GMO Foods; What's the general scientific opinion?

[Morchella]

One of the old concerns about GMOs was that among the billions of different proteins encountered in food, the new ones introduced by GMOs could be carcinogens or have some other deleterious effect. So far those worries appear to be not as insidious as originally proposed.
One concern I do have about GMOs is when they are used as insecticides. One example is the widespread use of Bt corn. Because the insecticide is part of the plant then the whole plant becomes toxic. Remember the Corn Earworm? It is rarely encountered anymore in the grocery store when twenty years ago the infestation rate was often over 25%. The Bt derived toxin is present in the wind pollenated corn pollen. Bt kills all lepidopterous (butterfly and Moth) larvae including the celebrated Monarch. Wind driven pollen is sticky and covers everything including weeds in fields, hedgerows and roadsides. The pollen becomes a lethal gauntlet to all lepidopterous insects trying to pass through the midwest and other places Bt corn is grown. In this case GMOs may be harmless to humans but not altogether harmless. It's interesting that anti GMO proponents blame GMO herbicides like "Roundup Ready " plants for the demise of the Monarch because of milkweed decimation when logically you can't "overspray" GMOs. Roundup can be over sprayed killing milkweed but I doubt that is the whole story. Bt corn though, is a new kind of "overspray" and adapted more so than Roundup to be carried in the wind.

 

[Capsid]

One of the old concerns about GMOs was that among the billions of different proteins encountered in food, the new ones introduced by GMOs could be carcinogens or have some other deleterious effect. So far those worries appear to be not as insidious as originally proposed.
One concern I do have about GMOs is when they are used as insecticides. One example is the widespread use of Bt corn. Because the insecticide is part of the plant then the whole plant becomes toxic. Remember the Corn Earworm? It is rarely encountered anymore in the grocery store when twenty years ago the infestation rate was often over 25%. The Bt derived toxin is present in the wind pollenated corn pollen. Bt kills all lepidopterous (butterfly and Moth) larvae including the celebrated Monarch. Wind driven pollen is sticky and covers everything including weeds in fields, hedgerows and roadsides. The pollen becomes a lethal gauntlet to all lepidopterous insects trying to pass through the midwest and other places Bt corn is grown. In this case GMOs may be harmless to humans but not altogether harmless. It's interesting that anti GMO proponents blame GMO herbicides like "Roundup Ready " plants for the demise of the Monarch because of milkweed decimation when logically you can't "overspray" GMOs. Roundup can be over sprayed killing milkweed but I doubt that is the whole story. Bt corn though, is a new kind of "overspray" and adapted more so than Roundup to be carried in the wind.

Butterflies and moths have a sucking proboscis. Can they even eat pollen?

 

[Morchella]

Butterflies and moths have a sucking proboscis. Can they even eat pollen?

True, but the larvae, who do all the eating are chewers. Pollen is eaten inadvertently because it is sticking to the plant.

 

[meg]

Interesting point! I hadn't thought of it like that.

I'm curious about a consensus because there definitely are some people who say all GMO foods are bad, period, end of story. I know folks who claim their health has dramatically improved by cutting out all GMO foods from their diets. It reminds me of people who claim that gluten is terrible and their health dramatically improved by cutting it out (even though they tested negative for celiac disease.)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if people's health improved after eliminating GMOs. But I think it doesn't have as much to do with the GMOs as with corn and soy in foods in general. Eliminating GMOs from your diet means eliminating most junk foods and processed foods, so in addition to eliminating the corn and soy, you're also eliminating a goodly amount of fat, sugar and salt.

I suspect that people's health improves from going gluten free in a similar fashion. Going gluten free pretty much takes all fast food burgers and sandwiches off the menu, which probably would be an improvement to most people's diet.

