StemCell Therapy

Genetic engineering has the potential to change the way we live. The science behind the agricultural, medical, and environmental achievements is spectacular, but this excitement is tempered by concern for the unknown effects of tampering with nature. How should we use genetic engineering?

DNA is the root of all inheritance and the key to understanding the basics of all biological inheritance and genetics.

The possibilities of this genetic engineering are endless, and everyone from medicine to industry is scrambling to adopt it and adapt it to their specific needs.

Genetic engineering changes or manipulates genes in order to achieve specific results, and there are many ways to "engineer" genetic material including fixing defective genes, replacing missing genes, copying or cloning genes, or combining genes.

How is genetic engineering used in food production? What political, environmental, and production obstacles could arise in the effort to label genetically engineered foods? What food traits would you like to see genetically engineered?

How could GE help in meeting growing demand for food around the world?

How can GE be used with animals? What are the benefits and risks of using genetic engineering with livestock or with endangered or extinct animals?

How does cloning work? What situations might be viewed as ethical uses of human cloning? Unethical?

What are the potential consequences, positive and negative, of discovery in the genetic engineering field? Who should be involved in determining the ethical limitations of the uses of genetic engineering?

Produced from 2001 through 2004, Iowa Public Television's Explore More online and broadcast series engages students in problems they can relate to, provides compelling content for investigation and gives students opportunities to form their own points of viewon contemporary issues.

Although the full website has been retired, this archive provides links to project videos and related resources. Please contact us if you have questions or comments about Explore More.

Originally posted here:
Genetic Engineering | IPTV

Thisarticleoriginally appeared at Ensia and has been republished here with permission.

Which is more disruptive to a plant: genetic engineering or conventional breeding?

It often surprises people to learn that GE commonly causes less disruption to plants than conventional techniques of breeding. But equally profound is the realization that the latest GE techniques, coupled with a rapidly expanding ability to analyze massive amounts of genetic material, allow us to make super-modest changes in crop plant genes that will enable farmers to produce more food with fewer adverse environmental impacts. Such super-modest changes are possible with CRISPR-based genome editing, a powerful set of new genetic tools that is leading a revolution in biology.

My interest in GE crops stems from my desire to provide more effective and sustainable plant disease control for farmers worldwide. Diseases often destroy 10 to 15 percent of potential crop production, resulting in global losses of billions of dollars annually. The risk of disease-related losses provides an incentive to farmers to use disease-control products such as pesticides. One of my strongest areas of expertise is in the use of pesticides for disease control. Pesticides certainly can be useful in farming systems worldwide, but they have significant downsides from a sustainability perspective. Used improperly, they can contaminate foods. They can pose a risk to farm workers. And they must be manufactured, shipped and applied all processes with a measurable environmental footprint. Therefore, I am always seeking to reduce pesticide use by offering farmers more sustainable approaches to disease management.

What follows are examples of how minimal GE changes can be applied to make farming more environmentally friendly by protecting crops from disease. They represent just a small sampling of the broad landscape of opportunities for enhancing food security and agricultural sustainability that innovations in molecular biology offer today.

Genetically altering crops the way these examples demonstrate creates no cause for concern for plants or people. Mutations occur naturally every time a plant makes a seed; in fact, they are the very foundation of evolution. All of the food we eat has all kinds of mutations, and eating plants with mutations does not cause mutations in us.

Knocking Out Susceptibility

A striking example of how a tiny genetic change can make a big difference to plant health is the strategy of knocking out a plant gene that microorganisms can benefit from. Invading microorganisms sometimes hijack certain plant molecules to help themselves infect the plant. A gene that produces such a plant molecule is known as a susceptibility gene.

We can use CRISPR-based genome editing to create a targeted mutation in a susceptibility gene. A change of as little as a single nucleotide in the plants genetic material the smallest genetic change possible can confer disease resistance in a way that is absolutely indistinguishable from natural mutations that can happen spontaneously. Yet if the target gene and mutation site are carefully selected, a one-nucleotide mutation may be enough to achieve an important outcome.

There is a substantial body of research showing proof-of-concept that a knockout of a susceptibility gene can increase resistance in plants to a very wide variety of disease-causing microorganisms. An example that caught my attention pertained to powdery mildew of wheat, because fungicides (pesticides that control fungi) are commonly used against this disease. While this particular genetic knockout is not yet commercialized, I personally would rather eat wheat products from varieties that control disease through genetics than from crops treated with fungicides.

The Power of Viral Snippets

Plant viruses are often difficult to control in susceptible crop varieties. Conventional breeding can help make plants resistant to viruses, but sometimes it is not successful.

Early approaches to engineering virus resistance in plants involved inserting a gene from the virus into the plants genetic material. For example, plant-infecting viruses are surrounded by a protective layer of protein, called the coat protein. The gene for the coat protein of a virus called papaya ring spot virus was inserted into papaya. Through a process called RNAi, this empowers the plant to inactivate the virus when it invades. GE papaya has been a spectacular success, in large part saving the Hawaiian papaya industry.

Through time, researchers discovered that even just a very small fragment from one viral gene can stimulate RNAi-based resistance if precisely placed within a specific location in the plants DNA. Even better, they found we can stack resistance genes engineered with extremely modest changes in order to create a plant highly resistant to multiple viruses. This is important because, in the field, crops are often exposed to infection by several viruses.

Does eating this tiny bit of a viral gene sequence concern me? Absolutely not, for many reasons, including:

Tweaking Sentry Molecules

Microorganisms can often overcome plants biochemical defenses by producing molecules called effectors that interfere with those defenses. Plants respond by evolving proteins to recognize and disable these effector molecules. These recognition proteins are called R proteins (R standing for resistance). Their job is to recognize the invading effector molecule and trigger additional defenses. A third interesting approach, then, to help plants resist an invading microorganism is to engineer an R protein so that it recognizes effector molecules other than the one it evolved to detect. We can then use CRISPR to supply a plant with the very small amount of DNA needed to empower it to make this protein.

This approach, like susceptibility knockouts, is quite feasible, based on published research. Commercial implementation will require some willing private- or public-sector entity to do the development work and to face the very substantial and costly challenges of the regulatory process.

Engineered for Sustainability

The three examples here show that extremely modest engineered changes in plant genetics can result in very important benefits. All three examples involve engineered changes that trigger the natural defenses of the plant. No novel defense mechanisms were introduced in these research projects, a fact that may appeal to some consumers. The wise use of the advanced GE methods illustrated here, as well as others described elsewhere, has the potential to increase the sustainability of our food production systems, particularly given the well-established safety of GE crops and their products for consumption.

See the rest here:
When genetic engineering is the environmentally friendly choice - Genetic Literacy Project

Seen any clone armies in your backyard lately? Probably not. This might surprise you if you are old enough to remember the ethical panic that greeted the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, in Scotland 21 years ago.

The cloned creature set off a crazy overreaction, with fears of clone armies, re-creating the dead, and a host of other horrors, monsters, abuses and terrors none of which has come to pass. That is why it is so important, amid all the moral hand-wringing about what could happen as human genetic engineering emerges, to keep our ethical eye on the right ball. Freaking out over impending superbabies and mutant humans with the powers of comic book characters is not what is needed.

An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University, has used genetic engineering on human sperm and a pre-embryo. The group is doing basic research to figure out if new forms of genetic engineering might be able to prevent or repair terrible hereditary diseases.

How close are they to making freakish superpeople using their technology? About as close as we are to traveling intergalactically using current rocket technology.

So what should we be worrying about as this rudimentary but promising technique tries to get off the launch pad?

First and foremost, oversight of what is going on. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has banned federal funding for genetic engineering of sperm, eggs, pre-embryos or embryos. That means everything goes on in the private or philanthropic world here or overseas, without much guidance. We need clear rules with teeth to keep anyone from trying to go too fast or deciding to try to cure anything in an embryo intended to become an actual human being without rock-solid safety data.

Second, we need to determine who should own the techniques for genetic engineering. Important patent fights are underway among the technology's inventors. That means people smell lots of money. And that means it is time to talk about who gets to own what and charge what, lest we reinvent the world of the $250,000 drug in this area of medicine.

Finally, human genetic engineering needs to be monitored closely: all experiments registered, all data reported on a public database and all outcomes good and bad made available to all scientists and anyone else tracking this area of research. Secrecy is the worst enemy that human genetic engineering could possibly have.

Let your great-great-grandkids fret about whether they want to try to make a perfect baby. Today we need to worry about who will own genetic engineering technology, how we can oversee what is being done with it and how safe it needs to be before it is used to try to prevent or fix a disease.

That is plenty to worry about.

Arthur L. Caplan is head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University School of Medicine.

Visit link:
Don't fear the rise of superbabies. Worry about who will own genetic engineering technology. - Chicago Tribune

Human genetic engineering is moving forward exponentially and we are still not having any meaningful societal, regulatory, or legislative conversations about whether, how, and to what extent we should permit the human genome to be altered in ways that flow down the generations.

But dont worry. The scientists assure us, when that can be done, there will (somehow) beSTRICT OVERSIGHT From the AP story:

And lots more research is needed to tell if its really safe, added Britains Lovell-Badge. He and Kahn were part of a National Academy of Sciences report earlier this year that said if germline editing ever were allowed, it should be only for serious diseases with no good alternatives and done with strict oversight.

Please!No more! When I laugh this hard it makes mystomach hurt.

Heres the problem: Strict guidelines rarely are strict and the almost never permanently protect. Theyare ignored, unenforced, or stretched over time until they, essentially, cease to exist.

Thats awful with actions such as euthanasia. But wecant let that kind of pretense rule the day withtechnologies that could prove to be among themost powerful and potentially destructive inventions in human history. Indeed, other than nuclear weapons, I cant think of a technology with more destructive potential.

Strict oversight will have to include legal limitations and clear boundaries, enforced bystiff criminalpenalties, civil remedies, and international protocols.

They wont be easy to craft and it will take significant time to work through all of the scientific and ethical conundrums.

But we havent made a beginning. If we wait until what may be able to be done actually can be done, it will be too late.

Wheres the leadership? All we have now is drift.

View original post here:
Genetic Engineering with 'Strict Guidelines?' Ha! - National Review

Edited human embryos. Image: OHSYU

This week, news of a major scientific breakthrough brought a debate over genetically engineering humans front and center. For the first time ever, scientists genetically engineered a human embryo on American soil in order to remove a disease-causing mutation. It was the fourth time ever that such a feat has been published on, and with the most success to date. It may still be a long way off, but it seems likely that one day we will indeed have to grapple with the sticky, complicated philosophical mess of whether, and in which cases, genetically engineering a human being is morally permissible.

On the heels of this news, on Thursday a group of 11 genetics groups released policy recommendations for whats known as germline editingor altering the human genome in such a way that those changes could be passed down to future generations. The statement, from groups including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said that doctors should not yet entertain implanting an altered embryo in a human womb, a step which would be against the law in the United States. But they also argued that there is no reason not to use public money to fund basic research on human germline editing, contrary to a National Institutes of Health policy that has banned funding research involving editing human embryo DNA.

Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing, they wrote. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

Safety, ethical concerns and the impact germline editing might have on societal inequality, they wrote, would all have to be worked out before such technology is ready for the clinic.

Genetic disease, once a universal common denominator, could instead become an artifact of class, geographic location, and culture, they wrote. In turn, reduced incidence and reduced sense of shared risk could affect the resources available to individuals and families dealing with genetic conditions.

If and when embryo editing is ready for primetime, the group concluded that there would need to be a good medical reason to use such technology, as well as a transparent public debate. Some have questioned the medical necessity of embryo editing, arguing that genetic screening combined with in vitro fertilization could allow doctors to simply pick disease-free eggs to implant, achieving the same results via a method that is less morally-fraught.

In February, the National Academy of Sciences released a 261-page report that also gave a cautious green light to human gene-editing, endorsing the practice for purposes of curing disease and for basic research, but determining that uses such as creating designer babies are unethical. Other nations, like China and the UK, have forged ahead with human embryo editing for basic research, though there have been no published accounts of research past the first few days of early embryo development.

Given the way the culture, religion and regional custom impact attitudes toward genetically-engineering human life, its safe to say that this debate will not be an easy one to settle. As the policy recommendations point out, views on the matter vary drastically not just across the US, but around the world, and yet one nation making the decision to go ahead with implanting edited embryos will create a world in which that technology exists for everyone.

In the meantime, though, there are still more than a few kinks to work out in the science before were faced with these questions in the real world.

Read the original post:
Experts Call on US to Start Funding Scientists to Genetically Engineer Human Embryos - Gizmodo

A coral reef takes thousands of years to build, yet can vanish in an instant.

The culprit is usuallycoral bleaching, a disease exacerbated by warming watersthat today threatens reefs around the globe. The worst recorded bleaching eventstruck the South Pacific between 2014 and 2016, when rising ocean temperatures followed by a sudden influx of warm El Nio waters traumatizedthe Great Barrier Reef.In just one seasonbleaching decimated nearly a quarter of thevast ecosystem, which once sprawled nearly 150,000 square miles through the Coral Sea.

As awful as it was, that bleaching event was a wake-up call, says Rachel Levin, a molecular biologist who recently proposed a bold technique to save these key ecosystems. Her idea, published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology, is simple:Rather than finding healthy symbiontsto repopulate bleached coral in nature, engineer them in the lab instead.Given that this would requiretampering with nature in a significant way, the proposal is likely to stir controversial waters.

But Levin argues that with time running out for reefs worldwide, the potential value could wellbe worth the risk.

Levin studied cancer pharmacology as an undergraduate, but became fascinated by the threats facing aquatic life while dabbling in marine science courses. She was struck by the fact that, unlike in human disease research, there were far fewer researchers fighting to restore ocean health. After she graduated, she moved from California to Sydney, Australia to pursue a Ph.D. at the Center for Marine Bio-Innovation in the University of New South Wales, with the hope of applying her expertise in human disease research to corals.

In medicine, it often takes the threat of a serious disease for researchers to try a new and controversial treatment (i.e. merging two womens healthy eggs with one mans sperm to make a three-parent baby).The same holds in environmental scienceto an extent.Like a terrible disease [in] humans, when people realize how dire the situation is becoming researchers start trying to propose much more, Levin says.When it comes to saving the environment, however, there are fewer advocates willing to implementrisky, groundbreaking techniques.

When it comes to reefscrucial marine regions that harbor an astonishing amount of diversity as well as protect land massesfrom storm surges, floods and erosionthat hesitation could be fatal.

Coral bleachingis often presented as the death of coral, which is a little misleading. Actually, its the breakdown of the symbiotic union that enables a coral to thrive. The coral animal itself is like a building developer who constructs the scaffolding of a high rise apartment complex. The developer rents out each of the billions of rooms to single-celled, photosynthetic microbes called Symbiodinium.

But in this case, in exchange for a safe place to live, Symbiodinium makes food for the coral using photosynthesis. A bleached coral, by contrast, is like a deserted building. With no tenants to make their meals, the coral eventually dies.

Though bleaching can be deadly, its actually a clever evolutionary strategy of the coral. The Symbiodinium are expected to uphold their end of the bargain. But when the water gets too warm, they stop photosynthesizing. When that food goes scarce, the coral sends an eviction notice. Its like having a bad tenantyoure going to get rid of what you have and see if you can find better, Levin says.

But as the oceans continue to warm, its harder and harder to find good tenants. That means evictions can be risky. In a warming ocean, the coral animal might die before it can find any better rentersa scenario that has decimated reef ecosystems around the planet.

Levin wanted to solve this problem,by creatinga straightforward recipe for building a super-symbiont that could repopulate bleached corals and help them to persist through climate changeessentially, the perfect tenants. But she had to start small. At the time, there were so many holes and gaps that prevented us from going forward, she says. All I wanted to do was show that we could genetically engineer [Symbiodinium].

Even that would prove to be a tall order. The first challenge was that, despite being a single-celled organism, Symbiodinium has an unwieldy genome. Usually symbiotic organisms have streamlined genomes, since they rely on their hosts for most of their needs. Yet while other species have genomes of around 2 million base pairs, Symbiodiniums genome is 3 orders of magnitude larger.

Theyre humongous, Levin says. In fact, the entire human genome is only slightly less than 3 times as big as Symbiodiniums.

Even after advances in DNA sequencing made deciphering these genomes possible, scientists still had no idea what 80 percent of the genes were for. We needed to backtrack and piece together which gene was doing what in this organism, Levin says. A member of a group of phytoplankton called dinoflagellates, Symbiodinium are incredibly diverse. Levin turned her attention to two key Symbiodinium strains she could grow in her lab.

The first strain, like most Symbiodinium, was vulnerable to the high temperatures that cause coral bleaching. Turn up the heat dial a few notches, and this critter was toast. But the other strain, which had been isolated from the rare corals that live in the warmest environments,seemed to be impervious to heat. If she could figure out how these two strains wielded their genes during bleaching conditions, then she might find the genetic keys to engineering a new super-strain.

When Levin turned up the heat, she saw that the hardySymbiodinium escalated its production of antioxidants and heat shock proteins, which help repair cellular damage caused by heat. Unsurprisingly, the normal Symbiodinium didnt. Levin then turned her attention to figuring out a way to insert more copies of these crucial heat tolerating genes into the weaker Symbiodinium, thereby creating a strain adapted to live with corals from temperate regionsbut with the tools to survive warming oceans.

Getting new DNA into a dinoflagellate cell is no easy task. While tiny, these cells are protected by armored plates, two cell membranes, and a cell wall. You can get through if you push hard enough, Levin says. But then again, you might end up killing the cells. So Levin solicited help from an unlikely collaborator: a virus. After all, viruses have evolved to be able to put their genes into their hosts genomethats how they survive and reproduce, she says.

Levin isolated a virus that infected Symbiodinium, and molecularly altered it it so that it no longer killed the cells. Instead, she engineered it to be a benign delivery system for those heat tolerating genes. In her paper, Levin argues that the viruss payload could use CRISPR, the breakthrough gene editing technique that relies on a natural process used by bacteria, to cut and paste those extra genes into a region of the Symbiodiniums genome where they would be highly expressed.

It sounds straightforward enough. But messing with a living ecosystem is never simple, says says Dustin Kemp, professor of biology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who studies the ecological impacts of climate change on coral reefs. Im very much in favor of these solutions to conserve and genetically help, says Kemp. But rebuilding reefs that have taken thousands of years to form is going to be a very daunting task.

Considering the staggering diversity of the Symbiodinium strains that live within just one coral species, even if there was a robust system for genetic modification, Kemp wonders if it would ever be possible to engineer enough different super-Symbiodinium to restore that diversity. If you clear cut an old growth forest and then go out and plant a few pine trees, is that really saving or rebuilding the forest? asks Kemp, who was not involved with the study.

But Kemp agrees that reefs are dying at an alarming rate, too fast for the natural evolution of Symbiodinium to keep up. If corals were rapidly evolving to handle [warming waters], youd think we would have seen it by now, he says.

Thomas Mock, a marine microbiologist at the University of East Anglia in the UKand a pioneer in genetically modifying phytoplankton, also points out that dinoflagellate biology is still largely enshrouded in mystery. To me this is messing around, he says. But this is how it starts usually. Provocative argument is always goodits very very challenging, but lets get started somewhere and see what we can achieve. Recently, CSIRO, the Australian governments science division, has announced that it will fund laboratories to continue researching genetic modifications in coral symbionts.

When it comes to human healthfor instance, protecting humans from devastating diseases like malaria or Zikascientists have been willing to try more drastic techniques, such as releasing mosquitoes genetically programmed to pass on lethal genes. The genetic modifications needed to save corals, Levin argues, would not be nearly as extreme. She adds that much more controlled lab testing is required before genetically modified Symbiodinium could be released into the environment to repopulate dying corals reefs.

When were talking genetically engineered, were not significantly altering these species, she says. Were not making hugely mutant things. All were trying to do is give them an extra copy of a gene they already have to help them out ... were not trying to be crazy scientists.

Read more from the original source:
A Blueprint for Genetically Engineering a Super Coral - Smithsonian

The approach is generic enough that you could theoretically apply it to other flowering plants. Blue roses, anyone? There are broader possibilities, too. While the exact techniques clearly won't translate to other lifeforms, this might hint at what's required to produce blue eyes or feathers. And these color changes would be useful for more than just cosmetics. Pollinating insects tend to prefer blue, so this could help spread plant life that has trouble competing in a given habitat.

Just don't count on picking up a blue bouquet. You need a permit to sell any genetically modified organism in the US, and there's a real concern that these gene-modified flowers might spread and create havoc in local ecosystems. The research team hopes to make tweaked chrysanthemums that don't breed, but that also means you're unlikely to see them widely distributed even if they do move beyond the lab. Any public availability would likely hinge on a careful understanding of the flowers' long-term impact.

Read more:
Genetic engineering creates an unnaturally blue flower - Engadget

CHINA, July 12, 2017 - Purple rice developed by Chinese scientists. A new genetic engineering technique developed by Chinese scientists has been used to develop purple rice packed with antioxidant-boosting pigments called anthocyanins.

A study published in Molecular Plantshows how the scientists created the technique, which is capable of delivering many genes at once, and used it to make rice endosperm seed tissue that provides nutrients to the developing plant embryo. Although anthocyanins are naturally abundant in some black and red rice varieties, they are absent in polished rice grains because the husk, bran, and germ have been removed, leaving only the endosperm.

Previous attempts to engineer anthocyanin production in rice have failed because the underlying biosynthesis pathway is highly complex, and it has been difficult to efficiently transfer many genes into plants. Genetic engineering approaches have previously been used to develop rice enriched in beta-carotene and folate, but not anthocyanins.

