and 10: Conclusion.........................
Page 11 and 12: 5.14 Myth: GM crops reduce energy u
Page 13 and 14: GMOs and attack GMO critics again a
Page 15 and 16: Finally, we always cite our sources
Page 17 and 18: stance on GMOs has nothing to do wi
Page 19 and 20: technology is claimed to address al
Page 21 and 22: of all the genes needed to construc
Page 23 and 24: ways that are not well understood o
Page 25 and 26: generation of a GM crop constitutes
Page 27 and 28: genome of the recipient plant cells
Page 29 and 30: able to overcome these limitations
Page 31 and 32: Muddying the waters with imprecise
Page 33 and 34: may be harmed when feeding on Bt GM
Page 35 and 36: that the GM genes confer on the org
Page 37 and 38: 3. The development of GM plant cell
Page 39 and 40: DNA and an enzyme to cut both stran
Page 41: the proteins present in RTDS GMOs (
Page 45 and 46: plant breeding retains strong links
Page 47 and 48: In addition, if mutations were to o
Page 49 and 50: For these reasons, conventional bre
Page 51 and 52: eplacements in Drosophila. Proc Nat
Page 53 and 54: However, cisgenesis still carries m
Page 55 and 56: References 1. Jones JDG, Witek K, V
Page 57 and 58: 2.1 Myth: GM foods are strictly tes
Page 59 and 60: How GMOs first entered world market
Page 61 and 62: FDA, that the GMO is safe. Instead
Page 63 and 64: “The concept of substantial equiv
Page 65 and 66: e compositionally different, 42 wer
Page 67 and 68: same genetic background as the GMO,
Page 69 and 70: EFSA disregards advice of its own h
Page 71 and 72: Catchpole and colleagues (above). R
Page 73 and 74: GMO assessment turns its back on sc
Page 75 and 76: available for scrutiny by the publi
Page 77 and 78: professional or financial affiliati
Page 79 and 80: Unexpected effects from gene-silenc
Page 81 and 82: mice fed the plants in question. 10
Page 83 and 84: GM salmon The biotechnology aquacul
Page 85 and 86: 8. Shibko SL. Memorandum to James H
Page 87 and 88: 63. Perry J. Comment by Joe Perry,
Page 89 and 90: 2.2 Myth: Independent studies confi
Page 91 and 92: “The way US schools get access to
Page 93 and 94:
NK603, which is engineered to toler
Page 95 and 96:
EFSA had also previously argued tha
Page 97 and 98:
about his UK government-funded rese
Page 99 and 100:
Attempts to uncover the identity of
Page 101 and 102:
29. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gava
Page 103 and 104:
The following analysis of the Nicol
Page 105 and 106:
In conclusion, the above categories
Page 107 and 108:
food. The study (Séralini et al, 2
Page 109 and 110:
4. As evidence of GMO safety, Nicol
Page 111 and 112:
the pipeline for approval would mee
Page 113 and 114:
dsRNA. However, when Monsanto intro
Page 115 and 116:
Nicolia and colleagues included the
Page 117 and 118:
insecticides applied. When non-GM f
Page 119 and 120:
herbicide to control weeds, includi
Page 121 and 122:
human and animal health or for the
Page 123 and 124:
37. Séralini GE, Cellier D, Spirou
Page 125 and 126:
corn borer-protected corn. Food Che
Page 127 and 128:
3. Health hazards of GM foods “Th
Page 129 and 130:
Unintended changes in composition G
Page 131 and 132:
The fact that beans naturally conta
Page 133 and 134:
inflammation than pigs fed an equiv
Page 135 and 136:
Intestinal abnormalities Mice fed a
Page 137 and 138:
Misuse of “biological relevance
Page 139 and 140:
its effect. In this way, any change
Page 141 and 142:
that correspond to around seven yea
Page 143 and 144:
must be tested; and in the case of
Page 145 and 146:
24. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS,
Page 147 and 148:
3.2 Myth: The Séralini (2012) stud
Page 149 and 150:
These serious effects had not shown
Page 151 and 152:
and colleagues suggested in their p
Page 153 and 154:
The “too few rats” criticism Th
Page 155 and 156:
While no research study is perfect
Page 157 and 158:
that the retraction of any paper on
Page 159 and 160:
28. Meyer H, Hilbeck A. Rat feeding
Page 161 and 162:
The Snell review A review by Snell
Page 163 and 164:
Russian long-term studies not follo
Page 165 and 166:
20. GMOSeralini.org. Criticism: Sé
Page 167 and 168:
animals, which in some cases were s
Page 169 and 170:
References 1. International Service
Page 171 and 172:
favourable conclusion on GMO safety
Page 173 and 174:
Based on current immunological know
