Hi, such questions like yours were asked many times before. Here is one: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Health_risks_of_GMO

Just have a look for GMO at RG and you will find more than 100 questions (and answers, of course) :-)

Cheers, Nadine

Http://www.psmag.com/health/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/

The transformation from hunter-gather to village then city life depended upon major genetic mutations in grains. For example, cultivated rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn are genetically altered by mutation of their wild counter parts far more than any existing GM plants. Logically, there is no increased risk from GM plants compared to randomly mutated cultivated commercial plants except in those cases where modifications are done to allow increased use of pesticides, which is certainly harmful to the environment. On the other hand, GM plants that reduce the use of pesticides are almost certainly better for people and the environment than non-GM plants requiring more toxic agents that get into the ground water and cause health problems. Moreover, if we decided to go back to non-genetically altered plants, we would not be able to sustain even a fraction of the current world population so most people would certainly starve. Interestingly there is higher genetic diversity in wild plants than cultivated ones, as seen for soybeans (Nature Genetics 42, 1053–1059 , 2010, doi:10.1038/ng.715 ), so wild plants seem less defined and are probably more risky than GM ones. A more informed and balanced view of GM plants that might develop by providing more knowledge and more accurate information to the public would be highly desirable.

Thank You Nadine Madam, Cheers !

Mr. Mizanur Rahman, I know how to search on internet & if I do so I will get a lots more information, I think every one will know that, Here I want a discussion from experts. Thank You

Thank You Sir John Tainer for giving your precious time behind this topic. We would love to hear more from you.

In Gratitude,

M.N Ahmed

Although evidence supports the fact that genetically altered crops are equivalent to conventional varieties, there are a number of stores and food producers that advertise non-genetically altered food. There may still be a public perception that genetically altered crops are not only bad, but potentially carcinogenic. Perhaps it is simply a lack in education. I have to agree with all the previous comments that genetically altered food posses no more threat to health than conventionally grown crops.

There's indeed a lot of literature out there and most of it points at "no effects". Nevertheless you have to realize that most of this research can be put in doubt or is flawed. Often one can raise questions on feeding experiments conducted on bad (or non optimal) choice of model organism or strains. In several cases researchers had no access to the closest related non transformed plant line or the gentically identical line of which the insert was crossed out. In both cases experimental controls are not what they should be. Sometimes laboratory animals are fed a completely unrealistic diet (e.g. rats getting only corn), which on itself can cause effects. Feeding experiments in research are mostly acute, sometimes on the edge of chronical (and how is that defined?). Humans will be exposed for multiple generations. So to conclude: more research is needed :-)

Nations within the EU have banned GMOs as has India. In a documentary between two Indian scientists on PBS the anti-GMO scientist stated that the increase in digestive diseases and colon cancers in the US, which has occurred in step with the increased production of GMO crops in the US, were why GMOs should not be used in India (and that argument evidently convinced the Indian government). So why are GMO plants affecting the intestinal track? Because the BT toxin (some GMO corn now has 5 different BT toxins in them) is an insecticide that targets the insect's digestive tract. And just like insecticides that target the insects nervous system, they are also toxic to humans, abet at higher doses. Insecticides that target the insect nervous system result in accidental deaths in humans all the time. Insecticides that target the digestive tract in insects have a less pronounced affect on the human gut, but affect it all the same (see above).

And the argument about not being able to feed the world without GMO crops is just not true. GMO crops, engineered for insect and herbicide resistance, do not have higher yields than regular plants. So why do farmers use GMO crops?, because it is easier for them to produce a crop, no need to carefully rotate crops and other more labor intensive practices for naturally managing insects and weeds.

dear Gary,

Even if I am not completely convinced about GMO safety, let's look at it in a scientifically correct way with an open eye to the positive and the negative . The BT toxin has a specific target in the invertebrate gut (some of them are even genus specific), which humans don't have. There is no causative relation for human toxicity through the fact that the gut of the invertebrate is being targeted. Still this doesn't mean that bt toxins do not cause adverse effects in humans through chronic exposure. We should keep on testing for long term exposures. But this is not easy.

Gary Laco made the point that "And the argument about not being able to feed the world without GMO crops is just not true." I certainly agree! However the point is that as I noted cultivated rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn are all genetically altered by mutation of their wild counter parts far more than any existing GM plants - so ALL major gains needed to support the world's current population are greatly genetically modified from their wild counter parts. They are not called GM but they are hugely GM. This is a fact - it is not an opinion. If anyone thinks that you could feed the world population with wild grains such as ancestral wild corn then no rational argument is worthwhile.