One of the old concerns about GMOs was that among the billions of different proteins encountered in food, the new ones introduced by GMOs could be carcinogens or have some other deleterious effect. So far those worries appear to be not as insidious as originally proposed.
One concern I do have about GMOs is when they are used as insecticides. One example is the widespread use of Bt corn. Because the insecticide is part of the plant then the whole plant becomes toxic. Remember the Corn Earworm? It is rarely encountered anymore in the grocery store when twenty years ago the infestation rate was often over 25%. The Bt derived toxin is present in the wind pollenated corn pollen. Bt kills all lepidopterous (butterfly and Moth) larvae including the celebrated Monarch. Wind driven pollen is sticky and covers everything including weeds in fields, hedgerows and roadsides. The pollen becomes a lethal gauntlet to all lepidopterous insects trying to pass through the midwest and other places Bt corn is grown. In this case GMOs may be harmless to humans but not altogether harmless. It's interesting that anti GMO proponents blame GMO herbicides like "Roundup Ready " plants for the demise of the Monarch because of milkweed decimation when logically you can't "overspray" GMOs. Roundup can be over sprayed killing milkweed but I doubt that is the whole story. Bt corn though, is a new kind of "overspray" and adapted more so than Roundup to be carried in the wind.

The elimination of the monarch butterfy's host plant is indeed devastating the population. The monarch will not lay eggs on any other plant. Nor will the larvae survive and pupate eating any other plant. Milkweed used to be a common weed, found in every ditch, road side, pasture, marshy areas, and interspersed in most agricultural fields. The exponential growth in use of round up as an easy weed control has indeed resulted in the drastic reduction of milkweed, which means a drastic reduction in monarchs.

Monarch larvae are not on corn plants. Neither the caterpillars nor the adults eat corn. Bt corn is not the problem. Round up ready corn, on the other hand, is part of the problem.

And by the way, Bt corn does not eliminate corn ear worm. Bt sweet corn often has large numbers of small dead earworms in the tips of the ears. Most sweet corn farmers use multiple insecticides on sweetcorn, even when using Bt Seed.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publications/E-31.pdf

 

[Morchella]

The elimination of the monarch butterfy's host plant is indeed devastating the population. The monarch will not lay eggs on any other plant. Nor will the larvae survive and pupate eating any other plant. Milkweed used to be a common weed, found in every ditch, road side, pasture, marshy areas, and interspersed in most agricultural fields. The exponential growth in use of round up as an easy weed control has indeed resulted in the drastic reduction of milkweed, which means a drastic reduction in monarchs.

Monarch larvae are not on corn plants. Neither the caterpillars nor the adults eat corn. Bt corn is not the problem. Round up ready corn, on the other hand, is part of the problem.

And by the way, Bt corn does not eliminate corn ear worm. Bt sweet corn often has large numbers of small dead earworms in the tips of the ears. Most sweet corn farmers use multiple insecticides on sweetcorn, even when using Bt Seed.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publications/E-31.pdf

I am aware of the Monarch's obligate relationship with milkweed. Nowhere did I say that the Monarch is actually eating the corn plant. What I did say is that the Monarch is inadvertently eating corn by consuming wind blown pollen that carpets everything near a cornfield. There are scant studies that confirm what I am proposing. Usually the funding of such studies are provided by the industry. I doubt Monsanto would publish a study confirming the deleterious effects of Bt corn on Monarch populations. There is an interesting article in the New Yorker recently about another herbicide made by another company and how that company hounded the scientist and tried to discredit him because his research conflicted with their rosy outlook of a certain herbicide.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv

 

[Retrograde]

This anti-GMO crap always amuses me, given the crossover between them and the "pot is wonderful" groups and the history of induced mutation (by UV, ionising radiation, EMA, colchicine et cetera) amongst cannabis growers.

That's because the cannabis cultivars are lovingly bred by righteous small farmers heroically working to produce a better product for the benefit of mankind, whereas GMOs are engineered by evil corporations who are only out for a quick buck. (Do I really need a smiley here?)

