# data[].attributes.body
"Genetically engineered (GE) foods have had their DNA changed using genes from other plants or animals. Scientists take the gene for a desired trait in one plant or animal, and they insert that gene into a cell of another plant or animal."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic engineering can be done with plants, animals, or bacteria and other very small organisms. With genetic engineering, scientists take the gene for a desired trait in one plant or animal, and they insert that gene into the DNA of another plant or animal. Genes can also be moved from an animal to a plant or vice versa.

The process to create GMOs is different than selective breeding. This involves selecting plants or animals with desired traits and breeding them. Over time, this results in offspring with those desired traits. One of the problems with selective breeding is that it can also result in traits that are not desired.

Genetic engineering allows scientists to select one specific gene to implant. This avoids introducing other genes with undesirable traits. Genetic engineering also helps speed up the process of creating new foods with desired traits.

Genome editing is a newer method that involves adding, removing, or changing the DNA of a plant or animal in a targeted way.

The possible benefits of genetic engineering include:

More nutritious food

Tastier food

Disease- and drought-resistant plants that require fewer environmental resources (such as water and fertilizer)

Less use of pesticides

Increased supply of food with reduced cost and longer shelf life

Faster growing plants and animals

Food with more desirable traits, such as potatoes that produce less of a cancer-causing substance when fried

Some people have expressed concerns about GE foods, such as:

Creation of foods that can cause an allergic or toxic reaction

Unexpected or harmful genetic changes

Inadvertent transfer of genes from one GM plant or animal to another plant or animal not intended for genetic modification

Foods that are less nutritious

These concerns have thus far been unfounded. None of the GMOs used today have caused any of these problems. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses all GMOs to make sure they are safe before allowing them to be sold. In addition to the FDA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate bioengineered plants and animals. They assess the safety of GMOs to humans, animals, plants, and the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically modified organisms - GMOs: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are plants, animals, or microbes that have had their DNA changed using genetic engineering techniques. Another term for this is bioengineered foods.

# data[].attributes.headline
Individual Risk: You could be ingesting insecticides!

# data[].attributes.subject
Individual Risk: You could be ingesting insecticides!

# data[].attributes.body
Many GMO plants are engineered to contain their own insecticides. These GMOs, which include maize, cotton and soybeans, are called Bt plants. Bt plants get their name because they incorporate a transgene that makes a protein-based toxin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

I wasn't, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

Gradually, however, it became clear that certain companies thought differently. Some of my older colleagues shared their skepticism with me that commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge. I listened carefully and I didn't disagree. Today, over twenty years later, GMO crops, especially soybeans, corn, papaya, canola and cotton, are commercially grown in numerous parts of the world.

Depending on which country you live in, GMOs may be unlabeled and therefore unknowingly abundant in your diet. Processed foods are likely to contain ingredients from GMO crops, such as corn and soy. Most crops, however are still non-GMO, including rice, wheat, barley, oats, tomatoes, grapes, beans, etc. For meat eaters the mode of GMO consumption is different. There are no GMO animals used in farming (although GM salmon has been pending FDA approval since 1993); however, animal feed, especially in factory farms, is likely to be mostly GMO corn and GMO soybeans. In this case, the labeling issue and potential impacts are complicated even further.

I now believe, as a much more experienced scientist, that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks. In broad outline, the reasons I believe so are quite simple. As a biologist I have become much more appreciative of the complexity of biological organisms and their capacity for benefits and harms, and as a scientist I have become much more humble about the capacity of science to do more than scratch the surface in its understanding of the deep complexity and diversity of the natural world. To paraphrase a cliché, I more and more appreciate that as scientists we understand less and less.

The Flawed Processes of GMO Risk Assessment

Some of my concerns with GMOs, however, are "just" practical. I have read numerous GMO risk assessment applications. These are the documents that governments rely on to 'prove' their safety. Though these documents are quite long and quite complex, their length is misleading in that they primarily ask trivial questions. Furthermore, the experiments described within them are often very inadequate and sloppily executed. Scientific controls are often missing, procedures and reagents are badly described, and the results are often ambiguous or uninterpretable.

In consequence, the government regulators who examine the data are effectively reliant on the word of the applicants that the research supports whatever the applicant claims. There are other elementary scientific flaws too; for example, applications routinely ignore or dismiss obvious red flags such as experiments yielding unexpected outcomes.