Regarding Freddy Dardenne's point about BT Toxins. This is a good example where asking for more information and more controls makes sense. However you will probably know less about GM foods if you read the popular GM literature than if you do not -because much of this is inaccurate and pushing a point of view more than providing unbiased accurate information. For example, BT toxin for corn root worm is targeted for expression in corn plant roots. Most of us do not eat corn plant roots so we are not generally exposed to Bt toxin from GM corn. However for non GM corn most farmers use corn root worm pesticide that certainly gets into the ground water and is carcinogenic. And you will certainly be exposed to that if you drink the water. Unless we want to go to all organic food and avoid public water supplies, we need to get information to make accurate comparisons if you wish to know the risk of GM versus other food production. I like Freddy's point - "let's look at it in a scientifically correct way with an open eye to the positive and the negative." Yes!

Freddy, are you aware of the fact that Bt toxins have been used long before GM maize has been developed? The bacteria were cultivated, formulated and sprayed onto the plants. This was done under the flag of organical (more ecological) farming.

You may also notice that >10% of the total agricultural area is planted with GM crops (including Bt corn), large parts of the human population have already been exposed "chronically" and there are no sings of adverse effects in the real world.

If you are concerned about adverse long term effects on human health or maybe even more immediate effects there are so many other issues that are far more rewarding than GM crops: Automobile exhausts, fine dust, the metabolic syndrome, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, sweeteners, pollution (in general) just to name a few...Real risks, scientifically proven effects, all worth discussing and adressing.

And I fully agree with John, there is plenty of deliberately inaccurate and wrong stuff out there about GM crops.

The ban of GM crops is politically and ideologically motivated and has nothing to do with the scientific facts. Period.

Markus, I have the impression that you feel like I am against. This certainly not the case, I only like to look at it in an open perspective. And yes I am aware of the spraying applications, I've worked hands on on bt cloning, expression optimization and transforming of maize in a former life at Plant Genetic Systems (today Bayer crop science). Today I work as an ecotoxicologist so also the mixture toxicity aspect of things are not unkown, but they are in this discussion contaminating (pun not intended) as my answer went to the possibilty of toxicity of bt in single compound exposures, not in a mixture setting. The latter is still a completely different ball game.

I agree with John about the generation of plants with enhanced traits through cross breeding and grafting (in the case of wine). Many food plants have gone through that process to enhance yields, pest resistance, etcetera. Though many may not have (like herbs and some fruits). Some traits were just selected for based on increased size of seed.

I saw a program, again on PBS, about autistic children whose numbers have been increasing dramatically in the US. One point they made is that autistic children almost always have bowel disorders. On the program they had many parents, including some who were doctors, who shared their experiences. One point they all made was that after they got their children off of GMO food their bowel problems were either significantly reduced or went away altogether.

Yes, the BT toxin has been used by organic farmers, but it can be washed off of the plants since it is applied topically. In the case of GMO corn and soy you can not wash it off. I would be very interested to see data that showed there is no BT toxin expressed in corn and soy "seeds", versus low levels. It is the BT toxin that is expressed in pollen that is thought to be contributing to the massive bee colony die offs in the US.

Again, why have GM crops been banned in many EU countries and India, I heard earlier this year that the UK is considering a moratorium on their use as well. And they have been banned in some US counties and states as well (see third link below)

See the following for GMO crops in the EU:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/06/us-eu-gmo-cultivation-idUSBRE9A50PH20131106

A list of countries, and US counties and States that have banned GMO crops:

http://naturalrevolution.org/list-of-countries-that-ban-gmo-crops-and-require-ge-food-labels/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/countrieswithbans.cfm

Gary, I think we need to distinguish between politics and science. The fact that something has been banned in some country does not necesseraly mean the decision was made based on the standard we follow.

Now, there is no question that autism prevalence is on the rise in the recent years. But correlation does not show causality. Autism spectrum disorders are on the rise in Europe as well, where Bt crops are not so widespread. These data do not follow the model Bt crops->autism, so that model is incomplete or even invalid.

The same thing with bees - bee hives are having problems in Europe too.

But if the general population is concerned, it is also our job to make sure that each genetically modified plant or animal is safe.

Jiri and Freddy,

there are always the "unknown unknowns", one can never be 100% sure. But with GM crops, people are jumping on the 0,00...1% residual whereas other technologies or activities with known higher risks are totally ignored. To be clear, i am not against testing, even extensive testing of GM crops, but against irrational arguments.