Some of the sites I frequent have frequent heated discussions on whether or not gluten intolerance is real, with the yes side often claiming that it's all due to the use of GMO wheat in recent years. However, there was an op ed in the NY Times this past week by a professor of agriculture arguing for GMO wheat, claiming that it is currently banned in the US, so at least one side doesn't have its facts straight.

I've been perusing a lot of seed catalogs recently, looking for interesting stuff to try to grow this year. I don't see any varieties specifically called out as GMO (I grow on too small a scale for those), but many if not most descriptions tout how particular strains are developed for cool summers or long days or alkaline soils or whatever: it's what people have been doing since agriculture was invented (or maybe even earlier). And they're mostly a long way from the original wild plant: maize, tomatoes and capsicums in particular. Then there are the ornamentals - weeping Sequoiadendrons and hybrid tea roses wouldn't make it in nature.

 

[catsmate]

That's because the cannabis cultivars are lovingly bred by righteous small farmers heroically working to produce a better product for the benefit of mankind, whereas GMOs are engineered by evil corporations who are only out for a quick buck. (Do I really need a smiley here?)

It'd help . Yeah, the hypocrisy is strong in the anti-GMO activists.

Some of the sites I frequent have frequent heated discussions on whether or not gluten intolerance is real, with the yes side often claiming that it's all due to the use of GMO wheat in recent years. However, there was an op ed in the NY Times this past week by a professor of agriculture arguing for GMO wheat, claiming that it is currently banned in the US, so at least one side doesn't have its facts straight.

True. Plus gluten intolerance is fashionable atm.

I've been perusing a lot of seed catalogs recently, looking for interesting stuff to try to grow this year. I don't see any varieties specifically called out as GMO (I grow on too small a scale for those), but many if not most descriptions tout how particular strains are developed for cool summers or long days or alkaline soils or whatever: it's what people have been doing since agriculture was invented (or maybe even earlier). And they're mostly a long way from the original wild plant: maize, tomatoes and capsicums in particular. Then there are the ornamentals - weeping Sequoiadendrons and hybrid tea roses wouldn't make it in nature.

Oh hell yes. We've selected more attractive strains, then cross-bred and selectively bred them until they bear damn all resemblance to the originals.
Then we started inducing the mutations, before we understood what we were doing, because nature wasn't working fast enough. Now we're specifically selecting the traits we want.

Personally I'm waiting for the all natural xmas tree, complete with glowing fruit and metallic needle tinsel.

 

[cosmicaug]

How many horizontal gene transfert are documented from fish to plant or from human to another plant or an animal species ? Realistically ?

Realistically, this sort of thing is going to happen in nature more often than through biotech. This is not because there's anything wrong with such a genetic manipulation (there's no real fishiness about an isolated fish gene that makes it out of place somewhere else: software is software) but because the big biotech companies like Monsanto will not do it for PR reasons: they know the public is squeamish about animal genes in plants. This is akin to superstition and a lousy reason not to do something but such is capitalism, I guess.

I know of a lot of them from plant to plant, bacteria/virus/amoebia/funghi gene dance (and sadly the antibiotic resistance spread), but that is not comparable except maybe by mechanism.

I know there are examples of Archaea to Bacteria so that covers horizontal gene transfer across domains. I'm sure you can find some across kindgoms as well.

Also because a mechanism exists and is safe in nature, does not mean it is safe when we use it artificially.

Why do you assume it's safe in nature?

What would make it unsafe when used artificially? What serves as a boundary to delineate natural effects (allegedly safe) from artificial effects (allegedly harmful)?

 

[cosmicaug]

For example: Hydroxyproline is an amino acid normally found only in animal connective tissue. If we found it in something else, we'd do an automatic retest in duplicate to rule-out lab errors. D-amino acids have been found in biological sources of protein when it was long thought that only L-amino acids existed in nature.

Now you never know what you're going to find.

