1. GMOS: FACTS AND FALLACIES
Dr. Heidi Kratsch
University of Nevada Cooperative
Extension
2. WHAT ARE GMOS ANYWAY?
GMO = Genetically Modified Organism
A GMO is an organism whose genome
has been altered by the techniques of
genetic engineering so that its DNA
contains one or more genes not
normally found there.
The process is referred to as Genetic
Engineering (GE).
4. WHAT IS A GENE?
A short sequence of DNA that codes for a
protein
Humans have 20,000 to 25,000 genes.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/chromosome
5. ALL LIVING ORGANISMS SHARE MANY
COMMON GENES
One-fourth of human genes are also
found in rice.
We share 99 percent of our genome with
the chimpanzee.
Humans even have the genetic
information necessary to develop wings.
Source: www.geneticliteracyproject.org
6. HOW IS GE DONE?
Use of viruses or
bacteria to
"infect" the plant
cells with the
new DNA.
Coat DNA onto
tiny metal
pellets, and firing
them into cells
with a special
gun.
Gene Gun
7. FARMERS HAVE BEEN GENETICALLY
MODIFYING CROPS FOR THOUSANDS OF
YEARS!
Well…not exactly
Agricultural revolution about
12,000 years ago
Humans evolved from a hunter-
gatherer lifestyle to a farming
lifestyle.
Systematic “modification” of
crops began in the 1940’s
8. HOW WOULD YOUR FOOD
LOOK IF NOT GENETICALLY
ALTERED OVER MILLENNIA?
10. FARMERS HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY ALTERING
CROPS GENETICALLY SINCE THE GREEN
REVOLUTION (1940’S TO 1960’S)
Increase in agricultural production due
to:
Improvement in irrigation infrastructure
Modernization of farm management
Development of synthetic fertilizers
Development and use of pesticides
Development of high-yielding varieties of
cereal grains
Distribution of hybridized seeds
12. HOW DOES GE DIFFER FROM
CONVENTIONAL BREEDING?
Both alter genetic makeup and
properties of the product.
Classical breeding operates on
traits, only indirectly selecting genes.
Biotechnology targets genes,
attempting to influence traits.
The potential of biotechnology is to
rapidly accelerate the rate of progress
and efficiency of breeding.
13. FLAVR SAVR TOMATO
First commercially
grown genetically
engineered food
to be granted a
license for human
consumption.
Available from
1994-1997 by
Calgene
14. CAN I BUY GMO SEEDS AT MY
LOCAL GARDEN CENTER?
NO…!
GMO seeds are purchased by
farmers from the biotech
company that produced them.
The farmer must sign a use
agreement that he/she will not
replant the seeds and will follow
EPA-mandated stewardship
programs.
17. GMO SEEDS ARE NOT STERILE
Monsanto owns a patent on the
“Terminator” gene or terminator
technology, which results in sterile
seeds.
…however, Monsanto has committed to
never using this technology, and
it has yet to commercialize a crop
using the technology.
18. MOST FRESH PRODUCE IS NOT GMO
Commercially available GMO food crops (U.S.):
Soybean
Corn
Cotton
Canola
Sugar beet
Papaya (Hawaiian)
Squash (zucchini and yellow summer)
19. FIRST GENERATION GE CROPS
Crops engineered to tolerate
herbicides (mostly glyphosate).
Crops engineered to produce their own
insecticide (Bt crops).
These traits are incorporated into over
90 percent of the soybean, corn and
cotton grown in the U.S.
20. HERBICIDE-TOLERANT CROPS HELP
IMPROVE SOIL AND WATER QUALITY
Have increased
adoption of no-till.
No-till systems may
prevent:
soil erosion
compaction
runoff of water,
sediments, chemicals
Have the potential to
benefit soil and water
quality.
21. BUT USE OF THE
GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANCE GE
TRAIT IS NOT WITHOUT ITS
CHALLENGES
22. GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT CROPS
The Good News:
Glyphosate has replaced more
toxic and persistent herbicides.
The Challenge:
Evolution of glyphosate-resistance
in some weed species.
Herbicide resistance was happening
prior to the introduction of GE crops.
23. RELIANCE ON ONE HERBICIDE REDUCES THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF HERBICIDE TOLERANCE
Glyphosate-
resistance has
been documented
in 28 weed species
worldwide (14
species in the U.S.)