We have developed a highly efficient, easy-to-use transgene stacking system called TransGene Stacking II that enables the assembly of a large number of genes in single vectors for plant transformation, says senior study author Yao-Guang Liu of the South China Agricultural University. We envisage that this vector system will have many potential applications in this era of synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. The researchers plan to evaluate the safety of purple endosperm rice as biofortified food and will try to engineer the biosynthesis of anthocyanins in other crops to produce more purple endosperm cereals.

Continued here:
Purple rice developed by Chinese scientists - Agri-Pulse

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

On a hill above the cold waters around Prince Edward Island, technicians painstakingly create fertilized Atlantic salmon eggs that include growth-enhancing DNA from two other fish species. The eggs will be shipped to tanks in the high rainforest of Panama, where they will produce fish that mature far more quickly than normal farmed salmon.

More than 20 years after first seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, AquaBounty Technologies of Maynard, Massachusetts, plans to bring these "AquAdvantage" fish to the U.S. and Canadian markets next year. And in the small town of Albany, Indiana, workers will soon begin converting a land-based aquaculture facility to produce about 1,300 U.S. tons of these salmon annually, in the first U.S. facility to generate GE animals for human consumption.

The company also plans to open a second aquaculture facility at Prince Edward Island if it can rise above its latest round of legal battles and persuade grocery stores and restaurants to snap up the genetically engineered fish. Before the FDA cleared the salmon for consumption in 2015, in its first approval of GE animal protein as human food, it received 1.8 million messages opposing these fish. Perhaps more substantively, many outside researchers remain concerned about AquaBounty's plans.

Safety and nutrition

Aquaculture specialists generally aren't skeptical about whether the fish will be healthy to eat, although that's one issue hinted at in a lawsuit multiple organizations, including Friends of the Earth, have filed against the FDA. Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner with Friends of the Earth in Berkeley, California, says the FDA didn't fully examine questions about eating the salmon initially raised by Health Canada, that country's public health department including susceptibility to disease and potential allergic reactions.

"This is a poorly studied, risky, and unlabeled genetically engineered fish," she says, adding that more than 80 U.S. grocery chains have committed not to buy it. However, Health Canada eventually concluded that fillets derived from AquAdvantage salmon "are as safe and nutritious as fillets from current available farmed Atlantic salmon," and approved the fish for consumption in 2016.

"There's no reason to suspect these fish from a food safety perspective," says Cyr Couturier, chair of aquaculture programs at Memorial University's Marine Institute in St. John's, Newfoundland. "They have no unnatural products that humans wouldn't otherwise consume."

Similar transgenic salmon created by a decades-long Fisheries and Oceans Canada research program tested well within normal salmon variations, adds Robert Devlin, engineering research scientist at the agency in North Vancouver, British Columbia. But critics do raise two other main concerns about AquaBounty's quest: the economic sustainability of the land-based approach, and the environmental risk to ecosystems if the fish escape.

Fish on land

AquaBounty will raise its GE fish in land-based recirculating aquaculture systems, known as RAS basically huge aquaria designed to minimize water use, maximize resources and accommodate high stocking densities. "While farming salmon in sea cages is less expensive and less technologically complex than a land-based farm," the company's website points out, "sea cages are susceptible to a number of hazards such as violent storms, predators, harmful algal blooms, jellyfish attacks, fish escapes, and the transmission of pathogens and parasites from wild fish populations."

Given the potential opportunity to achieve greater production control and avoid some of the environmental concerns of sea farms, many RAS projects have launched around the world in the past decade. However, most of these projects are small, and many have failed or are struggling.

The big problem is cost. RAS facilities need much more capital than ocean farms with similar production rates, and they're expensive to operate.

"Land-based systems use a lot of freshwater, even though it's recirculated, and a lot of electricity," notes Couturier. Such systems "operate at an economic disadvantage because much of their cost goes toward creating growing conditions occurring naturally within the ocean," summed up one 2014 report that found producing Atlantic salmon in Nova Scotia would not be economically feasible.

AquaBounty, which is buying its Indiana plant from a collapsed RAS venture, expects to beat these odds mainly because its GE salmon reach market size in about half the time of normal farmed salmon in 1618 months rather than 2836 months, the company says. Ravenous as they are, with their growth hormones continually wired on, the fish still require about a quarter less feed than normal fish. (Although farmed salmon are very efficient at converting food to flesh a pound of feed converts close to a pound of flesh feed remains a major expense.)

The company also says that salmon in its RAS facilities won't need vaccines or antibiotics because it will tightly control conditions. However, "they will have some disease issues of course, as will any animal that's reared in high densities," Couturier predicts.

If AquaBounty can compete on cost, there will be some justification for promoting its product as "the world's most sustainable salmon." In addition to requiring less feed, growing fish in Indiana or Prince Edward Island can slash the high carbon costs of flying fish from Norway or Chile, two leading suppliers of farmed salmon in the U.S.

Still, says Couturier, "I wish them all the best, but I think it will be a small-scale niche for at least a decade."

Losing GE fish

Many aquaculture scientists remain uneasy about the environmental risk to wild ecosystems if transgenic fish slip out of their farms. Although other agencies will presumably be involved in assessing risk as the projects advance, "the FDA has no in-house capacity to evaluate or understand the ecological consequences of transgenics in an aquatic ecosystem," says Conner Bailey, professor emeritus of rural sociology at Auburn University in Alabama. "And once you get anything into an aquatic ecosystem, it's really hard to control."

AquaBounty's protection scheme begins with multiple levels of physical barriers in its RAS facilities. Additionally, the salmon are all female and "triploid" (their DNA is in three rather than two sets of chromosomes) so they can't reproduce. However, scientists say neither of these measures can be 100 percent effective at preventing transgenic fish from escaping, disrupting local ecosystems, and potentially breeding in the wild.

More generally, while AquaBounty is committed to land-based systems, there are concerns that it's also creating far more GE eggs than it needs for its own production. Other industry groups, such as the Atlantic Salmon Federation, worry that other producers AquaBounty sells to might not be so careful, or that other companies around the world might move ahead with similar projects but without the same precautions. And all bets on risk are off if GE fish are raised in the ocean, where fish routinely escape, sometimes in large numbers.

Devlin's group has extensively modeled the results of accidental releases, studying groups of transgenic and non-transgenic fish in "naturalized" aquatic test beds that are exposed to variations in conditions, such as food supply. Transgenic fish often behave quite differently, and the results have varied from peaceful coexistence to one experiment in which fully transgenic fish killed off all their competitors.

"In the multitude of different environments that exist in nature, the uncertainty is too great to make a reliable prediction of what the impact would be," he says.

GE or selective breeding?

Does the fast growth of AquAdvantage salmon justify taking on these unknown risks? Scientists point out that today's selective breeding research programs, built on genomics and other tools of modern biology, also have turbocharged fish development. "Some strains of rainbow trout, which have been selected for fast growth for 150 years, grow incredibly fast compared to wild-type fish," Devlin says. In fact, he says, his lab work across various species suggests that "the absolute fastest growth you can achieve either by domestication or by transgenesis seems to be very similar."

"Today's farmed salmon have had more than 10 generations of selection applied to them, and they are growing at more than double the rate compared to the 1970s," says Bjarne Gjerde, senior scientist at Nofima in Troms, Norway.

Farmed fish also must excel in many traits besides growth, such as disease resistance and food quality, he emphasizes. "Most of the traits we are breeding for are governed by many, many genes with small effects," he says. "That's a real challenge if you just want to take short cuts with genetic engineering."

When and if AquaBounty rises above all its challenges into a groundbreaking success in North America, the firm will send a signal around the world to unleash efforts for commercializing GE fish, observers say. Friends of the Earth's Perls remains hopeful that legal barriers and consumer boycotts will stop AquaBounty in its tracks. If not, "GE salmon could set a precedent to the approval of other GE animals in the pipeline, from fish to chickens, pigs, and cows," she says. "It is critical that we don't approve other GE animals without robust regulations and full environmental reviews to ensure that we're prioritizing human and environmental safety over profit."

"Fish are probably where transgenic animals will emerge, because it's much cheaper to maintain a herd of catfish or salmon than cattle or sheep or pigs," says Bailey.

This story was first published by Ensia, an environmental news magazine from the University of Minnesota.

This article originally appeared at PRI's The World.

Read this article:
Genetically engineered salmon is coming to America - The Week Magazine

In BriefThe age of gene editing and creation will be upon us in the next few decades, with the first lifeform having already been printed. Stanford University questions the ethics of prospective students by asking a question we should all be thinking about.

When bioengineering students sit down to take their final exams for Stanford University,they are faced with a moral dilemma, as well as a series of grueling technical questions that are designed to sort the intellectual wheat from the less competent chaff:

If you and your future partner are planning to have kids, would you start saving money for college tuition, or for printing the genome of your offspring?

The question is a follow up to At what point will the cost of printing DNA to create a human equal the cost of teaching a student in Stanford? Both questions refer to the very real possibility that it may soon be in the realm of affordability to print off whatever stretch of DNA you so desire, using genetic sequencing and a machine capable of synthesizing the four building blocks of DNA A, C, G, and T into whatever order you desire.

The answer to the time question, by the way, is 19 years, given that the cost of tuition at Stanford remains at $50,000 and the price of genetic printing continues the 200-fold decrease that has occurred over the last 14 years. Precursory work has already been performed; a team lead by Craig Venter created the simplest life form ever known last year.

Stanfords moral question, though, is a little trickier. The question is part of a larger conundrum concerning humans interfering with their own biology; since the technology is developing so quickly, the issue is no longer whether we can or cant,but whether we should or shouldnt. The debate has two prongs: gene editing and life printing.

With the explosion of CRISPR technology many studies are due to start this year the ability to edit our genetic makeup will arrive soon. But how much should we manipulate our own genes? Should the technology be a reparative one, reserved for making sick humans healthy again, or should it be used to augment our current physical restrictions, making us bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter?

The question of printing life is similar in some respects; rather than altering organisms to have the desired genetic characteristics, we could print and culture them instead billions have already been invested. However, there is theadditional issue of playing God by sidestepping the methods of our reproduction that have existed since the beginning of life. Even if the ethical issue of creation was answered adequately, there are the further questions ofwho has the right to design life, what the regulations would be, and the potential restrictions on the technology based on cost; if its too pricey, gene editing could be reserved only for the rich.

It is vital to discuss the ethics of gene editing in order to ensure that the technology is not abused in the future. Stanfords question is praiseworthy because it makes todays students, who will most likely be spearheading the technologys developments, think about the consequences of their work.

Read the original:
Stanford's Final Exams Pose Question About the Ethics of Genetic Engineering - Futurism

Adult diamondback moth. Photo by Lyle Buss

The diamondback moth (DBM) is a pest of epic proportions to farmers worldwide. Growers of cabbage and collard crops know this all too well. Controlling the notorious DBM has become more difficult in recent times with incidence of pesticide resistance increasing. With that, the search for viable management continues to expand. For the last two years, Cornell scientists have been working with British-based biotech company Oxitec and testing its self-limiting gene capabilities on DBM in a protected environment. The team at Cornell has been waiting for a go-aheadfrom USDA to take the experiment out from behind closed doors and into one if its cabbage fields in Upstate New York. It looks like the wait is over.