I'm not very clear on your comment. Are you making any actual claims regarding transgenic crops? Hydroxyproline, a handy amino acid which makes the structural properties of collagens, would require a very specific enzyme which animals have (vitamin C is a co-factor, thus its deficiency state condition, scurvy, involves connective tissue dysfunction). This enzyme has not been introduced into any transgenic crop that I know of. If you are finding this amino acid in crops it would be rather extraordinary since, as far as I know, none should have this enzyme.

 

[Diogenes]

So...when did Monstanto start publishing studies themselves? Do they have their own journal?

That Séralini paper with the rats and the GMO feed doesn't even have to be attacked based on Séralini's bias or funding. It fails on its own lack of actual scientific rigor. Using a (GMO) strain of rat designed to accumulate turmors as they age combined with test groups of about 50 animals with a control group of only 10 animals? (if i'm remembering correctly, just a couple of the problems with that paper)

 

[cosmicaug]

One concern I do have about GMOs is when they are used as insecticides. One example is the widespread use of Bt corn. Because the insecticide is part of the plant then the whole plant becomes toxic. Remember the Corn Earworm? It is rarely encountered anymore in the grocery store when twenty years ago the infestation rate was often over 25%.

Well, if you go back more than a year or two, that certainly cannot be because of BT corn. BT sweet corn was only introduced one or two years ago.

The Bt derived toxin is present in the wind pollenated corn pollen. Bt kills all lepidopterous (butterfly and Moth) larvae including the celebrated Monarch. Wind driven pollen is sticky and covers everything including weeds in fields, hedgerows and roadsides. The pollen becomes a lethal gauntlet to all lepidopterous insects trying to pass through the midwest and other places Bt corn is grown. In this case GMOs may be harmless to humans but not altogether harmless. It's interesting that anti GMO proponents blame GMO herbicides like "Roundup Ready " plants for the demise of the Monarch because of milkweed decimation when logically you can't "overspray" GMOs. Roundup can be over sprayed killing milkweed but I doubt that is the whole story. Bt corn though, is a new kind of "overspray" and adapted more so than Roundup to be carried in the wind.

That concern was brought up in the 90s, explored and thoroughly debunked. If you force monarch caterpillars to eat pollen with the BT protein, they will die. What happens in the laboratory does not appear to happen in the wild.

I think a diminishing of milkweed numbers is a greater cause of concerns and milkweed has always been found on the edges of corn fields. Better weed control does imply diminishing numbers of milkweed.

 

[cosmicaug]

That Séralini paper with the rats and the GMO feed doesn't even have to be attacked based on Séralini's bias or funding. It fails on its own lack of actual scientific rigor. Using a (GMO) strain of rat designed to accumulate turmors as they age combined with test groups of about 50 animals with a control group of only 10 animals? (if i'm remembering correctly, just a couple of the problems with that paper)

Here's a page exploring the implications of using a 10 animal control group against many different treatment groups of 10 animals:
http://inspiringscience.net/2012/09/26/seralini-gm-fed-rats/

The R code is based on a similar post at http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/.

 

[cosmicaug]

Yes, an unsafe GMO could be made, but that's not really the point is it? I can breed a toxic potato from two nontoxic parental strains without using any GMO technology. i could then sell this without any regulatory approval. Does this mean that farming is not safe "in general" or does it mean that potatoes are not safe "in general"?

I'm not 100% sure but I think you might be mistaken. I think potatoes might have specific special regulatory requirements precisely because an unsafe potato variety was accidentally produced at one point, the Lenape potato (though I don't believe it was actually commercialized).

You are absolutely correct in the general sense, though. You can make any monstrosity using whatever technique you wish (including chemical induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis, distant hybrids, somatic hybridization) and introduce it with zero regulatory oversight as long as you are not using any techniques which would be classified as genetic engineering.

Ironically, it is precisely the techniques which are considered conventional which are more unpredictable.