Source: University of Minnesota
24. Source: Ian Heap, International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds
www.weedscience.org/graphs/soagraph.aspx (2013)
27. WHAT CAUSED GLYPHOSATE RESISTANCE?
Overreliance on glyphosate for weed
management.
Reduction in the diversity of weed
management practices adopted by
crop producers.
In both GE and non-GE systems, a
greater emphasis on integrated weed
management is needed.
28. PENDING INTRODUCTION OF CROPS WITH
TOLERANCE TO 2,4-D AND DICAMBA
Different site of action than
glyphosate.
Historically few weed-resistance issues
with these chemicals.
Will need to monitor for:
Increase in weed-resistance
Potential for “drift” onto nontarget
plants
Farmer simultaneous adoption of other
integrated weed management
strategies
29. IPM MAY HELP SUSTAIN EFFECTIVENESS OF
HERBICIDE-TOLERANT CROPS
USDA NRCS supports:
Diversification of weed management
strategies
Crop rotation
Increased intensity of tillage for weed
control
Union of Concerned Scientists supports:
Increased crop rotation and cover
crops
Decreased emphasis on monoculture
cropping systems
30. GE CROPS ENGINEERED TO EXPRESS THE BT
TOXIN
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
is a naturally occurring soil
bacterium that produces a
protein toxic to certain
insects.
Genes from Bt are
inserted into crop plants
so they make the protein.
Bt sprays are permitted in
organic production; crops
engineered to produce Bt
toxin are not.
32. INSECT RESISTANCE TO BT CROPS
Incidence of insect resistance to
Bt crops has been remarkably low
but is increasing:
Pink bollworm (cotton, India)
Corn rootworm (corn, U.S.)
34. NON-TARGET EFFECTS OF BT
Initial study in 1999 indicated harm.
Monarch caterpillars feed exclusively on
milkweed leaves.
Early concern that pollen from Bt corn could
blow onto milkweed leaves.
Later extensive work showed (published in
PNAS):
Current Bt corn varieties do not express large
amounts of Bt proteins in their pollen.
Levels of pollen shed on milkweed leaves is
much lower than amounts shown to cause harm.
35. EFFECTS OF GE ON CROP YIELDS
Current GE crop varieties not
engineered for increased yield over
conventional varieties.
Economic benefit comes from
enhanced protection from yield loss
due to pests.
The greatest yields are seen with
crops engineered to have multiple
(stacked) GE traits.
36. WHO BENEFITS FROM FIRST
GENERATION GE CROPS?
Mostly farmers and seed
companies
Focus has been on two traits:
Bt crops decrease amount of
insecticides sprayed
Glyphosate-resistant crops reduce
use of the most toxic chemicals to
fight weeds
38. WHAT CROP TRAITS WOULD BENEFIT A
HOTTER, FLATTER, MORE CROWDED PLANET?
Crops engineered for increased
yield and quality
Crops engineered to use
nitrogen fertilizer more
efficiently
Crops engineered for drought,
salinity and/or heat tolerance
39. GE CROPS CAN BE NUTRITIONALLY
ENHANCED
Rice is a staple in
many developing
countries.
Rice modified to
contain beta
carotene.
Can prevent or
treat maternal
anemia and
blindness.
Golden Rice enhanced with Vitamin A
http://www.goldenrice.org/
40. GE HAWAIIAN PAPAYA: A BIOTECHNOLOGY
SUCCESS STORY?
Papaya Ringspot-Virus
(PRSV) threatened to
decimate the industry
in Hawaii.
Hawaiian papaya
engineered with
resistance to PRSV.
Viral genes encoding
capsid proteins
transferred to papaya
genome.
Elicits an immune
response in papaya.
PRSV-infected papaya on the left;
virus-resistant papaya on the right
41. WHY IS THE TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY IN THE
HANDS OF LARGE AGROCHEMICAL COMPANIES?
Cost of discovery, development and
authorization of a new plant biotechnology
trait introduced between 2008 and 2012 was
$136 million.
About 26 percent of those costs were
incurred as part of the regulatory testing and
registration process.
Average time from initiation of a discovery
project to commercial launch is about 13
years.
42. PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT GMOS
Antibiotic-resistance genes
Food safety – are GE foods safe to
eat?