USDAs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has officially announced the availability of a final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact and will concurrently issue a permit for the field release of a genetically engineered DBM.

The pest moths are genetically engineered for repressible female lethality and to express red fluorescence as a marker. The purpose of the field release is to assess the feasibility and efficacy of these moths in reducing populations of DBM. Based on the finding of no significant impact, APHIS has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

Notice of these actions will be published in theFederal Register.

The Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY) has since released a statement denouncing USDAs decision. A portion of the statement reads as follows: NOFA-NY considers the release of a novel genetically engineered organism to be a major activity with potentially significant and heretofore unknown health and environmental effects, said NOFA-NY Policy Advisor Liana Hoodes. It is now up to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to ensure the safety of its citizens before granting the necessary state permit. We call on the NYS DEC to require a full environmental impact statement and public hearings during a complete review under State Environmental Quality Review Act.

More here:
Can Genetic Engineering Put an End to Diamondback Moth Plague ... - Growing Produce

Last month, researchers announced some astonishing findings in Nature Genetics: Theyd found 40 genes that play a role in shaping human intelligence, bringing the total number of known intelligence genes up to 52.

This study was a big deal because while weve known intelligence is largely heritable, we havent understood the specifics of the biology of IQ why it can be so different between people, and why we can lose it near the end of life.

The Nature Genetics study was a key early step toward understanding this, hailed as an enormous success in the New York Times.

And there are many more insights like this to come. The researchers used a design called a genome-wide association study. In it, computers comb through enormous data sets of human genomes to find variations among them that point to disease or traits like intelligence. As more people have their genomes sequenced, and as computers become more sophisticated at seeking out patterns in data, these types of studies will proliferate.

But theres also a deep uneasiness at the heart of this research it is easily misused by people who want to make claims about racial superiority and differences between groups. Such concerns prompted Nature to run an editorial stressing that the new science of genetics and intelligence comes to no such conclusions. Environment is crucial, too, Nature emphasized. The existence of genes for intelligence would not imply that education is wasted on people without those genes. Geneticists burned down that straw man long ago.

Also, nothing in this work suggests there are genetic difference in intelligence when comparing people of different ancestries. If anything, it suggests that the genetics that give rise to IQ are more subtle and intricate than we can ever really understand.

Were going to keep getting better at mapping the genes that make us smart, make us sick, or even make us lose our hair. But old fears and myths about genetics and determinism will rear their heads. So will fears about mapping ideal human genes that will lead to designer babies, where parents can pick traits for their children la carte.

To walk through the science, and to bust its myths, I spoke to Danielle Posthuma, a statistical geneticist at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, who was the senior author on the latest Nature study.

Theres a simple understanding of genetics were all taught in high school. We learn, as Gregor Mendel discovered with pea plants, that we can inherit multiple forms of the same gene. One variation of the gene makes wrinkled peas; the other makes for round peas. Its true, but its hardly the whole story.

In humans, a few traits and illnesses work like this. Whether the bottom of your earlobes stick to the side of your face or hang free is the result of one gene. Huntingtons disease which deteriorates nerve cells in the brain is the result of a single gene.

But most of the traits that make you you your height, your personality, your intellect arise out of a complex constellation of genes. There might be 1,000 genes that influence intelligence, for example. Same goes for the genes that lead to certain disorders. Theres no one gene for schizophrenia, for obesity, for depression.

A single gene for one of these things also wont have an appreciable impact on behavior. If you have the bad variant of one gene for IQ, maybe your IQ score ... is 0.001 percent lower than it would have been, Posthuma says.

But if you have 100 bad variants, or 1,000, then that might make a meaningful difference.

Genome-wide association studies allow scientists to start to see how combinations of many, many genes interact in complicated ways. And it takes huge data sets to sort through all the genetic noise and find variants that truly make a difference on traits like intelligence.

The researchers had one: the UK Biobank, a library that contains genetic, health, and behavioral information on 500,000 Britons. For the study, they pulled complete genome information on 78,000 individuals who had also undergone intelligence testing. Then a computer program combed through millions of sites on the gene code where people tend to variate from one another, and singled out the areas that correlated with smarts.

The computer processing power needed for this kind of research this study had to crunch 9.3 million DNA letters from 78,000 people hasnt been available very long. But now that it is, researchers have been starting to piece together the puzzle that links genes to behaviors.

A recent genome-wide analysis effort identified 250 gene sites that predicted male pattern baldness in a sample of 52,000 men. (Would you really want to know if you had them?) And theres been progress identifying genes that signal risk for diabetes, schizophrenia, and depression.

And these studies dont just look at traits, diseases, and behavior. Theyre also starting to analyze genetic associations to life outcomes. A 2016 paper in Nature reported on 74 gene sites that correlate with educational attainment. (These genes, the study authors note, seem to have something to do with the formation of neurons.) Again, these associations are tiny the study found that these 74 gene variants could only explain 3 percent of the difference between any two people on what level of education they achieve. Its hardly set in stone that youll flunk school if you dont have these gene variants.

But still, they make a small significant difference once you start looking at huge numbers of people.

Its important to note that Posthumas study was only on people of European ancestry. Whatever we find for Europeans doesnt necessarily [extrapolate] for Asians or South Americans, [or any other group] she says. Those things are often misused.

Which is to say: The gene variations that produce the differences between Europeans arent necessarily the same variations that produce differences among groups of different ancestry. So if you were to test the DNA of someone of African origin, and saw they lacked these genes, it would be incredibly irresponsible to conclude they had a lower capacity for intelligence. (Again, there are also likely hundreds of more genetic sites that have something to do with intellect that have yet to be discovered.)

Posthumas work identifying genes associated with intelligence isnt about making predictions about how smart a baby might grow up to be. She doesnt think you can reliably predict educational or intelligence outcomes from DNA alone. This is all really about reverse-engineering the biology of intelligence.

Genes code for proteins. Proteins then interact with other proteins. Researchers can trace this pathway all the way up to the level of behavior. And somewhere along that path, there just might be a place where we can intervene and stop age-related cognitive decline, for instance, and Alzheimers.

We're finally starting to see robust reliable associations from genes with their behavior, she says. The next step is how do we prove that this gene is actually evolved in a disorder, and how does it work?

Understanding the biology of intelligence could also lead the way for personalized approaches to treating neurodegenerative diseases. Its possible that two people with Alzheimers may have different underlying genetic causes. Knowing which genes are causing the disease, then, you might be able to tailor the treatment, Posthuma says.

As more and more genome-wide studies are conducted, the more researchers will be able to assign people polygenic risk scores for how susceptible they might be for certain traits and diseases. That can lead to early interventions. (Or, perhaps in the wrong hands, a cruel and unfair sorting of society. Have you seen the movie Gattaca?)

And there are some worries about abusing this data, especially as more and more people get their genomes analyzed by commercial companies like 23&Me.

Many people are concerned that insurance companies will use it, she says. That they will look into people's DNA and say, Well, you have a very high risk of being a nicotine addict. So we want you to pay more. Or, You have a high risk of dying early from cancer. So you have to pay more early in life. And of course, that's all nonsense. Its still too complicated to make such precise predictions.

We now have powerful tools to edit genes. CRISPR/Cas9 makes it possible to cut out any specific gene and replace it with another. Genetic engineering has advanced to the point where scientists are building whole organisms from the ground up with custom DNA.

Its easy to indulge our imaginations here: Genome-wide studies are going to make it easier to predict what set of genes leads to certain life outcomes. Genetic engineering is making it easier to assemble whatever genes we want in an individual. Is this the perfect recipe for designer babies?

Posthuma urges caution here, and says this conclusion is far afield from the actual state of the research.

Lets say you wanted to design a human with superior intelligence. Could you just select the right variants of the 52 intelligence genes, and wham-o, we have our next Einstein?

No. Genetics is so, so much more complicated than that.

For one, there could be thousands of genes that influence intelligence that have yet to be discovered. And they interact with each other in unpredictable ways. A gene that increases your smarts could also increase your risk for schizophrenia. Or change some other trait slightly. There are trade-offs and feedback loops everywhere you look in the genome.

If you would have to start constructing a human being from scratch, and you would have to build in all these little effects, I think we wouldn't be able to do that, Posthuma says. It's very difficult to understand the dynamics.

There are about 20,000 human genes, made up of around 3 billion base pairs. We will never be able to fully predict how a person will turn out based on the DNA, she says. Its just too intricate, too complicated, and also influenced heavily by our environment.

So you could have a very high liability for depression, but it will only happen if you go through a divorce, she says. And who can predict that?

And, Posthuma cautions, there are some things that genome-wide studies cant do. They cant, for instance, find very, very rare gene variations. (Think about it: If one person in 50,000 has a gene that causes a disease, its just going to look like noise.) For schizophrenia, she says, we know that there's some [gene] variants that decrease or increase your risk of schizophrenia 20-fold, but they're very rare in the population.

And they cant be used to make generalizations about differences between large groups of people.

Last year, I interviewed Paul Glimcher, a New York University social scientist whose research floored me. Glimcher plans to recruit 10,000 New Yorkers and track everything about them for decades. Everything: full genome data, medical records, diet, credit card transactions, physical activity, personality test scores, you name it. The idea, he says, is to create a dense, longitudinal database of human life that machine learning programs can mine for insights. Its possible this approach will elucidate the complex interactions of genetics, behavior, and environment that put us at risk for diseases like Alzheimers.

Computer science and biology are converging to make these audacious projects easier. And to some degree, the results of these projects may help us align our genes and our environments for optimal well-being.

Again, Posthuma cautions: Not all the predictions this research makes will be meaningful.

Do we care if we find a gene that only increases our height or our BMI or our intelligence with less than 0.0001 percent? she asks. It doesn't have any clinical relevance. But it will aid our scientific understanding of how intellect arises nonetheless.

And thats the bottom line. The scientists doing this work arent in it to become fortune tellers. Theyre in it to understand basic science.

What most people focus on, when they hear about genes for IQ, they say: Oh, no. You can look at my DNA. You can tell me what my IQ score will be, Posthuma says. They probably dont know its much better if you just take the IQ test. Much faster.

Read more:
Scientists are finding more genes linked to IQ. This doesn't mean we can predict intelligence. - Vox

Gene therapy and a range of biological research rely on the efficient delivery of nucleic acids into cells through the process known as transfection. Most widely-used transfection approaches for mammalian cells rely on electrostatic forces, usually taking advantage of cationic reagents to bind to negatively-charged nucleic acids and form strong ionic complexes. Cells then grab these complexes and internalize them through a process called endocytosis. However, the concentration of positive charge in the reagents can kill cells, and some cellssuch as embryonic cells, neurons, or cells directly isolated from tissuedont incorporate the nucleic acids successfully.