Page 175 and 176:
the public knew about and that coul
Page 177 and 178:
modifications into the bacteria use
Page 179 and 180:
7. Garrett L. Genetic engineering f
Page 181 and 182:
Regulators have approved GM Bt crop
Page 183 and 184:
➜ ➜ New toxins produced in the
Page 185 and 186:
References 1. Székács A, Darvas B
Page 187 and 188:
3.9 Myth: Myth: GM foods are rigoro
Page 189 and 190:
“There is more than a casual asso
Page 191 and 192:
This was not a regulatory test and
Page 193 and 194:
3.10 Myth: GM animal feed poses no
Page 195 and 196:
genes in the gut, which could then
Page 197 and 198:
3.11 Myth: Genetic engineering will
Page 199 and 200:
tract. 11 Yet in real-life conditio
Page 201 and 202:
antioxidant. So the benefits of ant
Page 203 and 204:
18. Pollan M. The way we live now:
Page 205 and 206:
4.1 Myth: Roundup is a safe herbici
Page 207 and 208:
compared with the active ingredient
Page 209 and 210:
➜➜ Glyphosate alone increased t
Page 211 and 212:
The EU’s 2002 review of industry
Page 213 and 214:
precautionary principle was not bei
Page 215 and 216:
corn and soybeans resistant to 2,4-
Page 217 and 218:
27. Walsh LP, McCormick C, Martin C
Page 219 and 220:
4.2 Myth: Strict regulations ensure
Page 221 and 222:
in vitro (non-animal laboratory stu
Page 223 and 224:
the human or animal consumer when p
Page 225 and 226:
People and animals are not protecte
Page 227 and 228:
6. Codex Alimentarius. Pesticide re
Page 229 and 230:
5. GM crops - impacts on the farm a
Page 231 and 232:
of canola varieties in Australia co
Page 233 and 234:
productivity in the United States a
Page 235 and 236:
5.2 Myth: GM crops decrease pestici
Page 237 and 238:
“Herbicide-resistant crop technol
Page 239 and 240:
The GM industry “solution” to s
Page 241 and 242:
294X.2007.03567.x. 26. Knispel AL,
Page 243 and 244:
GM proponents claim that GM Bt crop
Page 245 and 246:
exposing pests to the toxin. This i
Page 247 and 248:
cutworm has increased significantly
Page 249 and 250:
Given the extreme toxicity of neoni
Page 251 and 252:
5.4 Myth: GM Bt crops only affect t
Page 253 and 254:
lines of Bt maize. Am J Bot. 2012;9
Page 255 and 256:
In no-till cultivation of GM herbic
Page 257 and 258:
5.6 Myth: Roundup is a benign herbi
Page 259 and 260:
leghemoglobin, which helps bind nit
Page 261 and 262:
5.7 Myth: GM crops help biodiversit
Page 263 and 264:
maize was only found better for wil
Page 265 and 266:
“Farm financial impacts [of adopt
Page 267 and 268:
Department of Agriculture. Its gran
Page 269 and 270:
5.9 Myth: GM crops increase farmer
Page 271 and 272:
5.10 Myth: GM crops can “coexist
Page 273 and 274:
➜➜ In 2006 an unapproved experi
Page 275 and 276:
default/files/content/attachments/f
Page 277 and 278:
Based on very limited experimental
Page 279 and 280:
integrated into the DNA of the cell
Page 281 and 282:
propagation with the best-performin
Page 283 and 284:
11. Mazza R, Soave M, Morlacchini M
Page 285 and 286:
crops that would help humankind sur
Page 287 and 288:
12. Atser G. Nigeria releases two e
Page 289 and 290:
continued to rise. 4 According to s
Page 291 and 292:
5.14 Myth: Myth: GM crops reduce en
Page 293 and 294:
compost and chemical fertilizer wer
Page 295 and 296:
6. Feeding the world “Something a
Page 297 and 298:
6.1 Myth: Myth: GM crops are needed
Page 299 and 300:
But almost nothing appears to have
Page 301 and 302:
and the control exercised by big co
Page 303 and 304:
6.2 Myth: GM crops are vital to ach
Page 305 and 306:
A 2008 United Nations report looked
Page 307 and 308:
“A key question for our scientist
Page 309 and 310:
zvNSpL. Published March 9, 2012. 23
Page 311 and 312:
Biofuels are crops used for fuel. V
Page 313 and 314:
Currently available GM crops are en
Page 315 and 316:
When people hear about “supercrop
Page 317 and 318:
2. Conventionally bred crop without
Page 319 and 320:
Salt-tolerant ➜➜ Rice varieties
Page 321 and 322:
Consumer appeal A GM non-browning a
Page 323 and 324:
varieties adapted to local conditio
Page 325 and 326:
display_description.php?variety_nam
Page 327 and 328:
Conclusion The introduction of GM c
Page 329 and 330:
crops and foods will be consigned t
Page 331:
GMO Myths and Truths 331
show all

GMO Myths and Truths

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

Delete template?

Save as template?