11/16/2015
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says

FOLLOW

(/)
TECHNOLOGY (HTTP://WWW.IBTIMES.COM/TECHNOLOGY)
SCIENCE (HTTP://WWW.IBTIMES.COM/TECHNOLOGY/SCIENCE)
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says
By Roxanne Palmer (/reporters/roxanne-palmer)  @rpalmerscience
(http://www.twitter.com/rpalmerscience)
on March 30 2013 3:42 PM EDT
2.9k
94
26
6 (/gmo-health-risks-what-scientific-evidence-says-1161099#discussion)
Many Americans are concerned about the spread of genetically modified organisms throughout
agriculture ­­ and the perception that some members of the U.S. Congress are in the pocket of the
Monsanto Co. (NYSE:MON) certainly isn’t helping.
But just what are GM crops, and what evidence do we have to suggest that they are dangerous to
human health?
Monsanto wasn’t always in the GM corn and alfalfa business. The company’s first product,
introduced in 1901, was the artificial sweetener saccharine. By the middle of the 20th century,
Monsanto had expanded into the manufacture of many other chemical products, including plastics,
herbicides and insecticides, including DDT, now largely banned from agricultural use worldwide.
From 1965 to 1969, Monsanto produced Agent Orange for U.S. military use in the Vietnam War ­­
as did several other companies, including the Dow Chemical Co. (NYSE:DOW) ­­ and has since
been subject to numerous lawsuits related to the herbicide's contamination with a toxic dioxin
compound.
http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo­health­risks­what­scientific­evidence­says­1161099
1/10
11/16/2015
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says
One of Monsanto’s flagship herbicides is the comparatively innocuous Roundup, a weed killer
made from the chemical glyphosate. Roundup kills plants by mucking with their ability to
synthesize certain essential amino acids. It accomplishes this by inhibiting an enzyme called 5­
enolpyruvylshikimate­3­phosphate synthase, or EPSPS.
In 1996 ­­ just a few years before Monsanto’s U.S. patent on glyphosate expired in 2000 ­­ the
company began introducing genetically modified “Roundup Ready” crops that were impervious to
Roundup, allowing farmers to use the herbicide without fear of harming their plants. Roundup
Ready crops contain a version of EPSPS that is unaffected by glyphosate, as noted in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559744/) in 2006. This pesticide­resistant
enzyme was taken from a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory.
Genetic traits used to be literally shot into plants with a gun, using little metal bits coated with
DNA. Nowadays, Monsanto employs a slightly different process, using a bacterium called
Agrobacterium tumefaciens to infect plant cells with pieces of DNA containing the desired traits,
as pointed out by Colorado State University
(http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/how.html)'s Department of Soil and Crop Sciences.
Monsanto also makes corn, potatoes, cotton and soybeans that can synthesize their own insecticide
called Bt toxin, a trait grabbed from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Other GM crops are
being developed to resist drought via the introduction of genes from other plants such as
Arabidopsis thaliana, aka thale cress; moss; and yeast.
Genetic modification is the cornerstone of agriculture ­­ through generations of breeding, humans
took one species, the wild cabbage Brassica oleracea, and turned it into a host of different foods,
including broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and kale. Now, biotechnology has
accelerated the process and allowed breeders more precision in designing their crops. There is
much disagreement about the cost of these advances.
“There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are
safe to eat,” Pamela Ronald, a Univeristy of California at Davis professor, wrote for Scientific
American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest­blog/2011/08/11/genetically­engineered­
crops/) in 2011. But the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
(http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html) has warned of “serious health risks” indicated by animal
studies measuring the effects of GM foods.
And much of the public is convinced that genetic modification is a health danger ­­ hence the fierce
push to label GMO food and broad restrictions on GM crops in Europe.
http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo­health­risks­what­scientific­evidence­says­1161099
2/10
11/16/2015
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says
Some of the health concerns of food­safety advocates are warranted. There is plenty of scientific
evidence to recommend caution with respect to certain kinds of genetic modification, especially if
there are genes involved that confer antibiotic resistance. But some of the studies that portray the
most dramatic health effects of GM crops have been called out by other scientists as deeply flawed.
One of the first major concerns that arose with the birth of GMOs was the possibility that grafting
genetic traits from different plants onto other crops could be dangerous to people with food
allergies. If you know you’re allergic to nuts, you know to stay away from them. But would you also
have to keep away from GM crops that contain nut genes? And how would you know which GM
crops to stay away from?
In 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine
(http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103#t=article) published a paper
that identified a possible allergic reaction to GM soybeans. A team led by University of Nebraska
scientists found that a Brazil nut protein introduced to improve the nutritional quality of GM
soybeans was able to provoke an allergic reaction in people with Brazil nut allergies.
However, this problem can likely be nipped in the bud with proper safety testing. U.S. Department
of Agriculture researcher Eliot M. Herman noted in the Journal of Experimental Botany
(http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full) in 2003 that the GM soybean injected
with the Brazil nut gene “was abandoned during development, no product was released and no one
was harmed.”
Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require biotechnology companies to do
premarket safety testing, including allergen testing (although the agency does recommend it). Calls
for making premarket safety testing mandatory have come from numerous groups, including the
American Medical Association, as reported by the Chicago Tribune
(http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012­06­19/features/chi­gmos­should­be­safety­tested­
before­they­hit­the­market­says­ama­20120619_1_bioengineered­foods­ama­drug­cosmetic­act).
The prospect of hidden allergens could also be an arrow in the quiver of those who are pushing for
labeling GMOs in the U.S.