Now researchers report a novel transfection technique, SnapFect, that relies on bio-orthogonal moleculesa class of chemically-reactive molecules that dont interfere with biological systems (ACS Cent. Sci. 2017, DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00132). The team designed nanoparticle liposomes carrying a bio-orthogonal ligand. When they add those fatty particles to cell culture, they fuse into the cell membrane within seconds, leaving the ketone ligand exposed on the surface. The team then packages the nucleic acids to be delivered in complementary lipid complexes decorated with oxyamines. When the oxyamine particles are added to the cells, these functional groups react quickly with the cell surface ketones. The membrane-bound nucleic-acid complex is then pulled into the cell via endocytosis, and the nucleic acid can be expressed. Its not based on electrostatics but on click chemistry, says Muhammad N. Yousaf, a chemical biologist at York University. Thats why basically every cell is transfected with the nucleic acid.

Commercial transfection reagents already bring in about $1.5 billion per year. Yousafs team compared SnapFect to two widely-used kits: Lipofectamine (Life Technologies) and ViaFect (Promega). SnapFect transfected cells with a 68% overall efficiency while the other two transfected 19% and 29%, respectively.

Yousaf launched a company called OrganoLinX that this month began selling SnapFect ($350 for 20-25 transfections). We focused on making [the kit] just as easy to use as other commercial products out there, he says.

Besides improving efficiency, researchers could also pre-treat one batch of cells to decorate them with ketones and then mix them with other cell types before adding nucleic acids. Just the pre-treated ones will be transfected, Yousaf explains. Its like precision transfection. Because the team can create a variety of complexes using the oxyamine particles, the technique can also deliver other molecules such as proteins into cells.

I think its an interesting step forward, says James H. Eberwine, a molecular neurobiologist at the University of Pennsylvaniaparticularly the techniques universal applicability to DNA, RNA, and proteins, as well as the specificity conferred by the click chemistry approach.

Eberwine adds that while the study compares SnapFect to two widely-used techniques, researchers often optimize those techniques for their particular applications and achieve much higher efficiencies than those noted in this study. I would certainly try it, he says, and if it really does have the higher efficiency then I could see value in doing this.

Currently cell surface modification with ketones must occur shortly before addition of the oxyamine-bundled cargo. But SnapFect would be especially powerful if the ketone modification was more permanent, Eberwine says. That way, researchers could pre-engineer the surface of immature cells, then allow those cells to develop, migrate, and find their place in the local microenvironment of an experimental system before they get transfected. This would be a real boon, he says.

Read more:
Genetic engineering through click chemistry - The Biological SCENE

The 20th century veggie burger was a beige patty packed with whole grains and carrot chunks, sold in a brown paper wrapper. The 21st century version? Its bloody-pink and fleshy, thanks to heme, an ingredient created via genetic engineering.

To those steeped in the natural-food movement, the acronym GMO for genetically modified organisms has traditionally been almost as taboo as a plate of braised veal. However, that view could be changing as a new generation of Bay Area entrepreneurs upends the alternative meat and dairy industry, using biotechnology to create vegetarian foods that taste more like meat and promise ecological advantages to boot.

As somebody who has my entire life been a hard-core environmentalist I went vegan for a large part for that reason genetic engineering is one of the most important tools we can use in terms of environmental conservation, said Mike Selden, co-founder and CEO of Finless Foods in San Francisco, which is replicating fish fillets out of stem cells, though not currently with genetic engineering.

Not everyone agrees, and as these products hit the market including the aforementioned veggie burger that bleeds from Impossible Foods consumer and environmental groups have called for greater oversight and testing than whats currently required by the federal government.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Meatless, tasty and genetically modified: a healthy debate

Read the rest here:
21st century veggie burger: 'Bloody-pink and fleshy' thanks to genetic engineering - Genetic Literacy Project

The environment ministry in India will make the final call after the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee recently gave a positive recommendation for the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. Whether the crop is commercially cultivated could depend on the Supreme Court, which is hearing a case seeking a moratorium on its commercial release. The government has stated it will abide by the courts decision (although that remains to be seen and some question the courts impartiality). The final hearing will probably take place in July. The casebefore the Supreme Court was brought by Aruna Rodrigues who accuses various officials and the regulatory authorities of unremitting fraud and regulatory delinquency.

The importance of GM mustard should not be underestimated. It is central to the whole debate about the future of agriculture in India and the wider development paradigm. GM mustard is a Trojan horse that would help pave the way for ripping up the economic and social fabric of India and recast for the benefit of powerful Western corporations, not least Bayer-Monsanto (seeGM Mustard in Indiato read my numerous articles on this issue).

GM mustard is being promoted on the basis of the lie that it will increase yield. However, the government itself admits theres no evidence that it will do so.In aletterto Anil Dave, Indias environment minister, presented below, advocate Prashant Bhushan says that conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that GM Mustard DMH 11 is a superior hybrid-making technology that will out-yield Indias best non-GMO hybrids and varieties. But he adds that non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

Bhushan reminds the Indian government that it has admitted that there is no evidence that GM mustard out-yields non-GM. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the government stated,

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids.

ANNEX

Resi. Office. Chamber

B-16,Sector-14,Noida C-67, Sector-14, Noida 301, New Lawyers Chamber

Dist. Gautam BudhNagar Dist. Gautam BudhNagar SupremeCourt Of India

(U.P.) 201 301 (U.P.) 201 301, fax: 0120-4512694 New Delhi

Ph : 0120-2512632, 2512693 Ph: 0120-2512523, 2512695 Ph: 011- 23070301,23070645.

Dated: May 13, 2017

Shri Anil DaveThe Honble Minister of MoEF and Climate Change Paryavaran Bhavan Lodhi Road New Delhi

COMMERCIAL APPROVAL BY THE GEAC OF HT MUSTARD HYBRID DMH 11ON 11 MAY 2017

Dear Shri Dave

I express a deep disquiet and anxiety at the opaque and unscientific regulatory oversight of this GM mustard, which is also an herbicide tolerant (GM) crop. It has resulted yesterday, in its undoubtedly flawed approval for Commercialisation by the GEAC. I write to request you to please withhold your approval of such a move on three grounds.

The firstis that the CJ, based on the assurance given by the AG Mukul Rohatgi that the Union of India will not release DMH 11without the prior approval of the Supreme Court,accordingly, gave a verbal Order of an interim injunction till the case is heard comprehensively and the issue of HT mustard in substance. This was widely reported in the newspapers, two examples of which are referenced ().

The secondis the grave matter of the independence, surety and rigourof the oversight of the biosafety of HT Mustard DMH 11, which is critical for Indias agriculture in mustard, its food safety (both as a vegetable and seed oil), and furthermore, and of outstanding importance, the certain contamination that will occur of Indias mustard germplasm. These matters are of course, of central concern to your Ministrys regulating function and mandate for India.

The thirdis the requirement and my personal plea to you, to take note of the lessons of history of GMO regulation in India, embedded as it is in the most serious conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, where regulation has become farcical. For this reason,self-assessed safety dossiersby crop developers are kept secret by our Regulators and governing Ministries. Four official reports attest to the prevailing, utterly dismal state of regulation.

May any government treat its citizens with such willful disregard, despite Constitutional provisions?

The Bt brinjal Biosafety-Dossier remained unpublished for 16 months despite a SC order, but eventually, the Regulators had to comply with its full publication (with the raw data), which then revealed its fraudulence when examined and appraised by independent scientists of international stature. Studies said to be done were not done, as many as 36 of 37 environmental studies, leaving aside other risk assessment protocols. The moratorium which followed was also in large part influenced by the fact thatIndia is the worlds Centre of brinjal diversitywith 2500 varieties and wild species, which would certainly be contaminated. This is what the 37thPSC of 2012 (on GMOs) had to say on Bt brinjal and regulation. I quote very briefly. I would urge you to read the full recommendations of just 3 pages:

-Convinced that these developments are not merely slippages due to oversight or human error but indicative of collusion of a worst kind,they have recommended a THOROUGH PROBE INTO THE BT. BRINJALmatter from the beginning up to the imposing of moratorium on its commercialization by the then Minister of Environment and Forests (I/C) on 9 February, 2010 by a team of independent scientists and environmentalists.(Recommendation Para No. 2.79).

The Committee after critically analyzingthe evidence the gross inadequacy of the regulatory mechanism, the absence of chronic toxicology studies and long term environment impact assessment of transgenic agricultural crops; the virtual non-existent nature of the oversight bodies like National Biodiversity Authority, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, etc., recommended that till all the concerns voiced in their Report are fully addressed -, to put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight, surveillance and other structures,further research and development on transgenics in agricultural crops should only be done in strict containment and FIELD TRIALS UNDER ANY GARB SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED FORTHWITH.(Recommendation Para Nos. 8.116, 8.121 & 8.125)

Noting with concern the grossly inadequate and antiquated regulatory mechanism for assessment and approval of transgenics in food crops; the serious conflict of interest of various stakeholders involved in the regulatory mechanism; the total lack of post commercialization, monitoring and surveillance, the Committee have felt thatin such a situation what the Country needs is not a bio-technology regulatory legislationbut anall-encompassing umbrella legislation on bio-safety-The Committee have also cautioned the Government that in their tearing hurry to open the economy to private prospectors, they should NOT MAKE THE SAME FATE BEFALL ON THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR, as has happened to the communications, pharma, mineral wealth and several other sectors in which the Governmentsfacilitative benevolence preceded setting up of sufficient checks and balances and regulatory mechanisms,thereby, leading to colossal, unfettered loot and plunder of national wealth in some form or the other, incalculable damage to environment, bio-diversity, flora and fauna and unimaginable suffering to the common man.(Recommendation Para No. 3.47 & 3.48)

But till date, the GM mustard dossier remains unpublished in willful Contempt of Court. Prof Pental is the Chair of the DBTs Agricultural Biotechnology Task Force. SR Rao, Member GEAC is over-all in-charge of the DBTs Agri Biotech programmes.The DBT also funds Pentals GM mustard.

Does anything more need to be said to underscore the implications of thiscosyarrangement of partnership in the Regulatory oversight of HT mustard DMH 11 and GMOs in general?

Data that has leaked around the edges demonstrate that we have ample reason to be greatly concerned of gross cover-up and misconduct. Furthermore, this HT mustard DMH 11 and its two HT variants are doubly barred by the unanimous 5-member TEC recommendations: ie this is an HT crop and a crop in a Centre of genetic diversity.

