My guess is that one should start by making an assessment of whether transgenic plants are intrinsically different to traditional plants. Do transgenic plants produce more toxins or alergenic proteins? This relates to the comment of Watson. Plants naturally produce miRNA that have the potential to regulate gene expression in animals, therefore, should we worry about transgenic plants producing miRNAs? As stated by Ramos, technology is neutral and we should worry about how it is used and how we regulate its use. Producing scorpion toxins in plants will certainly make a transgenic plant dangerous, but current regulations will prevent this to reach the consumer.

We should also make risk/benefit assessments comparing to the available options. People that opposes the use of transgenic plants that produce Bt insecticidal proteins are concern about non-target organisms, about effects on soil microflora, etc. However, how does that compare with the application of chemical insecticides that will certainly kill non-target insects, are generally toxic to animals and humans, etc.There is no option thus far to practice agriculture without an effective way to control insect pests.

Since traditional plants, to give them a name, produce toxions, allergens, kill insects and bacteria, should traditional varieties and hybrids be subjected to a similar regulatory process as transgenic plants?

You might find interesting some of the comments posted on this related question:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/GMO_crops_Is_there_any_peer_reviewed_scientific_evidence_that_questions_their_safety

Impact of GM crops is a controversial subject. Results of true effects need long and thorough studies. Companies commercializing GMOs have mainly economic interests and they are powerful. Some scientists are their mercenaries and governments are too week to protect their citizens.

The net is full of information. Some of them:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art13/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746139

http://www.academia.edu/542384/A_Review_on_Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified_Food_on_Human_Health

http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEU%3D&tabid=390

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gm-crops-developing-countries/gm-crops-developing-countries-concerns-about-gm-crops

http://globalseminarhealth.wdfiles.com/local--files/nutrition/Bakshi.pdf

There is no serious and unambiguous evidence to show that consumption of GM food has any deleterious effect on human health. No crops have been assessed as rigorously as the GM crops for risk to human and animal health.

"the movement of transgenes beyond their intended destinations is a virtual certainty". It is the case for any gene found in crops.

" it is unlikely that transgenes can be retracted once they have escaped." Wrong !

Example : the StarLink corn has been withdrawn from market. It is no longer found, neither in nature (where it was never found anyway), nor in seed stocks. What is true it that it will take longer for some species than others.

you may want to visit my blog:

http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-articles-in-english-104471344.html

and read my articles on the following topics:

-Scientific assessments of GMOs

-Political mistreatment of scientific data by European governments

-GMO opponents' strategies analyzed

-Coexistence

i just read an article on the effects of GM wheat, the enzyme suppressor in wheat might also attack a human enzyme that produces glycogen...as both of the gene are similar and it has potential to silence the gene in human (www.naturalnews.com)

No

Among what harm people on a daily basis, GMOs would be the least to worry about. People who pretend defending human health by refusing GMOs did not provide any alternative to fight hunger, especially in the third word countries.

GM crops - healthy or poisonous, safe or dangerous? This question is logically identical to questions: "Chemicals (or molecules) - healthy or poisonous, safe or dangerous?"; "Mechanisms - healthy or poisonous, safe or dangerous?". Genetic modification is yet another method for creation of plant varieties, and the qualities of any organism, like of any chemical (molecule) or mechanism, depend not on the method to create it, but on the physical structure of the subject created. This is the basic dogma of the modern science, and if someone doubts this dogma, he is not a scientist at all. The physical structure of any living mechanism is essentially its genome composition. So, question considering safety of GM crops in general is irrational per se. You must consider only exact plant or its variety, and to evaluate its properties. If GM contains poison - it's poisonous, like many wild plants, animals, fungi or bacteria; if GM contains healthy substances - it's healthy, like many wild plants, animals, fungi or bacteria.

(1) the movement of transgenes beyond their intended destinations is a virtual certainty;

Any genome alteration is only a raw substance for the evolution; the driving force being selection. During hundreds of millions of years of the evolution, there were uncountable genetic changes in all organisms, resulting in the production of almost any imaginable proteins and other structures, but survived only those who survived, i.e best fitted to their environment.

Human-created varieties of plants or animals exist thousands of years, but no one of them ever took over the wild organisms in the wild. The features selected by human makes variety less fitted to the environment (because genomes of the wild varieties are polished by thousands of years of harsh competition), and, without human protection, domesticated variety dies or, if possible, looses features selected by humans and revert to the wild form. An organism can thrive in the new environment only if it finds an empty niche, but this happens because of overall genetic makeup created by thousands of years of evolution, not because of some gene selected or introduced by human.

On the other hand, if there is some selection pressure, there is only a mater of time if any organism will develop some genetic change to be able to resist that pressure. It is exemplified by the ability of traditional breeders to derive new varieties, by the emergency of antibiotic-resistant bugs or herbicide-resistant weeds.

So, there is certainly some spread of transgenes beyond their intended destinations, but there is no reports (and hardly can be any) about any harm they made.

and (2) it is unlikely that transgenes can be retracted once they have escaped.

No need for retraction, as explained in the answer to question (1).

So far all deleterious aspects of GM crops - only weakly founded speculations and conspiracy theories. It does not mean that some harmful GM crop can't be created. It can be, like chemist can synthesize some harmful chemical; engineer can create harmful mechanism; programmer can create harmful software. But, because of such possibility (and event multiple implementations of such possibility), it would be silly to ban chemical synthesis, engineering or programming, or to use products developed by these methods. The same is with genetic engineering.