Mistrust of the regulatory process
“Super weeds” – gene transfer of
herbicide resistance gene to weedy
relatives
Gene containment – transfer of traits
and protection of conventional or
organic crops
43. GMOS HAVE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT
GENES IN THEM
Some scientists
believe that eating GM
food containing these
marker genes could
encourage gut
bacteria to develop
antibiotic resistance.
44. HOW ARE GMOS REGULATED?
USDA
APHIS
• Determines
risk of
transgenic
crop
becoming a
pest
U.S. EPA
• Ensures
safety of
pest-
resistant
transgenic
crops
U.S. FDA
• Regulates
food and
animal feed
derived
from
transgenic
crops
45. ARE GM CROPS RIGOROUSLY TESTED?
Substantial Equivalence (U.S.)
Product tested by the manufacturer
for unexpected changes in a limited
set of components (toxins, nutrients
or allergens that are present in the
unmodified food).
If these tests show no significant
difference between the modified and
unmodified products, no further food
safety testing is required.
46. IS THIS RIGOROUS ENOUGH?
Substantial equivalence not a strict
definition.
Compositional analysis tests only a
limited number of components.
Regulations focus on the product, not
the technology.
If a GE food is deemed substantially
equivalent, it is exempt from further
testing.
Both GE and conventional breeding
can lead to unexpected results.
47. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (EU)
Invoked in the event of a potential
risk – even if it cannot be fully
demonstrated or quantified, or its
effects determined.
Appropriate measures to anticipate
and prevent harm should be taken.
It is impossible to precisely predict
every possible outcome from GE
technology.
48. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
“Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic
safety assessments of bioengineered foods and
encourages: (a) development and validation of
additional techniques for the detection and/or
assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of
methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or
toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a
substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and
use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid
utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for
clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d)
that priority should be given to basic research in food
allergenicity to support the development of improved
methods for identifying potential allergens. The FDA is
urged to remain alert to new data on the health
consequences of bioengineered foods and update its
regulatory policies accordingly.”
49. THE TECHNOLOGY IS ADVANCING…
Focus on use of plant (rather than
animal or bacterial) genes that
control agronomically important traits
(stress resistance, improved yield)
Chloroplast engineering to reduce risk
of pollen drift and toxicity to non-
target species.
Remove antibiotic-resistance marker
genes.
Pursue alternative technologies.
50. MARKER ASSISTED SELECTION
Molecular breeding
Precision breeding
Speeds up
conventional
breeding process
from decades to as
little as 5 years
Breeding heirloom tomatoes to
be resistant to most common
tomato diseases.
52. CAN GE AND NON-GE COEXIST?
Expand research funding for public crop
breeding programs, so that a broad range of non-
GE as well as GE crop varieties will remain available.
Expand public research funding and incentives to
further develop and adopt agroecologically based
farming systems.
Take steps—such as changes in patent law—to
facilitate independent scientific research on GE
risks and benefits.
Take a more rigorous, independently verified
approach to GE product approvals, so that
products do not come to market until their risks and
benefits are understood through non-biased review.
Support food labeling laws that require foods
containing GE crops to be clearly identified as such, so
that consumers can make informed decisions about
supporting GE applications in agriculture.
- Union of concerned scientists
53. THE LAND INSTITUTE (SALINAS, KS)
Working to develop perennial
crops using conventional
breeding for a polycultural
agricultural system
Perennials develop deeper root
systems
Outcompete annual weeds for
light
Form complex ecosystems
Prevent soil erosion
Improves soil fertility
Decreased use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides
Sequester carbon/reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions
Breeding program is focused on
perennializing wheat, and
domesticating perennial
intermediate wheatgrass (which we
have named Kernza™), several
species of sunflower, and sorghum.
http://www.landinstitute.org/our-
work/solutions/
55. INFORMATION:
Science-based info on agriculture and GE:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-
agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-
engineering-agriculture#.VSMN05NUU8N
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods:
Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=109
77#toc
News updates on GMO issues (global perspective):
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/
56. MORE INFORMATION:
Info on alternative cropping systems:
http://www.pfaf.org/user/cmspage.aspx?pag
eid=40
http://www.landinstitute.org/
Info on EPAs shift towards use of IPM and
biocontrols in agriculture:
http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/2015/02/far
mers-shift-towards-virtually-non-toxic-
alternatives-for-pest-control/
Biotech safety and security issues:
http://fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-
agriculture/2.-agricultural-
biotechnology/index.html
Few topics in agriculture are more polarizing than genetic engineering (GE), the process of manipulating an organism’s genetic material—including genes from other species—in an effort to produce desired traits such as pest resistance or drought tolerance.