The further contents of this letter below, make clear in the simplest possible way, from, and it has to be said, curious admissions of your Apex Regulator and the Union of India in their Reply Affidavit submitted to the SC, which effectively demolish wholesale, any sound basis for the release of HT DMH 11 for commercial cultivation. I make 3 short points, to alert you to the veracity of this statement, as you will not be briefed correctly on these matters by your Regulators and indeed by the Ministries of S & T and Agriculture, both of which promote HT DMH 11 and even fund it (DBT) as stated above:

(a) HT hybrid mustard DMH 11 has failed the first criteria of a test risk protocol of a GM crop:Is the GM Crop required in the first place?The answer inNobased on the admission of the Union of India itself in their Reply Affidavit in the SC.They said:

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids. The comparison has only been made between hybrid DMH 11, NC (national Check) Varuna and the appropriate ZC (zonal checks) MSY of 2670 Kg/ha has been recorded over three years of BRL trials which is 28% and 37% more than the NC & ZC respectively (At 88, pg.56).

Unfortunately, the whole truth uncovered, is that no valid comparators were used and the field trials themselves stand voided on the basis of serious anomalies and violations in field testing, inconclusive results and even statistical fraud.Yet, conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that DMH 11 is a superiorhybrid-making technologythat will out-yield Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties. The fact is, Non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

(b) We know, based on the AGs assertion in Court that the Union of India holds that this GM mustard will displace imported edible oil-seeds in a significant way (reduce our oilseeds bill). However, such an assertion in the light of the above submission is to say the least ludicrous, entirely lacking any semblance of logic. Moreover, the nearest equivalent to Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) is rape-seed oil (Canola), imported from Canada (which is essentially GMO) and represents just 2% of Indias edible oil imports! Rs 68,000 Cr is the total import oil-seeds bill,not Canolaalone, as the AG mistakenly stated in Court. Can this be the basis for the Commercialisation of HT mustard DMH 11?

It gets murkier still when the U of I also admits that:

Heterosis is due to the careful selection of parents and not due to the three transgenes The developers have nowhere claimed that the yield increase is due to the three transgenes(At 65, page 45)

This is exactly the issue that there is no trait for yield in HT DMH 11. It is good indeed that on this point we are all in agreement. Yet, somehow, the opposite story prevails, the story to the media, and the PMO. The stand of the Niti Aayog is particularly curious in that their National Agri policy requires GMOs in agriculture to meet Indias food security as they are better yielding! Where in this statement is the basic science governing the trait for yield in GMOs and Mustard in particular? It is very troubling that the Niti Aayog has failed to do some basichomework.

(c) Therefore, we draw the conclusion that the stated regulatory intent is toderegulate HT DMH 11 as a policy agenda based on no science,and to convert Indias mustard agriculture, in a massive and dangerous experiment, to (GM) HThybridmustard, (variants of DMH 11). Imagine our consternation when your Regulator admitted to precisely this:

Once the GE mustard events Varuna bn 3.6 and EH2 modbs 2.99 are approved and deregulated, these would be immediately used by the National net-work programme Once a robust pollination control mechanism is in place,yield of hybrids can be further improved by breeding betterparental lines(at 63, pg. 43).

The statement is pure spin, dissimulation. Unless deconstructed, it conveys that HT Hybrid DMH11 is a superior hybrid-making technology (which it is not); that will (alone) provide 25 to 30% higher yield and even better, (not true, as admitted), because on the contrary, Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties are already significantly outperforming HT DMH 11. Unfortunately and regrettably, the plain truth is that decades of good work already being done by our agri institutions and the DRMRin Non-GM hybrid technology and superior-yielding varieties will be laid waste in this dangerous plan for the country via HT Hybrid DMH 11 and its variants.

AND OUR GERMPLASM WILL BE THOROUGHLY CONTAMINATED AND IN A CENTRE OF MUSTARD DIVERSITY.

India is a centre of diversity in mustard with9720 Accessionsin our gene banks(The NBPGR). With a commercialised GM crop, contamination of non-GMO is certain. That is the evidence.

In closing, Id like to emphasise that GMO contamination is neither remediable nor reversible and is the outstanding concern. The genes in HT hybrid DMH 11 are toxic genes: being an HT crop also means that DMH 11 is a pesticidal crop. Its nationality doesnt change the science. It stays this way whether foreign or Indian! How do we get carried away on such a band-wagon?

The issue also is that with GMO contamination, our mustard will be changed at the molecular level. Any toxicity that there is will remain in perpetuity. Are we prepared to be the agents for such monumental risk and put India and its people in jeopardy without any recourse and remedy?

For these reasons among others, and there are decidedly others, I would urge you on behalf of our Nation not to endorse this outrageous and anti-national approval, but reject it in the public interest. You will be doing India a noble service in posterity.

Thank you, Yours sincerely,

Signed/

Prashant Bhushan

* * *

Notes

LiveLaw News Network: No GM Mustard Without SC Approval October 24, 2016;

http://www.dnaindia.comreport-will-not-release-gm-mustard-crop-commercially-without-supreme-court-s-permission-centre-

Directorate of Rape-Seed Mustard

Continued here:
India: Genetic Engineering, the Commercialization of GM Mustard and the Future of Agriculture - Center for Research on Globalization

Diamondback moths. (Credit: Oxitec)

Though genetically modified crops may steal the spotlight, similarly reprogrammed insects may have just as big an effect on the agricultural industry.

Biotechnology company Oxitec is moving forward withplans to develop genetically engineered diamondback moths in an attempt to reduce populations of the invasive crop pest. Their plan is to release males that will pass on a gene preventing female offspring from reaching maturity and reproducing, which they say will eventually eradicate the moths in North America. Tests have so far been positive, although there are still worries about the prospect of releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild.

Currently, pesticides are used to control the moths, which are responsible for an estimated $5 billion worth of damage every year in the U.S. An invasive species, the diamondback moth originated in Europe, but has proved difficult to control since appearing the U.S. due to short gestation times and the large numbers of eggs females lay at once. Oxitec says that their technique is preferable to pesticides, as the moths have proven capable of evolving resistance to the compounds in the past, and most carry some risk to the environment and human health.

Oxitec cites a USDAanalysis that found no risk of significant impact in an earlier test of the GM moths as evidence that their technique is safe, but the prospect of GM insects raisesfears that the moths may proliferate beyond targeted areasand cause impacts on the broader ecology. Similar techniques have been applied before, reaching as far back as the 1950s when sterile screwworm flies were released in Florida, effectively eliminating the parasitic species there. Impotent mosquitos, also manufactured by Oxitec, have been used to combat Zika in South America, andplans to implement the same procedure in Florida are underway.

The successful screwworm campaign relied on blasts of radiation to sterilize the males. Oxitecs technique uses gene editing engineering to implant males with modified DNA that ensures female caterpillars dont survive to adulthood. In the case of the moths, males need not be targeted because it is only the female caterpillars who are responsible for damaging the crops.

They say that tests of the moths, including feeding them to various animals and releasing them in greenhouses, have revealed no ill effects as a result of the genetic modification. Along with the caterpillar-killing gene, the moths are also implanted with a gene that causes them to fluoresce red under UV light, the better to identify them in the wild.

The FDA found no issues preventing the company from moving forward, but because the moths are an agricultural pest, the USDA must weigh in as well.Oxitec is currently waiting on USDA approval to conduct expanded tests at a site in New York in conjunction with Cornell University. They hope to release the moths in a contained cabbage field to see how effective their modifications are.

Most opposition to genetically modified insects is based on the prospect of altered organisms spreading beyond the areas they are released. In the case of the diamondback moth, Oxitec says that the nature of the modification, which precludes breeding, should serve to limit the spread of the GM moths, and pesticides and freezing winter conditions should take care of the rest. While there is a precedent for this kind of technique in screwworms, those insects were uniquely suited to sterilization-based population control because of their life-cycles. Moths may present additional challenges.

Kevin Esvelt, a professor at MIT and leader of the Sculpting Evolution Lab agrees that the general concept is sound: The wholepoint is to harm the next generation of organisms. And since they carry the relevant genetic construct, its necessarily going to decrease, he says. It will not persistin the environment over time as long as the genetic construct is doing what its supposed to do.

This marks a crucial difference from a gene drive, a technique often associated with genetically modifying populations. The hallmark of a gene drive is tweaking genes to increase the chances that a particular trait will be passed on to offspring. The odds are normally 50/50, but a gene drive can tilt them in favor of a particular set of genes,causing a trait to spread through a population. This is helpful when a trait is detrimental to an organisms survival and would normally be weeded out by natural selection. Gene drives havent yet been applied in the wild, though, and likely wont be for many years.

Oxitecs moths possess nosuch scale-tipping modifications that could cause the modified genes to spread across the globe, they merely pass on genetic material in the normal way. Part of this genetic material, however, has been changed to ensure that female caterpillars with the gene dont survive.

From a technical perspective its a perfectly sound approach, it probably offers fewer risks than current approaches using pesticides. In general I am a fan of usingbiology to solve ecological problems as opposed to chemistry, Esvelt says.

Still, he says that field trials are an important step in testing the efficacy and safety of any genetically modified organism. Along with careful tests, Esvelt advocates for more community involvement in the decision making process, as well attempts to reach out and communicate with critics. Although both the FDA and USDA have a period in place during which the public can comment, Esvelt says more communication should be done earlier.

Excerpt from:
After Mosquitos, Moths Are the Next Target For Genetic Engineering - Discover Magazine (blog)

[Dr Swati Puranik, of the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth University in the UK] and her collaborators in Kenya and India aim to use conventional genomics-based breeding to come up with varieties of finger millet that contain higher levels of calcium and vitamins, without using genetic engineering.

Professor Paul Christou, from the Department of Crop and Forest Science and Agrotecnico Centre at the University of Lleida in Spain, has genetically engineered maize and rice to boost vitamin A, folic acid and vitamin C, along with a wide spectrum of essential micronutrients.

He sees value in conventional breeding to develop fortified crop varieties, but believes genetic engineering is the only current way to deliver a staple crop that meets the recommended daily amounts of vitamins and minerals simultaneously.

To my mind, in order to be successful in biofortification programmes, you need to address the micronutrient deficiencies in as complete a manner as possible,saidProf. Christou.

Genetically modified (GM) cereal varieties could have a major impact if they are accepted. But Prof. Christou recognises that not everyone is receptive to GM foods, even where they can improve nutrition for hundreds of millions of people.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:New strains of staple crops serve up essential vitamins

See original here:
If biofortified crops are goal, both genetic engineering and conventional breeding necessary - Genetic Literacy Project

Across channels like PBS Idea Channel, Blank On Blank, and Its Okay To Be Smart, PBS Digital Studios has produced engaging videos about science, philosophy, pop culture, and many other topics in between. Most of those videos run between two and 15 minutes, but now, for the first time, PBSDS is releasing a project that is well outside that range. Its BrainCraft channel is home to Mutant Menu, a 37-minute short film that discusses advancements in genetic engineering.

On BrainCraft, which has more than 350,000 subscribers and over 18 million total views, creator Vanessa Hill leads viewers on an exploration of topics like psychology, neuroscience and why we act the way we do. In Mutant Menu, Hills particular focus is on CRISPR, a tool that allows humans to modify their own genes. The film examines the pros and cons of the technology at its center while also considering the ethical questions CRISPR raises.

