Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) - Myths and Truths

The information is based on the new report "GMO Myths and Truths" by EarthOpenSource.org. You can find more information here:http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58 

GM foods neither safe nor needed, say genetic engineers

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths

Genetically modified crops and foods are neither safe nor necessary to feed the world, a new report by genetic engineers shows.

The second edition of GMO Myths and Truths, co-authored by genetic engineers Dr John Fagan and Dr Michael Antoniou and researcher Claire Robinson, was released on 19 May 2014 as a free online download by the sustainability and science policy platform Earth Open Source.

The second edition follows the publication two years ago of the first edition, which was downloaded 120,000 times just a few weeks after publication and was read online by several times that many visitors. At 330 pages, the new edition is nearly three times the length of the original and summarizes many new studies. 

Why we should ignore pro-GMO hecklers

The following is an excerpt from pages 12 and 13 of GMO Myths and Truths, a report by Earth Open Source. (http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths)

The GMO lobbyists seem to have nothing else to do than defend  GMOs and attack GMO critics again and again, for hours or days on end.

Apart from their supernormal power of never having to sleep, the GMO lobbyists can be distinguished from ordinary people in that:

• 􏰞  There are few of them and their names or aliases pop up again and again under any article on GM published in a significant enough outlet. What normal person is interested in reading and commenting on so many articles on GM, and even in commenting on the comments, unless they are paid to do so?
• 􏰞  There is no learning curve. If normal people make a mistake and it is pointed out, they tend to engage with the challenging evidence or retire from the fray. The lobbyists don’t do either. Instead they change the subject or launch personal attacks. And further down (or up) the comments thread, they make the same discredited point over and over again, as if repeating the claim will somehow make it true – or at least, cause many readers to think it must be true.
• 􏰞  They all use the same industry talking points at the same time, sometimes for weeks or months, until the narrative of choice changes. Then they all change message as a unified chorus. At one time the line is “Golden rice will make the lame walk and the blind see”; at another it’s “GMO isn’t just Monsanto – let’s have more ‘public good’ GMOs, paid for out of public funds!” Seemingly there is no space for original thought in the pro-GMO lobby.
• 􏰞  They are often unpleasant, angry, and hostile. 
• 
  

There is NO scientific consensus on GMO safety

http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

Scientists release statement saying public is being misled on genetic engineering of food

Press release, Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013

Contact claire.robinson@earthopensource.org / +44 (0)752 753 6923

There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”

Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

TO READ MORE: 
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

Genetically engineered food is dangerous

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers

Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic engineers

Earth Open Source press release 17 June 2012

Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, “GMO Myths and Truths”,[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

Dr Michael Antoniou

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Dr John Fagan

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.

Claire Robinson

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities.”

Notes

The report, “GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops”, by Michael Antoniou, PhD, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, PhD is published by Earth Open Source (June 2012). The report is 123 pages long and contains over 600 citations, many of them from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the rest from reports by scientists, physicians, government bodies, industry, and the media. The report is available here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

A shorter summary version will be released in the coming weeks.

Key points from the report

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.
2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials – notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.
3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as “not biologically relevant/significant”, based on scientifically indefensible arguments.
4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.
5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.
6. The US FDA does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat! Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.
7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the US, where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labelled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people’s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.
8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved – a clear conflict of interest.
9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.
10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.
11. Most GM crops (over 75%) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.
12. Roundup, the herbicide that over 50% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage, and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer.
13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.
14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.
15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.
16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.
17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.
18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.
19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.
20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses.
21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.
22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.
23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.
24. GM crops are often promoted as a “vital tool in the toolbox” to feed the world’s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide – traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.
25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of “farmer choice” does not apply in this situation.
26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.
27. When many people read about high-yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes.
28. Certain “supercrops” have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.
29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.
30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.

About the authors

Michael Antoniou, PhD is reader in molecular genetics and head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. He has 28 years’ experience in the use of genetic engineering technology investigating gene organisation and control, with over 40 peer reviewed publications of original work, and holds inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic products and human somatic gene therapies for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.