The Dangers of GMOs

Aside from grave doubts about the quality and integrity of risk assessments, I also have specific science-based concerns over GMOs. These concerns are mostly particular to specific transgenes and traits.

Many GMO plants are engineered to contain their own insecticides. These GMOs, which include maize, cotton and soybeans, are called Bt plants. Bt plants get their name because they incorporate a transgene that makes a protein-based toxin (sometimes called the Cry toxin) from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Many Bt crops are "stacked," meaning they contain a multiplicity of these Cry toxins. Their makers believe each of these Bt toxins is insect-specific and safe. However, there are multiple reasons to doubt both safety and specificity. One concern is that Bacillus thuringiensis is all but indistinguishable from the well known anthrax bacterium (Bacillus anthracis). Another reason is that Bt insecticides share structural similarities with ricin. Ricin is a famously dangerous plant toxin, a tiny amount of which was used to assassinate the Bulgarian writer and defector Georgi Markov in 1978. A third reason for concern is that the mode of action of Bt proteins is not understood (Vachon et al 2012); yet, it is axiomatic in science, that effective risk assessment requires a clear understanding of the mechanism of action of any GMO transgene so that appropriate experiments can be devised to affirm or refute safety. All this is doubly troubling because some Cry proteins are toxic towards isolated human cells (Mizuki et al., 1999).

A second concern follows from GMOs being often resistant to herbicides. This resistance is an invitation to farmers to spray large quantities of herbicides, and many do. As research recently showed, commercial soybeans sold today routinely contain quantities of the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) that its maker, Monsanto, once described as "extreme" (Bøhn et al 2014).

Glyphosate has been in the news recently because the World Health Organisation no longer considers it a relatively harmless chemical, but there are other herbicides applied to GMOs which are easily of equal concern. The herbicide Glufosinate (phosphinothricin, made by Bayer) kills plants because it inhibits the plant enzyme glutamine synthetase. This ubiquitous enzyme is found also in fungi, bacteria and animals. Consequently, Glufosinate is toxic to most organisms. Glufosinate, for good measure, is also a neurotoxin of mammals that doesn't easily break down in the environment (Lantz et al. 2014). Glufosinate is thus a "herbicide" in name only. Even in normal agricultural its use is hazardous.

In GMO plants the situation is worse. Glufosinate is sprayed on the crop but degradation is blocked by the transgene, which chemically modifies it slightly. This makes the plant resistant to the herbicide, but when you eat Bayers' Glufosinate-resistant GMO maize or canola, even weeks or months later, glufosinate, though slightly modified, is probably still there (Droge et al., 1992). Nevertheless, the implications of all this additional exposure of people were ignored in GMO risk assessments of Glufosinate tolerant GMO crops.

A yet further reason to be concerned about GMOs is that most of them contain a viral sequence called the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter (or they contain the similar figwort mosaic virus (FMV) promoter). Two years ago, the GMO safety agency of the European Union (EFSA) discovered that both the CaMV promoter and the FMV promoter had wrongly been assumed by them (for almost 20 years) not to encode any proteins. In fact, the two promoters encode a large part of a small multifunctional viral protein that misdirects all normal gene expression and that also turns off a key plant defence against pathogens. EFSA tried to bury their discovery. Unfortunately for them, we spotted their findings in an obscure scientific journal. This revelation forced EFSA and other regulators to explain why they had overlooked the probability that consumers were eating an untested viral protein.

This list of significant scientific concerns about GMOs is by no means exhaustive. For example, there are novel GMOs coming on the market, such as those using double stranded RNAs(dsRNAs), that have the potential for even greater risks (Latham and Wilson 2015).

The True Purpose of GMOs

Science is not the only grounds on which GMOs should be judged. The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness. This drive is occurring at the expense of farmers, consumers and the natural world. US Farmers, for example, have seen seed costs nearly quadruple and seed choices greatly narrow since the introduction of GMOs. The fight over them is thus not of narrow importance. Their use affects us all.

Nevertheless, specific scientific concerns are crucial to the debate. I left science in large part because it seemed impossible to do research while also providing the unvarnished public scepticism that I believed the public, as ultimate funder and risk-taker of that science, was entitled to.