I already can hear it: "So now Bt toxin alone doesnt show any effects, but we havent tested all the possible combinations and who knows if there is a setting where the whole damn thing will cause earth explode". Sorry for being so cynical, but its exactly this type of arguments that are brought to the table repeatedly.

The mistake people make, is to discuss GMO-technology as a whole. That's useless. The only VALID discussions that should take place is on the specific TRAITS that are introduced.

Connections are made all too easily indeed. Autism and GM? Next thing you know Obesity is suggested to be caused by cell-phones....

Bee colony collapse disorder has several plausible explanations/causes that may contribute, and Bt is NOT one of them. Wikipedia has a nice article on this too.

On GM food safety. Yes testing is important, and every GM is subject to more testing than any non GM food. The overwhelming consensus (>1700 papers) is that NO negative effects of GM food have been reliably identified. The most notorious flawed studies have been those claiming serious health-risks (less than a hand full), let's get that straight.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

And again, testing remains important. A consensus conclusion is a good sign, but that does not mean anything for the general technology (GMO). It's the TRAITS specifically, that are testable. Any result will only be informative for that trait and not the technology in general.

Now you guys (Jiri and Chris) are making a connection that I did not make, I said nothing about GM causing autism, only that GM crops and bowel disorders "in autistic children" may have a relationship. The reason I made that point is because in my first posting I said that a top "Indian scientist" had convinced the Indian government not to allow GM crops in India (they were to express Bt toxins) because in the US there has been an increase in digestive system diseases and colon cancers that were in step with the increase in production of Bt expressing corn and soy.

And Jiri, as for bee die offs in Europe where GM crops are not grown, that has been linked to a new class of "systemic" insecticides that are/were being used on ~80% of food crops. Those insecticides are now banned or being banned in many European countries because of the bee die offs. You can not wash off a systemic insecticide so we are eating them just like the insects they were designed to kill, of course the pollen also contains the insecticide and bees are insects.

And Chris as for the predominance of papers showing no harmful effects due to GM crops, who financially supported those research studies? Tobacco went through a similar phase. Now it is common knowledge that tobacco products "as well as second hand smoke" cause cancer, lung and heart disease, as well as many other diseases.

Dear John,

I have gone through all the discussion. Agree with you that it seems difficult to feed the population with conventional cropping system in the coming decades. Other point you have raised about the mutation breeding and use of more insecticides on conventional varieties. Technically it seems correct to me.

But I have read that GM plants release toxin in the soil by different means that retain insecticidal activity for about 180 day. link http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/SAXENAsoil.pdf

and for 234 days. link

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bt/Saxena-Stotzky-Nature-1999.pdf

My concern is that, this active insecticidal toxin can easily be taken by the next crop of the season from soil. This may alter the genetic make up and morphology of the next crop. Any change at the chromosomal level if it may brought, can affect the pollen fertility which subsequently related to yield. This needs to be taken care of.

Yes it is true that there can be a release of some Bt toxin into the soil. So one would want to compare this versus other alternatives including organic food that uses the whole insect and consider the data as much as the politics. The data I am aware of shows that Bt crops have far less environmental impact than spraying chemical pesticides and probably less than spraying Bt biopesticides since GM Bt is concentrated in the roots. Bt in organic farming will also get into the soil. Animals seem to be able to eat large amounts of Bt and digest it like other proteins. If there is evidence for toxicity from solid experiments then solid data should be presented and more tests are appropriate. Given how enthusiastically people do law suits in the U.S. there would be plenty of legal actions that would block any dangerous GM plants due to damage to people should there be real data for this in my view. Of course it is important to keep testing and to find and remove anything that might be more toxic to people than the currently used alternatives.

John,

Note that the elimination of one pest with GM crops that express Bt has led to other insects becoming prevalent and damaging the crops. As a result the farmers then use broad spectrum insecticides on the GM crops. This has also occurred when the insects become resistant to the Bt toxin. However, you are correct in that overall less insecticides are used on GM cotton crops, from Wikipedia: In 2012, a study published in Nature showed that the use of Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides. Usually insecticides also kill the natural enemies of pests, so this has lead to an increased number of the enemies and hence also decreased the numbers of secondary pests. Also the surrounding non-GM fields have benefited from the GM fields. Southampton University ecology professor Guy Poppy said that the huge scale of the study will end the discussion on the subject. [290][291]

References from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

290) GM crops good for environment, study finds, The Guardian, 13 June 2012.