John Fagan, PhD is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety, and GMO testing. He is founder and chief scientific officer of Global ID Group, a company with subsidiaries involved in GMO food testing and GMO-free certification. He is a director of Earth Open Source. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in academia. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

Dr Fagan became an early voice in the scientific debate on genetic engineering when in 1994 he took an ethical stand challenging the use of germ line gene therapy (which has subsequently been banned in most countries) and genetic engineering in agriculture. He underlined his concerns by returning a grant of around $614,000 to the US National Institutes of Health, awarded for cancer research that used genetic engineering as a research tool. He was concerned that knowledge generated in his research could potentially be misused to advance human germ-line genetic engineering (for example, to create “designer babies”), which he found unacceptable on grounds of both safety and ethics. For similar reasons, around the same time, he withdrew applications for two additional grants totalling $1.25 million from the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In 1996 he started Global ID when he saw that GMO testing could be useful to assist industry in providing consumers with the transparency that they desired regarding the presence of GMOs in foods.

Claire Robinson, MPhil is research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and the environment. She is an editor at GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org), a public information service on issues relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase).

Vital Link article on health hazards of genetically modified foods

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear friends and colleagues,

Re: Don’t Look, Don’t Find: Health Hazards of Genetically Modified Food
A peer-reviewed article on the health hazards of genetically modified foods has recently been published in Vital Link, the journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (www.cand.ca).
The article underscores the inherently imprecise nature of the genetic engineering process, which can cause disruption to the genome. This can lead and has in some cases led to unintended and serious effects. It tackles the hard issues concerning the safety of GM foods. The key points are as follows:
Morbidity & Mortality Findings in Animal Feeding Studies
* The study of Seralini et al. (2012), which is the most thorough study to be carried out on a GM food to date, found alarming health impacts such as severe organ damage, tumors and premature death in rats fed with GM maize sprayed and not sprayed with the herbicide Round-up (glyphosate).
* A review of 19 animal feeding studies with GM crops concluded that they can cause toxic effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. 
Questionable Claims of the Safety of Insect and Herbicide-Resistant GM Crops
* Claims by industry that Bt toxins would be harmlessly broken down in the digestive tract were debunked by a Canadian study in 2010 which found Bt toxin protein in the blood of pregnant women and in the blood supply to their fetuses. Bt proteins can potentially trigger allergies as well as auto-immune and other chronic diseases. The article cites other studies showing allergic and inflammatory responses in rats fed with Bt corn and swelling in the gut in those fed with Bt potato.
* Herbicide-tolerant GM crops comprise about 83% of the world’s GM crop coverage. ‘Roundup Ready’ soy genetically engineered to be resistant to Round-up (glyphosate) will necessarily contain elevated levels of the herbicide. Glyphosate has been linked in laboratory and epidemiological studies and clinical reports to serious health effects, including endocrine disruption, DNA damage, birth defects, cancer, and neurological disorders.
Weak Regulatory System
Seralini et al.’s two-year study showed that industry and regulatory claims of biological irrelevance of effects found in 90-day tests are invalid. Rat feeding studies typically performed in support of regulatory authorizations for GMOs last for a maximum of 90 days.Such studies are designed and conducted by the same companies who market the GMOs in question. The article stresses the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s (AAEM) conclusion that GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption and that animal studies offer “ample evidence of probable harm”.
GM-Free Diets for Health
The article cites case studies where people in the US have reported improvements in their health just by eliminating GMOs from their diets. Symptoms that have reportedly disappeared include gastrointestinal disorders, food intolerances and allergies, immune responses, and asthma. Farmers have similarly reported improved health in their livestock after switching to non-GM feed. The article supports the AAEM’s recommendation that physicians prescribe a GM-free diet to patients and encourages the consumption of organic food for health and safety. 

The article can be downloaded from: http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/145-new-article-on-health-hazards-of-genetically-modified-foods. [Citation: Robinson, C (2103) Don't look, don't find: Health hazards of genetically modified food. CAND Vital Link, Volume 20(1): 17-24.]

With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net