Genetic engineering and CRISPR have the potential to save lives and cure disease, but it also comes with risk, said Hill in a press release. My goal with Mutant Menu was to explore all sides of the issue and let viewers come to their own conclusions about this technology.

Mutant Menu was made possible thanks to the support of Google and Screen Australia, who teamed up to fund the film (and Hill, its Aussie creator, in particular) through a joint venture called Skip Ahead. Other channels that have received assistance through that program include The Racka Racka and How To Cook That.

With Mutant Menu out in the open, BrainCraft will return to its regularly scheduled programming. Hill posts new videos to the channel each Thursday.

Read the rest here:
PBS Digital Studios Explores Genetic Engineering In Its First-Ever ... - Tubefilter

Latest Articles

University of Florida scientists say they have found a recipe that would return flavor that has been lost through breeding of modern hybrids.

By KENNETH CHANG

Daniel Kronauers transgenic ants offer scientists the chance to explore the evolution of animal societies and, perhaps, our own.

By NATALIE ANGIER

Gene editing, which does not add genes from other organisms into plants, is done with new tools that snip and tweak DNA at precise locations.

By KENNETH CHANG

The genetic engineering start-ups round includes the participation of Jennifer A. Doudna, who helped pioneer a technique that made altering DNA easier.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

A California start-up that genetically engineers yeast to produce an acid for fragrances is at the forefront of efforts to reignite a market that fell short of earlier expectations.

By QUENTIN HARDY

The technique, discovered by a team at the Salk Institute and tested in mice, cannot be applied directly to people, but it points toward better understanding of human aging.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Why scientists and startups are tinkering with our most popular legume.

By ROXANNE KHAMSI

With inaugurations on everyones mind, heres another one: our new, weekly sampling of readers views.

By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH

Monsanto writes that these crops are a very important and productive tool for modern and sustainable agriculture.

A cotton farmer in India says they have greatly increased his yield. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges better crop management methods instead.

Higher yields with less pesticides was the sales pitch for genetically modified seeds. But that has not proved to be the outcome in the United States.

By DANNY HAKIM

A Chinese firms $43 billion effort to buy Syngenta could upend the industry, but it faces widespread fears at home over modified food.

By AMIE TSANG and CAO LI

A bioethicist says research on a controversial procedure should be permitted with proper monitoring.

Officials want to test genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, but many Key Haven residents fear the experiment more than the viruses.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new survey shows distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities.

By GINA KOLATA

The bill would require companies to indicate that foods have genetically engineered ingredients, but disagreement remains over how that would be done.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The study was testing the use of genetically engineered cells as a treatment for cancer, which had shown promising earlier results.

The bill would set a national standard for labeling G.M.O. foods, though critics say the system would not be tough enough.

By STEPHANIE STROM

A proposed law would make it unnecessarily difficult to check a label, by requiring the scanning of electronic codes in the store.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As of Friday, nearly all food labels in the state must disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients.

By STEPHANIE STROM

University of Florida scientists say they have found a recipe that would return flavor that has been lost through breeding of modern hybrids.

By KENNETH CHANG

Daniel Kronauers transgenic ants offer scientists the chance to explore the evolution of animal societies and, perhaps, our own.

By NATALIE ANGIER

Gene editing, which does not add genes from other organisms into plants, is done with new tools that snip and tweak DNA at precise locations.

By KENNETH CHANG

The genetic engineering start-ups round includes the participation of Jennifer A. Doudna, who helped pioneer a technique that made altering DNA easier.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

A California start-up that genetically engineers yeast to produce an acid for fragrances is at the forefront of efforts to reignite a market that fell short of earlier expectations.

By QUENTIN HARDY

The technique, discovered by a team at the Salk Institute and tested in mice, cannot be applied directly to people, but it points toward better understanding of human aging.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Why scientists and startups are tinkering with our most popular legume.

By ROXANNE KHAMSI

With inaugurations on everyones mind, heres another one: our new, weekly sampling of readers views.

By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH

Monsanto writes that these crops are a very important and productive tool for modern and sustainable agriculture.

A cotton farmer in India says they have greatly increased his yield. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges better crop management methods instead.

Higher yields with less pesticides was the sales pitch for genetically modified seeds. But that has not proved to be the outcome in the United States.

By DANNY HAKIM

A Chinese firms $43 billion effort to buy Syngenta could upend the industry, but it faces widespread fears at home over modified food.

By AMIE TSANG and CAO LI

A bioethicist says research on a controversial procedure should be permitted with proper monitoring.

Officials want to test genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, but many Key Haven residents fear the experiment more than the viruses.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new survey shows distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities.

By GINA KOLATA

The bill would require companies to indicate that foods have genetically engineered ingredients, but disagreement remains over how that would be done.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The study was testing the use of genetically engineered cells as a treatment for cancer, which had shown promising earlier results.

The bill would set a national standard for labeling G.M.O. foods, though critics say the system would not be tough enough.

By STEPHANIE STROM

A proposed law would make it unnecessarily difficult to check a label, by requiring the scanning of electronic codes in the store.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As of Friday, nearly all food labels in the state must disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients.

By STEPHANIE STROM

Go here to read the rest:
Genetic Engineering - News - Science - The New York Times

Genetically modified foods or GM foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits than previous methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.[1]

Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato.[2][3] Most food modifications have primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. Genetically modified crops have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and for better nutrient profiles. GM livestock have been developed, although as of November 2013 none were on the market.[4]

There is a scientific consensus[5][6][7][8] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[9][10][11][12][13] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[14][15][16] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[17][18][19][20] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[21][22][23][24]

However, there are ongoing public concerns related to food safety, regulation, labelling, environmental impact, research methods, and the fact that some GM seeds are subject to intellectual property rights owned by corporations.[25]

Genetically modified foods, GM foods or genetically engineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering as opposed to traditional cross breeding.[26][27] In the US, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) favor the use of "genetic engineering" over "genetic modification" as the more precise term; the USDA defines genetic modification to include "genetic engineering or other more traditional methods."[28][29]

According to the World Health Organization, "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called 'modern biotechnology' or 'gene technology', sometimes also 'recombinant DNA technology' or 'genetic engineering'. ... Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods."[26]

Human-directed genetic manipulation of food began with the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection at about 10,500 to 10,100 BC.[30]:1 The process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is a precursor to the modern concept of genetic modification (GM).[30]:1[31]:1 With the discovery of DNA in the early 1900s and various advancements in genetic techniques through the 1970s[32] it became possible to directly alter the DNA and genes within food.

The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant.[33] Genetically modified microbial enzymes were the first application of genetically modified organisms in food production and were approved in 1988 by the US Food and Drug Administration.[34] In the early 1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries.[34][35] Cheese had typically been made using the enzyme complex rennet that had been extracted from cows' stomach lining. Scientists modified bacteria to produce chymosin, which was also able to clot milk, resulting in cheese curds.[36]

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994.[2] Developed by Calgene, it was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening.[37] China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco.[38] In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA.[39] Other genetically modified crops receiving marketing approval in 1995 were: canola with modified oil composition, Bt maize, cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, virus-resistant squash, and another delayed ripening tomato.[2]

With the creation of golden rice in 2000, scientists had genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time.[40]

By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops and a further 31 countries had granted regulatory approval for transgenic crops to be imported.[41] The US was the leading country in the production of GM foods in 2011, with twenty-five GM crops having received regulatory approval.[42] In 2015, 92% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 94% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified strains.[43]

The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015.[44] The salmon were transformed with a growth hormone-regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and a promoter from an ocean pout enabling it to grow year-round instead of only during spring and summer.[45]

In April 2016, a white button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) modified using the CRISPR technique received de facto approval in the United States, after the USDA said it would not have to go through the agency's regulatory process. The agency considers the mushroom exempt because the editing process did not involve the introduction of foreign DNA.[46]

The most widely planted GMOs are designed to tolerate herbicides. By 2006 some weed populations had evolved to tolerate some of the same herbicides. Palmer amaranth is a weed that competes with cotton. A native of the southwestern US, it traveled east and was first found resistant to glyphosate in 2006, less than 10 years after GM cotton was introduced.[47][48][49]

Genetically engineered organisms are generated and tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. The most common modification is to add one or more genes to an organism's genome. Less commonly, genes are removed or their expression is increased or silenced or the number of copies of a gene is increased or decreased.

Once satisfactory strains are produced, the producer applies for regulatory approval to field-test them, called a "field release." Field-testing involves cultivating the plants on farm fields or growing animals in a controlled environment. If these field tests are successful, the producer applies for regulatory approval to grow and market the crop. Once approved, specimens (seeds, cuttings, breeding pairs, etc.) are cultivated and sold to farmers. The farmers cultivate and market the new strain. In some cases, the approval covers marketing but not cultivation.

According to the USDA, the number of field releases for genetically engineered organisms has grown from four in 1985 to an average of about 800 per year. Cumulatively, more than 17,000 releases had been approved through September 2013.[50]

Papaya was genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus. 'SunUp' is a transgenic red-fleshed Sunset papaya cultivar that is homozygous for the coat protein gene PRSV; 'Rainbow' is a yellow-fleshed F1 hybrid developed by crossing 'SunUp' and nontransgenic yellow-fleshed 'Kapoho'.[51] The New York Times stated, "in the early 1990s, Hawaiis 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 states papaya industry would have collapsed. Today, 80% of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and there is still no conventional or organic method to control ringspot virus."[52] The GM cultivar was approved in 1998.[53] In China, a transgenic PRSV-resistant papaya was developed by South China Agricultural University and was first approved for commercial planting in 2006; as of 2012 95% of the papaya grown in Guangdong province and 40% of the papaya grown in Hainan province was genetically modified.[54]

The New Leaf potato, a GM food developed using naturally occurring bacteria found in the soil known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle.[55] The New Leaf potato, brought to market by Monsanto in the late 1990s, was developed for the fast food market. It was withdrawn in 2001 after retailers rejected it and food processors ran into export problems.[56]

As of 2005, about 13% of the Zucchini (a form of squash) grown in the US was genetically modified to resist three viruses; that strain is also grown in Canada.[57][58]

In 2011, BASF requested the European Food Safety Authority's approval for cultivation and marketing of its Fortuna potato as feed and food. The potato was made resistant to late blight by adding resistant genes blb1 and blb2 that originate from the Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum.[59][60] In February 2013, BASF withdrew its application.[61]

In 2013, the USDA approved the import of a GM pineapple that is pink in color and that "overexpresses" a gene derived from tangerines and suppress other genes, increasing production of lycopene. The plant's flowering cycle was changed to provide for more uniform growth and quality. The fruit "does not have the ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have been harvested," according to USDA APHIS. According to Del Monte's submission, the pineapples are commercially grown in a "monoculture" that prevents seed production, as the plant's flowers aren't exposed to compatible pollen sources. Importation into Hawaii is banned for "plant sanitation" reasons.[62]