291) Lu, Yanhui; Wu, Kongming; Jiang, Yuying; Guo, Yuyuan; Desneux, Nicolas (2012). "Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services". Nature 487 (7407): 362–5

Bassam, two points 1) as for fair scientific tests on GM crops by independent scientists, from Wikipedia: Some scientists wishing to conduct research on GM plants or seeds have been unable to obtain them for study, due to restrictive end-user agreements that limit what can be done with GM seeds. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for one group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".[62] Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While arguing that seed companies' intellectual property rights ought to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing.[63]

And 2) As for the FDA approval being important for GM crops, from Wikipedia: Critics in the US have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA. Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto. On 7 July 2009, Taylor returned to government as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration.[386]

References from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

62) Bruce Stutz (1 July 2010). "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study". Seed Magazine.

63) The editors, "Do seed companies control GM crop research?" (article originally printed with the title "A seedy practice"), Scientific American, vol. 301, August 2009.

386) FDA News Release 7 July 2009 Noted Food Safety Expert Michael R. Taylor Named Advisor to FDA Commissioner

Ok- I have to say that Gary brings up what seem to be quite good points to me. Certainly the ability to do unbiased tests on GM seeds should be fundamental to allowing their commercial use. I expect there is net less hazard from some GM plants (not all) than standard commercial plants- but I will go with whatever objective data tells us. It is however important to compare results with alternatives as every food system has downsides and limitations. Extreme support for GM crops would make as little sense as extreme rejection of them in my view.

I fully support that scientist have to have full access to the GM crops for testing them, independent and repeatable testing is the core of the scientific method and its most powerful and valuable asset. Any restrictions on the possibility for doing independent research have to be viewed critically.

However, we have also seen that results from studies have been abused by different interest groups,that results have been misinterpreted, and last but not least that studies have been ill-performed. And dont forget that scientists are humans, and they are by no means always independent and objective.

People are quick in claiming that any work showing that GM crops are good / cause no harm is influenced by Monsanto or the like while assuming that all opposing claims surely must have been reached through independent and objective research. This is clearly not the case.

I fully agree with John and also with Chris, you have to look at GM crops case-by-case and as with many other things we finally need to look for the impact.

Dear M.Sidhu,

you can rest assured that there are no concerns that the Bt toxin released by GM crops into the soil would cause any genetic mutations of the next seasons crop or have any impact on their fertiliy. First, Bt toxin is a protein, this is very different from classical chemical insecticides, there is no rationale for the intact protein being able to be taken up through the roots (it would need to get across the cell membrane which comprises a pretty good barrier) and proteins are generally (there are only very few exceptions) not mutagenic. Also, the protein would have to reach the nucleus to access the genome.

...and if someone is interested here is a link describing the survival of B.thuringiensis, the natural producer of the toxin.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC238786/

Bt makes huge intracellular protein paracrystals that are much more resistant to degradation than the truncated versions used in Bt crops.

Probably (i havent found specific information yet) the Bt spores used in "organic farming" products are not inactivated (this would add to the production costs)

@Markus,

I got your point that protein as such cannot be taken up by the plant. Then it will not affect the next crop of the season directly. But the accumulation of insecticidal protein in the soil for such a long time may change the chemical composition and soil micro-organisms. How the next crop will cope up with this problem.

Dear M.Sidhu,

what makes you think the next crop has a problem at all?

We are getting close to discuss butterfly effects...

@Markus,

The next crop plant will take nutrients available in the soil. Moreover the micro-organisms present in the soil also play an important role in the growth of the plant. The change in the soil properties (chemical/micro-organisms) if any by the insecticidal protein may affect the next crop.

Dear M.Sidhu,

as may so many other things. You wouldnt assume that the soil properties are constant, would you? They are affected by numerous other anthropogenic factors (pollution, global warming, construction,...) which clearly produce much larger impacts and changes and are mor worthwhile considering and adressing.

Long term effects of GM food are yet to be studied. GM food is tested on animals and results are negative as Mr. F. William Engdahl revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.” It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

The following article is about health hazards of GM food.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/potential-health-hazards-of-genetically-engineered-foods/8148 .

I think GM crops can be used for good purposes like incorporating desirable traits: Vitamin A production (to combat childhood blindness), salt and drought tolerance, cold and heat resistance, increased yield. But if they are going to engineer plants to express insecticides then I think the food needs be to labeled as such so the consumer can make a choice. Right now in the US they do not label GM foods, why?, I think because people may choose not to buy it. If GM crops are good then why not label GM foods (and specifically such as in, "this plant was engineered to express a toxin that kills insects by disrupting their: digestive system; nervous system; reproduction cycle, etcetera") and let the consumers decide? We should have the right to know what a GM food has been engineered to express and then we can decide if we want to eat it or not. Many other countries require GM foods to be labeled.