GE has been hailed by some as an indispensable tool for solving the world’s agricultural problems, and denounced by others as an example of human overreaching fraught with unknown, potentially catastrophic dangers.
The risks of GE have been exaggerated—but so have its benefits. What I’m hoping to do tonight is to separate out the exaggerated claims and tell you what is currently known about the technology and how it’s used. Just for reference, I am neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO. I have opinions, and I will always let you know when I am expressing my own opinion.
Genetic engineering can be done with plants, animals, or microorganisms. Historically, farmers bred plants and animals for thousands of years to produce the desired traits. For example, they produced dogs ranging from poodles to Great Danes, and roses from sweet-smelling miniatures to today's long-lasting, but scent-free reds.Read more: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002432.htm#ixzz24Odmdu6Q
Found in every cell of every living being
Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic engineers have to find ways to force the DNA from one organism into another.
The Green Revolution refers to a series of research, and development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1960s, that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.[1] The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.
Natural breeding can take only take place among closely related forms of life
One of the first things the plant scientists noticed when they began crossing different pure lines was that hybrid plants were usually more vigorous than their parents. The simple act of crossing different strains resulted in higher yields and stronger plants. They had discovered "hybrid vigor."
Today, somewhere around 99 percent of U.S. corn is grown from hybrid seed. The same is true for wheat, soybeans, grain sorghum, cotton, peanuts, and many other crops.
So it’s up to humans to test for unintended consequences.
Produced by the California company Calgene. Approved by FDA in 1992, came onto the market in 1994. Ceased production in 1997. Bred to prevent rotting on the vine so could be picked when ripe. Had a positive effect on shelf life but not on softening, so shipping was a problem and taste was bland. Company later acquired by Monsanto.
You cannot get your hands on seeds of GMOs, only the products of GMO seeds.
First=generation GM crops… however, most processed foods contain either GMO corn, soy, canola or sugar beet.
Most current GE crops have been engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate or to produce their own Bt insecticide, in some cases both. These traits have been incorporated into greater than 90 percent of the soybean, corn and cotton that is grown in the U.S. Other less prevalent GE crops include canola and sugar beets. But the current use of this technology is not without its challenges.
Let’s begin by looking at herbicide-tolerant crops. Runoff from agriculture is the single largest source of surface water pollution in the United States. The pollution caused by runoff of water, sediments and chemicals. Adoption of no-till practices, which involves leaving crop residues on fields before and after planting a crop, prevents soil erosion, compaction and runoff. A recent survey of soybean producers shows that farmers using herbicide-tolerant crops were more likely to also adopt no-till practices. And the same holds true for herbicide-tolerant corn and cotton.
GE technologies have made it easier to use "conservation tillage", or reduced plowing, a practice that significantly decreases soil erosion. Heavy tillage was previously used largely to control weeds. However, conservation tillage in the context of industrial agriculture is turning out to be a mixed blessing—and overuse of engineered herbicide-resistant crops has driven a destructive epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which is reviving tillage.
Adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops have enabled the substitution glyphosate for more toxic and persistent herbicides, such as atrazine and paraquat. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide that moves through the plant, adsorbs to soil particles and is inactivated by soil microbes. All herbicides are subject to developing resistance in some weed species, but recently an uptick in the incidence of glyphosate-resistant weeds was noted, largely due to farmers of GE crops overreliance on glyphosate alone for weed management. But keep in mind that herbicide resistance was happening prior to the introduction of GE crops, and incidence of weed resistance to glyphosate is still relatively low.
Glyphosate-resistance has been documented in only 28 weed species worldwide (14 of them in the U.S.). Here’s how it works: Resistance occurs naturally in weed populations by random mutation. When the herbicide is applied, the susceptible individuals die and the resistant ones survive and set seed. The next time the herbicide is used, there are more resistant individuals. Eventually, if the same herbicide is used over and over, the majority of individuals will be of the resistant biotype because the more susceptible one will have been killed off.
Herbicide resistance arises because of overuse of a single herbicide, not because of genetic engineering. Note that weed resistance to other some other classes of herbicides is much greater than that of glyphosate over the same time period.