Here's a table on the subject from Kevin Folta's Illumination blog which I find illuminating:

|Hybrids (cross between two non-clonal plants)|Polyploids (whole genomes duplicated or added)|Mutation breeding (Chemical or induced damage to DNA)|Crossing Species barriers (interspecific crosses)|Transgenics (rDNA method to as a gene-"GMO")|Cisgenics (rDNA method to add a gene)
Examples in common foods|Almost everything|Strawberries, wheat, bananas, brassicas, others|Some bananas, pears, apples, rice, yams, mint, others|Pluots, tangelos, some apples, rice, wheat|Much corn, canola, soybeans, cotton, papaya|coming son
Transfers genes from one species to another|Yes, sometimes|Yes, often|No|By definition|Yes|No
Occurs in nature|Yes|Yes|Yes, transposon movement, mutation from environment|Yes, rare, seldom fertile|Yes. Agrobacterium, other horiz. transf.|N/A
Human intervention|Yes, for crop improvement|Can be induced chemically to improve crops|Yes, to introduce variation for crop improvement|Yes, for crop improvement|Yes, for precision crop improvement|Yes, for precision crop improvement
Number of genes affected|10K to >300K depending on the species|10K to >800K|No way to assess|10-300K|1-3|1-3, usually 1
Know what genes moved or affected do|No|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Know where affected genes are in genome|No|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Plant patentable|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes
Documented adversity|Yes|??|???|Yes|No|No
Environmental assessment|No|No|No|No|Yes|Will see
Organic acceptable|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|No|No
Time for new variety|5-30 years|>5 years|>5years|5-30 years|<5 years|<5 years
Demanding label|No|No|No|No|Yes|Will see

 

[CapelDodger]

Why do you assume it's safe in nature?

Best assume nothing is safe in nature. Something gets us all in the end, and it's not always what you might expect.

 

[Diogenes]

Here's a page exploring the implications of using a 10 animal control group against many different treatment groups of 10 animals:
http://inspiringscience.net/2012/09/26/seralini-gm-fed-rats/

The R code is based on a similar post at http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/.

Very nice, apparently I misremembered the number of animals in the experimental groups.

What I like is this:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

It has been retracted, and a lot faster than the Wakefield paper was.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Very nice, apparently I misremembered the number of animals in the experimental groups.

What I like is this:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

It has been retracted, and a lot faster than the Wakefield paper was.

I remember this, and also remember this sentence,

"Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. "

Been waiting to see the new study with those flaws corrected. Hasn't been one yet.

 

[catsmate]

So...when did Monstanto start publishing studies themselves? Do they have their own journal?

Nope. Peer review all the way.

That Séralini paper with the rats and the GMO feed doesn't even have to be attacked based on Séralini's bias or funding. It fails on its own lack of actual scientific rigor. Using a (GMO) strain of rat designed to accumulate turmors as they age combined with test groups of about 50 animals with a control group of only 10 animals? (if i'm remembering correctly, just a couple of the problems with that paper)

Correct. The dubious science was torn apart and the paper eventually withdrawn, with Séralini making legal threats. I brought up his dubious connections in response to the "Big Pharma" reference.
His work fails on it's poor science, apart from the bias and possible fraud.

I'm not 100% sure but I think you might be mistaken. I think potatoes might have specific special regulatory requirements precisely because an unsafe potato variety was accidentally produced at one point, the Lenape potato (though I don't believe it was actually commercialized).

You are absolutely correct in the general sense, though. You can make any monstrosity using whatever technique you wish (including chemical induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis, distant hybrids, somatic hybridization) and introduce it with zero regulatory oversight as long as you are not using any techniques which would be classified as genetic engineering.

Ironically, it is precisely the techniques which are considered conventional which are more unpredictable.