GM crops are too different to be discussed and understood as one topic. Generally GM crop approach seems safe when people try to improve the crop quality like vitamin or protein content. On the other hand (there are such ongoing projects and published papers) if one wants to use a crop plant for bioremediation - it sounds dangerous at once. Examples: Sinapis or Brassica napus as a cadmium or lead hyperaccumulators. Another point is that people who blindly defend transgenic crops usually show a rather an ancient understanding of biology " one gene = one trait" Actually we know or at least we should know that this is not always true. GM crops are promising, but their metabolomes should be carefully tested before these crops are released for an open use by farmers. Introduction of GM crops seems not to be so urgent because in EU we have food overproduction already without GM crops and farmers have to pay penalties for food overproduction, what seems absolutely stupid, as bio-fuel production, especially when people in other countries suffer hunger.

I am totally agreed with the view of Dr. Mattoo. There is no convincing evidence pertaining to their negative impact.

Dr. Raimundas Razanskas and Dr, Przemyslaw Nuc points are convincing.

Hello,

I am specialist in plant genetic engineering and plant genetic transformation techniques and systems. Indeed, I was thinking to write a review about this topic as there is more need to explain all these issues to public and even for scientific community. So if they are people wiling to cooperate eon this topic, we might work together.

I think the question really ought to be phrased, but more importantly approached, something like "Is there any data that points out whether there are deleterious aspects of GM crops to humanity and life?"

The way it is phrased suggests you may be trying to find answers to a preconceived notion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Thanks a lot for all informations.

Three things to consider, and three publications that illustrate each:

(a) "Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA". Zhang et al. Cell Research (2012) 22:107-126. This group found that exogenous plant miRNA can regulate gene expression in mammals, which has obvious GM implications. The key here is not to jump to conclusions straight away, but to use these studies in order to more accurately assess risk and, as one biosafety expert insists -- to avoid type II errors.

(b) To continue with the theme of biosafety risk assessment, it is useful to examine the work of researchers at institutes such as the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety at U of Canterbury, NZ. cf. "Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment", by Prof Jack Heinemann. [http://www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nz/Documents/Reports%20and%20others/Heinemann-Report-20120828.pdf]

(c) Having said that, it is still a matter of weighing the pros and cons, and making the best decision that can be made -- with the evidence available to us presently. The point was made previously that GM crop analysis is a multi-faceted issue, and it is important to bear in mind. The pressure to produce larger quantities of food in the coming decades is immense. As a plant breeder, I am concerned with the narrowing of the genetic base of major grain crops, esp. maize. The stated question was, I assume, aimed at direct deleterious effects on human health. What about the deleterious effects of an alarmingly narrow genetic base of food crops at a time of climate change and relatively rapid changes in pest/disease pressures?

Just a wide topic, it seems. however, we can narrow this to two views: (1) the trans-genesis technology and (2) the use we make of it. The technology is neutral, but we can make good or bad use of it, like a gun. So, from the results, we will be able to make judgments. However, we can only make sure judgments when we "know" the effects were exhausted. That may take from days to decades - keep in mind the "miracles" of the DDT, BHC and other long gone insecticides...

Some are willing to take more risks than other. Because this issue usually evolves big business, money tends to speak louder than reasoning and hurry is usually the result.

I propose to read the article of Spisak S. et al.

„Complete genes may pass from food to human blood”

https://hermes.agr.unideb.hu/webmail/?_task=mail&_framed=1&_action=get&_mbox=INBOX&_uid=1979&_part=2&_frame=1

This can contribute to the possible history of DNA and its fragments in human blood.

concerning A. Watson's remark : "Zhang et al. Cell Research (2012) 22:107-126. This group found that exogenous plant miRNA can regulate gene expression in mammals, which has obvious GM implications. "

This work used CONVENTIONAL rice, not GM. "exogenous" has to be understood with respect to the animal eating the rice, not an addition to a WT rice. Therefore, IF THIS WORK IS CONFIRMED, then "obvious implications" are for all plant varieties (which may well vary in their miRNA content), all food, and for any changes in diet, not specifically GM derived food (unless the GM implied deliberate miRNA production).

Dear Andras: that is not an open file... requires login.

My guess is that one should start by making an assessment of whether transgenic plants are intrinsically different to traditional plants. Do transgenic plants produce more toxins or alergenic proteins? This relates to the comment of Watson. Plants naturally produce miRNA that have the potential to regulate gene expression in animals, therefore, should we worry about transgenic plants producing miRNAs? As stated by Ramos, technology is neutral and we should worry about how it is used and how we regulate its use. Producing scorpion toxins in plants will certainly make a transgenic plant dangerous, but current regulations will prevent this to reach the consumer.

We should also make risk/benefit assessments comparing to the available options. People that opposes the use of transgenic plants that produce Bt insecticidal proteins are concern about non-target organisms, about effects on soil microflora, etc. However, how does that compare with the application of chemical insecticides that will certainly kill non-target insects, are generally toxic to animals and humans, etc.There is no option thus far to practice agriculture without an effective way to control insect pests.

Since traditional plants, to give them a name, produce toxions, allergens, kill insects and bacteria, should traditional varieties and hybrids be subjected to a similar regulatory process as transgenic plants?

I strongly recommend reading the Editorial of Nature entitled “Poison postures: Researchers working on controversial topics must take care how they promote their results”, published on the 25th of September, 2012. The editorial points out that too often in the GM-food debate, generalizations and extremism lead to sterile public and political discourse that obscures key issues: what sorts of GM crops might bring true benefits to agriculture and consumers; how to avoid monopolization of farming choices; and what types of sustainable agriculture we want in the future. Polarized debates, not GMOs, are the poison to be avoided.

Nature Volume: 489, Pages: 474 Date published: (27 September 2012) DOI: doi:10.1038/489474a