ALS inhibitors: halosulfuron (Sandea), rimsulfuron (Matrix), penoxsulam (PindarGT)
Ureas and amides: pre-emergents
The actual per-acre use rates have not changed all that much over the time period since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerance technology, although the bottom graph shows an uptick in use since 2005 by farmers who use the technology. Farmers may have raised their application rates in response to the increase in weed resistance to glyphosate.
This graph is often shown as an indictment of Roundup Ready crops but the increase in glyphosate use as you see here is attributed mostly to an increase in total acreage planted to GE crops.
So, it’s overreliance on glyphosate for weed management that has caused the increase in glyphosate resistance, not the GE technology. The adoption of the technology may have inadvertently caused a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices used, but we see similar patterns in both GE and non-GE systems. In both types of systems, there needs to be greater emphasis on use of alternative weed management strategies in addition to herbicide use.
Included in integrated weed management is rotation of herbicides with different sites of action to mitigate development of weed resistance. Crops are being introduced with tolerance to two other herbicides with relatively low toxicity – 2,4-D and dicamba – both of which are registered for use by homeowners.
What’s needed is more of an emphasis on integrated weed management, which promotes a diversity of strategies for managing weeds. Cultural, mechanical, biological,
Now let’s turn our attention to Bt crops. Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that produces a protein toxic to certain insects. Genes from this bacterium are inserted into crop plants (mostly corn and cotton) so they make this protein. Target insects that chew on the leaves of Bt crops are killed. As a spray, Bt is accepted for use in organic production.
Use of Bt crops has decreased per-acre insecticide use in both conventional and GE farming systems.
There have been some recent incidence of insect resistance to Bt crops, but the overall rate of insect resistance has been very low. Non-target effects of Bt crops are limited to Lepidopteran species (moths and butterflies) that feed on leaves or pollen of Bt crop plants.
The EPA instituted mandatory refuge requirements, a move that has successfully delayed and contained insect resistance to Bt crops. Refuges are blocks or strips of crops that do not contain the Bt gene. Resistance to Bt occurs naturally in insect populations. Bt-free refuge areas maintain an acceptable level of susceptible insects that do not develop resistance. These susceptible insects mate with resistant insects from the Bt. Because the resistance gene is recessive, this mating results in many offspring that maintain susceptibility to Bt, preventing or delaying resistance in that population. Some degree of resistance has been documented for every major class of insecticide used in agriculture.
There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn, according to research conducted by a group of scientists coordinated by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
That Bt corn might present a risk became a matter of scientific and public concern when a small experiment in 1999 indicated caterpillars suffered when given no choice but to feed on milkweed leaves heavily dusted with Bt corn pollen.
The issue focused on the pollen of Bt corn because it, like any corn pollen, can blow onto milkweed leaves, which are the exclusive diet of monarch caterpillars.
Two major questions needed to be answered to determine whether there was any actual risk to monarch caterpillars from the Bt pollen:
How much Bt corn pollen does it take before there are any toxic effects on caterpillars?
What is the likelihood that caterpillars might be exposed to that much pollen?
The studies in this project showed that monarch caterpillars have to be exposed to pollen levels greater than 1,000 grains/cm2 to show toxic effects.
Caterpillars were found to be present on milkweed during the one to two weeks that pollen is shed by corn, but corn pollen levels on milkweed leaves were found to average only about 170 pollen grains/cm2 in corn fields.
Reports from several field studies show concentrations much lower than that even within the cornfield. In Maryland, the highest level of pollen deposition was inside and at the edge of the corn field, where pollen was found at about 50 grains/cm2. In the Nebraska study, pollen deposition ranged from 6 grains/cm2 at the field edge to less than 1 grain/cm2 beyond 10 meters. Samples collected from fields in Ontario immediately following the period of peak pollen shed showed pollen concentrations averaged 78 grains at the field edge.
Many conflicting news stories and reports have appeared concerning the economic benefits realized by farmers adopting GE crops. It is true that farmers pay a premium for genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybean, and cotton varieties, and these varieties do not have increased yield potential per se over the best available conventional varieties. The potential economic benefits of the major GE crops currently available could result from enhanced protection from yield loss due to pests, increased efficiency in the production system, or both. Actual benefits appear to vary with a number of factors including the particular crop grown, the transgenic trait in the crop (herbicide tolerance or Bt-derived insect resistance), the region where the crops are grown, the type of farm operation adopting the technology, production factors that can vary from year to year and from farm to farm, and the current premium paid for the GE seed.