Another health concern related to GMOs rests on the possibility that genes might be transferred
elsewhere. The nightmare scenario would be an antibiotic­resistance gene getting inadvertently
passed to pathogenic bacteria in a person’s stomach. Much of the work that's been done indicates
that the rate of horizontal gene transfer from plants to animals and bacteria is probably very low.
But, admittedly, there's a real gap in our understanding of how genes may or may not be
transferred from GM crops ­­ or other crops, for that matter ­­ into the cells of the gut and the
bacteria that live in the digestive tract.
http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo­health­risks­what­scientific­evidence­says­1161099
3/10
11/16/2015
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says
Authors of a 2012 report on animal­feeding studies in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science
and Nutrition (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22059960) found that while it’s clear a
small amount of DNA from the diet can survive digestion, we have yet to see evidence that such
dietary DNA can be integrated into the genome of an animal or even into the genome of a
bacterium residing in the gut.
“However, major methodological limitations and knowledge gaps of the mechanistic aspects of
[horizontal gene transfer] calls for methodological improvements and further studies to
understand the fate of various types of dietary DNA in the [gastrointestinal tract],” the researchers
at the University of Milan wrote.
The one major study of GMO feeding in humans that looked at horizontal gene transfer was
published in 2004 in the journal Nature Biotechnology
(http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html). Researchers looked to see if the
Roundup Ready transgene ­­ the one that codes for the herbicide­resistant enzyme ­­ showed up in
waste collected from seven volunteers who had had their large intestines removed for medical
reasons. While a small amount of the transgene was found in bowel microbes in three of the seven
subjects, the gene­transfer rate did not increase after they ate the transgenic soy, leading the
researchers to conclude that whatever gene transfer occurred did not happen during the
experimental period.
In subjects with fully intact intestinal tracts, the transgene did not survive passage. The results
indicate that while horizontal gene transfer after eating GM crops might be feasible at low rates in
certain medically compromised people, it would probably be quite rare in most consumers.
A 2008 paper in the journal Environmental Biosafety Research
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801324) by an Australian researcher who reviewed the
risks of GMOs associated with horizontal gene transfer concluded the potential danger was
“negligible.”
Overall, it’s clear more research is needed about the ability of genes to move from GM crops into
the animals or humans who eats them.
Meanwhile, some individual studies have conclusively found GMOs to be harmful. But many of
these have been harshly criticized for loading the dice.
Gilles­Eric Seralini, a researcher at the University of Caen in France, took a second look at
Monsanto data on experiments feeding GM corn to rats in three papers, and claimed the numbers
actually showed the animals fed GMOs suffered organ damage, based on the rodents’ growth and
http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo­health­risks­what­scientific­evidence­says­1161099
4/10
11/16/2015
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says
organ weights. But several European Food Safety Authority reviews found that Seralini’s math was
off, that the rats’ organ weights were within an acceptable range, and that his team's conclusions
were not supported by the evidence.
A 2012 paper by Seralini and other researchers purportedly found that a GM corn diet led to cancer
in rats. But the study was released under extremely odd circumstances ­­ Seralini made reporters
sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from asking other scientists to give their
opinions on his research before an embargo lifted. And once other scientists got a look at the paper,
the reaction was almost universally condemnatory, as exemplified by the European Food Safety
Authority (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm).
One main objection stemmed from the fact that the rats used in the study belong to a strain called
Sprague­Dawley, which is extremely prone to tumors later in life. While Monsanto did use
Sprague­Dawley rats in its own experiments with GM corn, such trials lasted for 90 days, whereas
Seralini’s experiment went on for two years.
Many critics also said the number of rats used for such a long experiment ­­ 10 rats for each
experimental condition ­­ was far too small, as Discover
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/09/21/under­controlled­why­the­new­gmo­
panic­is­more­sensational­than­sense/#.UVZ_HBmzJr1) noted. In addition, there were curious
gaps in the mortality data for the control rats: It’s unclear whether they died after developing
tumors.
A 2011 paper by Canadian researchers supposedly found Cry1Ab, an insecticidal protein made in
certain GM crops, in the blood of women and in the cord blood of fetuses. But the study, examining
just 30 pregnant women (and their fetuses) and 39 nonpregnant women, also came under attack
for its methods and conclusions by critics such as Food Standards Australia New Zealand
(http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/fsanzresponsetostudy5185.cfm).
The method the researchers used to detect Cry1Ab in the blood has been called into question, and
the authors provided no dietary evidence on any of the study subjects. Without that, there’s no way
to conclusively draw a link between anything found in the blood and GM crops.
“Too often in the GM­food 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,” Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/poison­
postures­1.11478) editors said last September. “Polarized debates, not GMOs, are the poison to be
avoided.”
Submit Correction
2.9k
http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo­health­risks­what­scientific­evidence­says­1161099
94
26
5/10
11/16/2015
GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says
Advertisement
Related Topics
• 10 Best Smartphones
• Upcoming Electric Cars
• Top 10 Tech Gadgets for Men
• Unlimited Broadband Plans
• 10 Best Antivirus of 2015
• New Android Smartphones
Related
Like
400k
Follow @ibtimes
 GMO Controversy Takes Center Stage In The US (/monsanto­protection­act­shines­light­gmo­controversy­
america­1159717?rel=rel1)
 Celiac Sufferers May Soon Be Able To Lift Bread Ban (/celiac­proof­bread­genetically­altered­wheat­could­
be­safe­gluten­intolerant­903154?rel=rel2)
Join the Discussion
http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo­health­risks­what­scientific­evidence­says­1161099
6/10