In 2014, the USDA approved a genetically modified potato developed by J.R. Simplot Company that contained ten genetic modifications that prevent bruising and produce less acrylamide when fried. The modifications eliminate specific proteins from the potatoes, via RNA interference, rather than introducing novel proteins.[63][64]

In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,[65] becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the US.[66]Gene silencing is used to reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing the fruit from browning.[67]

Corn used for food and ethanol has been genetically modified to tolerate various herbicides and to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that kills certain insects.[68] About 90% of the corn grown in the U.S. was genetically modified in 2010.[69] In the US in 2015, 81% of corn acreage contained the Bt trait and 89% of corn acreage contained the glyphosate-tolerant trait.[43] Corn can be processed into grits, meal and flour as an ingredient in pancakes, muffins, doughnuts, breadings and batters, as well as baby foods, meat products, cereals and some fermented products. Corn-based masa flour and masa dough are used in the production of taco shells, corn chips and tortillas.[70]

Genetically modified soybean has been modified to tolerate herbicides and produce healthier oils.[71] In 2015, 94% of soybean acreage in the U.S. was genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant.[43]

Starch or amylum is a polysaccharide produced by all green plants as an energy store. Pure starch is a white, tasteless and odourless powder. It consists of two types of molecules: the linear and helical amylose and the branched amylopectin. Depending on the plant, starch generally contains 20 to 25% amylose and 75 to 80% amylopectin by weight.[72]

Starch can be further modified to create modified starch for specific purposes,[73] including creation of many of the sugars in processed foods. They include:

Lecithin is a naturally occurring lipid. It can be found in egg yolks and oil-producing plants. it is an emulsifier and thus is used in many foods. Corn, soy and safflower oil are sources of lecithin, though the majority of lecithin commercially available is derived from soy.[74][75][76][pageneeded] Sufficiently processed lecithin is often undetectable with standard testing practices.[72][not in citation given] According to the FDA, no evidence shows or suggests hazard to the public when lecithin is used at common levels. Lecithin added to foods amounts to only 2 to 10 percent of the 1 to 5 g of phosphoglycerides consumed daily on average.[74][75] Nonetheless, consumer concerns about GM food extend to such products.[77][bettersourceneeded] This concern led to policy and regulatory changes in Europe in 2000,[citation needed] when Regulation (EC) 50/2000 was passed[78] which required labelling of food containing additives derived from GMOs, including lecithin.[citation needed] Because of the difficulty of detecting the origin of derivatives like lecithin with current testing practices, European regulations require those who wish to sell lecithin in Europe to employ a comprehensive system of Identity preservation (IP).[79][verification needed][80][pageneeded]

The US imports 10% of its sugar, while the remaining 90% is extracted from sugar beet and sugarcane. After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the United States. 95% of beet acres in the US were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed in 2011.[81] GM sugar beets are approved for cultivation in the US, Canada and Japan; the vast majority are grown in the US. GM beets are approved for import and consumption in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russian Federation and Singapore.[82] Pulp from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugarbeets contains no DNA or proteinit is just sucrose that is chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugarbeets.[72][83] Independent analyses conducted by internationally recognized laboratories found that sugar from Roundup Ready sugar beets is identical to the sugar from comparably grown conventional (non-Roundup Ready) sugar beets. And, like all sugar, sugar from Roundup Ready sugar beets contains no genetic material or detectable protein (including the protein that provides glyphosate tolerance).[84]

Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from GM crops canola,[85]corn,[86][87]cotton[88] and soybeans.[89] Vegetable oil is sold directly to consumers as cooking oil, shortening and margarine[90] and is used in prepared foods. There is a vanishingly small amount of protein or DNA from the original crop in vegetable oil.[72][91] Vegetable oil is made of triglycerides extracted from plants or seeds and then refined and may be further processed via hydrogenation to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining process[92] removes all, or nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients.[93] Medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) offer an alternative to conventional fats and oils. The length of a fatty acid influences its fat absorption during the digestive process. Fatty acids in the middle position on the glycerol molecules appear to be absorbed more easily and influence metabolism more than fatty acids on the end positions. Unlike ordinary fats, MCTs are metabolized like carbohydrates. They have exceptional oxidative stability, and prevent foods from turning rancid readily.[94]

Livestock and poultry are raised on animal feed, much of which is composed of the leftovers from processing crops, including GM crops. For example, approximately 43% of a canola seed is oil. What remains after oil extraction is a meal that becomes an ingredient in animal feed and contains canola protein.[95] Likewise, the bulk of the soybean crop is grown for oil and meal. The high-protein defatted and toasted soy meal becomes livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the US soybean crop goes for livestock feed.[96][97] In 2011, 49% of the US maize harvest was used for livestock feed (including the percentage of waste from distillers grains).[98] "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."[99]

A 2012 literature review of studies evaluating the effect of GM feed on the health of animals did not find evidence that animals were adversely affected, although small biological differences were occasionally found. The studies included in the review ranged from 90 days to two years, with several of the longer studies considering reproductive and intergenerational effects.[100]

Rennet is a mixture of enzymes used to coagulate milk into cheese. Originally it was available only from the fourth stomach of calves, and was scarce and expensive, or was available from microbial sources, which often produced unpleasant tastes. Genetic engineering made it possible to extract rennet-producing genes from animal stomachs and insert them into bacteria, fungi or yeasts to make them produce chymosin, the key enzyme.[101][102] The modified microorganism is killed after fermentation. Chymosin is isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers has an amino acid sequence that is identical to bovine rennet.[103] The majority of the applied chymosin is retained in the whey. Trace quantities of chymosin may remain in cheese.[103]

FPC was the first artificially produced enzyme to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.[34][35] FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and as of 2015 had yet to be surpassed in commercial markets.[104] In 1999, about 60% of US hard cheese was made with FPC.[105] Its global market share approached 80%.[106] By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.[103]

In some countries, recombinant (GM) bovine somatotropin (also called rBST, or bovine growth hormone or BGH) is approved for administration to increase milk production. rBST may be present in milk from rBST treated cows, but it is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected into the human bloodstream, has no observable effect on humans.[107][108][109] The FDA, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and the National Institutes of Health have independently stated that dairy products and meat from rBST-treated cows are safe for human consumption.[110] However, on 30 September 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, analyzing submitted evidence, found a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows.[111][112] The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has: increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly."[112]

Genetically modified livestock are organisms from the group of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, birds, horses and fish kept for human consumption, whose genetic material (DNA) has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. In some cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the animals which does not occur naturally in the species, i.e. transgenesis.

A 2003 review published on behalf of Food Standards Australia New Zealand examined transgenic experimentation on terrestrial livestock species as well as aquatic species such as fish and shellfish. The review examined the molecular techniques used for experimentation as well as techniques for tracing the transgenes in animals and products as well as issues regarding transgene stability.[113]

Some mammals typically used for food production have been modified to produce non-food products, a practice sometimes called Pharming.

A GM salmon, awaiting regulatory approval[114][115][116] since 1997,[117] was approved for human consumption by the American FDA in November 2015, to be raised in specific land-based hatcheries in Canada and Panama.[118]

The use of genetically modified food-grade organisms as recombinant vaccine expression hosts and delivery vehicles can open new avenues for vaccinology. Considering that oral immunization is a beneficial approach in terms of costs, patient comfort, and protection of mucosal tissues, the use of food-grade organisms can lead to highly advantageous vaccines in terms of costs, easy administration, and safety. The organisms currently used for this purpose are bacteria (Lactobacillus and Bacillus), yeasts, algae, plants, and insect species. Several such organisms are under clinical evaluation, and the current adoption of this technology by the industry indicates a potential to benefit global healthcare systems.[119]

There is a scientific consensus[120][121][122][123] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[124][125][126][127][128] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[129][130][131] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[132][133][134][135]

Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various combinations of additional testing, labeling[136] or removal from the market.[137][138][139][140] The advocacy group European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), disputes the claim that "science" supports the safety of current GM foods, proposing that each GM food must be judged on case-by-case basis.[141] The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment called for removing GM foods from the market pending long term health studies.[137] Multiple disputed studies have claimed health effects relating to GM foods or to the pesticides used with them.[142]

The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[143][144][145][146] Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence to determine if further testing is required, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China only authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. In the U.S. the FDA determined that GMO's are "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) and therefore do not require additional testing if the GMO product is substantially equivalent to the non-modified product.[147] If new substances are found, further testing may be required to satisfy concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms.[26]

Government regulation of GMO development and release varies widely between countries. Marked differences separate GMO regulation in the U.S. and GMO regulation in the European Union.[148] Regulation also varies depending on the intended product's use. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.[149]

In the U.S., three government organizations regulate GMOs. The FDA checks the chemical composition of organisms for potential allergens. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) supervises field testing and monitors the distribution of GM seeds. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for monitoring pesticide usage, including plants modified to contain proteins toxic to insects. Like USDA, EPA also oversees field testing and the distribution of crops that have had contact with pesticides to ensure environmental safety.[150][bettersourceneeded] In 2015 the Obama administration announced that it would update the way the government regulated GM crops.[151]

In 1992 FDA published "Statement of Policy: Foods derived from New Plant Varieties." This statement is a clarification of FDA's interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to foods produced from new plant varieties developed using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology. FDA encouraged developers to consult with the FDA regarding any bioengineered foods in development. The FDA says developers routinely do reach out for consultations. In 1996 FDA updated consultation procedures.[152][153]

As of 2015, 64 countries require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace.[154]

US and Canadian national policy is to require a label only given significant composition differences or documented health impacts, although some individual US states (Vermont, Connecticut and Maine) enacted laws requiring them.[155][156][157][158] In July 2016, Public Law 114-214 was enacted to regulate labeling of GMO food on a national basis.

In some jurisdictions, the labeling requirement depends on the relative quantity of GMO in the product. A study that investigated voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[159]

In Europe all food (including processed food) or feed that contains greater than 0.9% GMOs must be labelled.[160]

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as PCR and bioinformatics.[161]

In a January 2010 paper, the extraction and detection of DNA along a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, washing and bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before and represents an important accomplishment regarding the traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."[162]

According to Thomas Redick, detection and prevention of cross-pollination is possible through the suggestions offered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Suggestions include educating farmers on the importance of coexistence, providing farmers with tools and incentives to promote coexistence, conduct research to understand and monitor gene flow, provide assurance of quality and diversity in crops, provide compensation for actual economic losses for farmers.[163]

The genetically modified foods controversy consists of a set of disputes over the use of food made from genetically modified crops. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, environmental and political activists and scientists. The major disagreements include whether GM foods can be safely consumed, harm the environment and/or are adequately tested and regulated.[138][164] The objectivity of scientific research and publications has been challenged.[137] Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms,[165] and potential control of the GM food supply by seed companies.[137]

The conflicts have continued since GM foods were invented. They have occupied the media, the courts, local, regional and national governments and international organizations.

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 18511855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 18511855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

See the original post:
Genetically modified food - Wikipedia