The noticeable feature of the first generation GE crops is the absence of engineered traits that are not primarily for agronomic benefit. I find this disappointing, and it may be one of the reasons for such a public backlash against
Developed primarily in academia with backing from public funding and charitable institutions….
ice produces β-carotene in the leaves but not in the grain, where the biosynthetic pathway is turned off during plant development. In Golden Rice two genes have been inserted into the rice genome by genetic engineering, to restart the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway leading to the production and accumulation of β-carotene in the grains. Both genes are naturally involved in carotene biosynthesis. The difference here is that the reconstructed pathway is not subject to downregulation, as usually happens in the grain.
Since a prototype of Golden Rice was developed in the year 2000, new lines with higher β-carotene content have been generated. The intensity of the golden colour is a visual indicator of the concentration of β-carotene in the endosperm. Our goal is to make sure that people living in rice-based societies get a full complement of provitamin A from their traditional diets. This would apply to countries such as India, Vietnam, Bangladesh. the Philippines, and Indonesia. Golden Rice could still be a valuable complement to children's diets in many countries by contributing to the reduction of clinical and sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency-related diseases.
Many people are aware that vitamin A has something to do with vision, especially at night. But many are not aware of the central role it plays in maintaining the integrity of the immune system. According to the World Health Organization, dietary vitamin A deficiency (VAD) compromises the immune systems of approximately 40 percent of children under the age of five in the developing world, greatly increasing the risk of severe illnesses from common childhood infections, thus causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths among them.
In remote rural areas Golden Rice could constitute a major contribution towards sustainable vitamin A delivery. To achieve this goal a strong, concerted, and interdisciplinary effort is needed. This effort must include scientists, breeders, farmers, regulators, policy-makers, and extensionists. The latter will play a central role in educating farmers and consumers as to their available options. While the most desirable option woud be a varied and adequate diet, this goal is not always achievable, at least not in the short term. The reasons are manifold, ranging from tradition to geographical and economical limitations. Golden Rice is a step in the right direction in that it does not create new dependencies or displace traditional foodstuff.
The techniques used to transfer genes have a very low success rate, so the genetic engineers attach "marker genes" that are resistant to antibiotics to help them to find out which cells have taken up the new DNA. These marker genes are resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe that eating GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.
1) Our AMA recognizes the continuing validity of the three major conclusions contained in the 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper "Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment." [The three major conclusions are: (a)There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms; (b) The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods; (c) Assessment of the risk of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.)
(2) That federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant or animal, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new bioengineered crops and foods.
(3) Our AMA believes that as of June 2012, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.
(4) Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens. The FDA is urged to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods and update its regulatory policies accordingly.
(5) Our AMA supports continued research into the potential consequences to the environment of bioengineered crops including the: (a) assessment of the impacts of pest-protected crops on nontarget organisms compared to impacts of standard agricultural methods, through rigorous field evaluations; (b) assessment of gene flow and its potential consequences including key factors that regulate weed populations; rates at which pest resistance genes from the crop would be likely to spread among weed and wild populations; and the impact of novel resistance traits on weed abundance; (c) implementation of resistance management practices and continued monitoring of their effectiveness; (d) development of monitoring programs to assess ecological impacts of pest-protected crops that may not be apparent from the results of field tests; and (e) assessment of the agricultural impact of bioengineered foods, including the impact on farmers.
(6) Our AMA recognizes the many potential benefits offered by bioengineered crops and foods, does not support a moratorium on planting bioengineered crops, and encourages ongoing research developments in food biotechnology.
(7) Our AMA urges government, industry, consumer advocacy groups, and the scientific and medical communities to educate the public and improve the availability of unbiased information and research activities on bioengineered foods. (CSA Rep. 10, I-00; Modified: CSAPH Rep. 1, A-10; Modified: CASPH Rep. 2, A-12)
Chloroplasts are normally inherited maternally
We could now quickly screen tomato seedlings for DR alleles, and thus only evaluate segregating populations in the field that we already knew were DR --- resistant to most of the common tomato diseases. $100 million to create one variety, using GE, and an average of 7 years for regulatory approval.