Extreme genetic engineering and the human future

http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/human-genetic-engineering

On the eve of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences and Medicine International Summit on Human Gene Editing, the Center for Genetics and Society and Friends of the Earth released a new report “Extreme Genetic Engineering and the Human Future: Reclaiming Emerging Biotechnologies for the Common Good.” 

Read the full report or the executive summary.

Read the news release.

Summary: Recent research in genetic engineering and “synthetic biology” has enabled scientists to artificially redesign life -- everything from microbes to people. Amid the breakneck speed of recent developments in genetic engineering and synthetic biology that could be used to alter human DNA, this report examines health, regulatory, social and ethical questions about proposals ranging from genetically altering human gut bacteria to implementing germline editing -- altering human embryos and reproductive cells to produce permanent, hereditary genetic modification of future children and generations. It also examines the systemic and commercial incentives to rush newly discovered biotechnologies to market, regardless of their social utility and ahead of appropriate, transparent assessment and oversight.

- See more at: http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/human-genetic-engineering#sthash.BNb4eg3Q.dpuf

Genetic engineering – The state of the science, By Stuart Newman

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=464

"When scientists first learned in the late 1970s how to sequence DNA and transfer it from one kind of organism to another, improving foods and other crop plants by introducing foreign genes was among the first applications proposed. Given contemporaneous findings in molecular genetics, such as the recognition that a mutation in a single gene could promote a cell's transformation to cancerous state,1 it was unsurprising that concerns were raised about the capability of the transgenic methods to dramatically change the biochemistry or ecological stability of plants. Some critics suggested that the quality and safety of fruits and vegetables could be impaired, making them allergenic or toxic to humans and nonhumans who consume them, or that "superweeds" might be created which could disrupt wild or farmed ecosystems."

BILL'S EXCELLENT AFRICAN ADVENTURE: A TALE OF TECHNOCRATIC AGROINDUSTRIAL PHILANTHROCAPITALISM

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=459

Article by Philip Bereano

From 2009 to 2011, Bill Gates' foundation spent $478,302,627 to influence African agricultural development. Adding in the value of agricultural grants going to multiple regions and those for 2012, the Foundation's outlay to influence African agriculture is around $1 billion. Of course, Gates is not an African, not a scholar of Africa, not a farmer, and not a development expert. But he is a very rich man, and he knows how he wants to remake the world.

CRG statement on AAAS endorsement of GMO foods

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/blog/post/Council-for-Responsible-Genetics-Statement-RE-AAAS-Board-Statement-Against-Labeling-of-Genetically-Engineered-Foods.aspx

Council for Responsible Genetics Statement

RE: AAAS Board Statement Against Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods  

The Council for Responsible Genetics is in fundamental disagreement with the recent statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in which it offered assurances that genetically modified foods (GMOS) are safe and that therefore labeling of foods containing GM ingredients is unnecessary.  The AAAS leadership did not reach this decision, a response to Proposition 37 in California, by a vote of its membership.

We are deeply concerned that a scientific body such as the AAAS would take such an action without giving a complete review of the science behind its statement. 

As scientists, they should know that citing a few studies in favor of their position can no longer be considered a compelling argument. Indeed, the AAAS Board did not conduct a thorough analysis of the literature, nor did they include studies that could cast doubt upon their conclusions.

The truth is we do not know conclusively what the long-term effects of growing and consuming GM crops will be. There have been very few systematic and independent animal studies testing the safety of GM crops.  Since 1992 the FDA policy considers the insertion of foreign genes into the plant genomes of crops as the equivalent of hybrid crops-crosses within the same species-and therefore exempt from the regulations on food additives.   

Yet we know enough to have valid concerns. The plant genome is not like a Lego set; it is more like an ecosystem.  You simply cannot predict the safety of gene inserts unless you do the testing. 

Most GM food studies have been generated by industry and it is the industry itself with sole access to so much of the data.  There is little funding of independent studies on the effects of GM foods, and those few scientists who have engaged in such studies and reported concerns are discounted.  Their concerns cannot be resolved without serious and independent scientific study.

We are particularly concerned that at a time when conflicts of interest have become a major concern in science that the AAAS Board would not openly divulge that some in the AAAS leadership appear to have longstanding ties to the biotech industry.  Since these ties have not been transparently disclosed, it is unclear whether there could also be ties to industrial concerns that might influence decision making of the AAAS leadership.    Surely any reader of their position is entitled to such facts in considering their position. We advocate for full disclosure of all such ties by AAAS leaders.

The fact that no deaths have been attributed to GM crops does not mean they

are safe. We do not see deaths associated with bisphenol A (BPA) and yet there are hundreds of studies pointing to risks.  Risks that consumers have carefully considered when choosing whether or not to buy products containing BPA.

The Council for Responsible Genetics has supported GM food labeling for three decades. It is an integral part of our Genetic Bill of Rights.  We further support an active move toward a comprehensive and independent risk assessment for GM foods; not the untenable default state that GMOS are safe.  The public interest is not served when industry supported studies and government cooperation with industry are cited as proof of product safety.

Before we reach any conclusions with regard to GM foods, they must be studied.  That’s a basic scientific principle that the AAAS Board appears to have circumvented with their statement.  In the meantime, consumers have the right to know which foods have GM ingredients before they choose what to feed themselves and their families.