Here's a table on the subject from Kevin Folta's Illumination blog which I find illuminating:

|Hybrids (cross between two non-clonal plants)|Polyploids (whole genomes duplicated or added)|Mutation breeding (Chemical or induced damage to DNA)|Crossing Species barriers (interspecific crosses)|Transgenics (rDNA method to as a gene-"GMO")|Cisgenics (rDNA method to add a gene)
Examples in common foods|Almost everything|Strawberries, wheat, bananas, brassicas, others|Some bananas, pears, apples, rice, yams, mint, others|Pluots, tangelos, some apples, rice, wheat|Much corn, canola, soybeans, cotton, papaya|coming son
Transfers genes from one species to another|Yes, sometimes|Yes, often|No|By definition|Yes|No
Occurs in nature|Yes|Yes|Yes, transposon movement, mutation from environment|Yes, rare, seldom fertile|Yes. Agrobacterium, other horiz. transf.|N/A
Human intervention|Yes, for crop improvement|Can be induced chemically to improve crops|Yes, to introduce variation for crop improvement|Yes, for crop improvement|Yes, for precision crop improvement|Yes, for precision crop improvement
Number of genes affected|10K to >300K depending on the species|10K to >800K|No way to assess|10-300K|1-3|1-3, usually 1
Know what genes moved or affected do|No|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Know where affected genes are in genome|No|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Plant patentable|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes
Documented adversity|Yes|??|???|Yes|No|No
Environmental assessment|No|No|No|No|Yes|Will see
Organic acceptable|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|No|No
Time for new variety|5-30 years|>5 years|>5years|5-30 years|<5 years|<5 years
Demanding label|No|No|No|No|Yes|Will see

An excellent summary, though I have one nit to pick. Under Mutation breeding (and I'd probably include polyploidy there too) it omits sweet corn.
ETA: the Mutant Variety Database

 

[Diogenes]

...

Been waiting to see the new study with those flaws corrected. Hasn't been one yet.

Aside from the large body of work on safety. You've already gone through the papers link here, right. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ost-analyzed-subject-in-science/#.UvjVtPua-4g

 

[Diogenes]

(Inspired but not a direct response to Red Baron Farms.)

Broadly I've observed that anti-GMO and anti-vaxxers seem to hinge on "that one study that isn't done yet" while ignoring everything else that's come before because, presumably, it isn't the narrative they believe.

Rarely will they engage on the actual studies that don't agree on a level that is scientific and instead claim they're all biased by Monsanto and "big pharma" as is every scientist involved is inimically corrupt and more than willing to discard personal integrity and science itself for some imaginary paycheck.

The most egregious of the anti-GMO propaganda relies on ignorance and casts Agrobacterium's TI plasmid and the tobacco mosaic virus vectors along with gene guns as being ominous or dangerous in-and-of-themselves. It is really hard to talk science with people that accept that as being legit.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Aside from the large body of work on safety. You've already gone through the papers link here, right. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ost-analyzed-subject-in-science/#.UvjVtPua-4g

Yes of course. This one hit me.

A useful distinction can be introduced here between GE
crops modified for input traits (e.g. herbicide or insect
resistance) and GE crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics
(e.g. increased vitamin content). For the former, the
experience suggests that, once the compositional equivalence
has been verified, little can be added by the other types
of analysis, and nutritional equivalence can be assumed

On the contrary, for GE crops with improved nutritional
characteristics, the nutritional equivalence cannot be
assumed, and a nutritional animal feeding test using rapidly
growing animals (e.g. broilers) should be conducted to
demonstrate the intended nutritional effect. The high sensitivity
of rapidly growing animals to toxic compounds may
also help to detect unintended effects. The 90-day rodent
feeding test is generally performed when the composition is
modified substantially or if there are indications of potential
unintended effects.

So basically what I seem to be reading is that glyphosate and Bt GE crops are not even given a 90 day rodent feeding test, much less a long term trial. They are simply assumed to be equivalent. This is why I await the retracted paper to be redone to proper standards. Remember in the retraction they said,

"Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive"

and the overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research claims they don't even test in 90 day trials due to the assumption of nutritional equivalence, much less longer term trials.

So I await the retracted trial which was inconclusive to be redone properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.