Criticism of science and technology remains very difficult. Even though many academics benefit from tenure and a large salary, the sceptical process in much of science is largely lacking. This is why risk assessment of GMOs has been short-circuited and public concerns about them are growing. Until the damaged scientific ethos is rectified, the public is correct to doubt that GMOs should ever have been let out of any lab.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

2. Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson (2013) Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

3. Ken Roseboro, Sound Consumer, (2013)

Bøhn, T, Cuhra, M, Traavik, T, Sanden, M, Fagan, J and Primicerio, R (2014) Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chemistry 153: 207-215.

Droge W, Broer I, and Puhler A. (1992) Transgenic plants containing the phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase gene metabolize the herbicide L-phosphinothricin (glufosinate) differently from untransformed plants. Planta 187: 142-151.

Lantz S et al., (2014) Glufosinate binds N -methyl- D -aspartate receptors and increases neuronal network activity in vitro. Neurotoxicology 45: 38-47.

Latham JR and Wilson AK (2015) Off - target Effects of Plant Transgenic RNAi: Three Mechanisms Lead to Distinct Toxicological and Environmental Hazards (http://www.bioscienceresource.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RNAi-Biosafety-DraftPaper-2015-LathamWilson.pdf)

Mizuki, E, Et Al., (1999) Unique activity associated with non-insecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis parasporal inclusions: in vitro cell- killing action on human cancer cells. J. Appl. Microbiol. 86: 477-486.

Vachon V, Laprade R, Schwartz JL (2012) Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins: a critical review. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 111: 1-12.

Copyright 2022 Center for Nutrition Studies. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

# data[].attributes.headline
Risk to society: Antibacterial Resistance...

# data[].attributes.subject
Risk to society: Antibacterial Resistance...

# data[].attributes.body
There is a growing concern globally that people are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. There is a chance that GMO foods could be contributing to this crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Engineers design plants using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to improve taste, nutritional content, and resilience. However, people have concerns over their safety, and there is much debate about the pros and cons of using GMOs.

Scientists create GMO foods by introducing genetic material, or DNA, from a different organism through genetic engineering.

Most of the currently available GMO foods are plants, such as fruit and vegetables.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates all foods from genetically engineered plants. They must meet the same safety requirements as non-GMO foods.

GMO foods are likely to become a crucial tool in feeding the world's growing population, especially in areas with harsh climates. However, there have been concerns about possible risks.

In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of GMO crops, including their potential effects on human health and the environment.

Manufacturers use genetic modification to give foods desirable traits.

Potential advantages of GMO crops :

increased attractiveness to consumers, for example, apples and potatoes that are less likely to bruise or turn brown

enhanced flavor

longer shelf life and therefore less waste

greater resistance to viruses and other diseases, which could lead to less waste and increased food security

greater tolerance to herbicides, making it easier for farmers to control weeds

increased nutritional value, as in golden rice, which can boost the health of people with limited access to food

greater resistance to insects, allowing farmers to pesticide use

ability to thrive in a harsh climate, such as drought or heat

ability to grow in salty soil

Growing plants that are more resistant to diseases spread by insects or viruses will likely result in higher yields for farmers and a more attractive product.

All these factors contribute to lower costs for the consumer and can ensure that more people have access to quality food.

Genetically engineering foods is a relatively new practice, which means the long-term effects on safety are not yet clear.

Many concerns about the disadvantages relate to human health. Scientists have not yet shown that GMO foods are harmful to health, but research is ongoing.

Allergic reactions

There is a small risk that GMO foods can trigger an allergic reaction, but this will only happen if the genetic change triggers the production of an allergen.

For instance, if scientists combine a gene from a Brazil nut with a soybean, there is a slight chance that a person with a nut allergy could have an allergic reaction to products made with the soybean.

The World Health Organization (WHO) discourages genetic engineers from using DNA from allergens unless they can prove that the gene itself does not cause the problem.

Scientists assess the likelihood of GMO foods causing an allergic reaction in humans before a product reaches the market, and can prevent its launch if necessary.

Cancer

There have been concerns that eating GMO foods can contribute to the development of cancer by raising levels of potentially carcinogenic substances in the body.

The American Cancer Society states there is no evidence that currently available GMO foods either increase or reduce the risk of cancer.

While cancer rates have changed over time in the U.S., there is no evidence that these changes coincide with the introduction of GMO foods. If there is a link, it could take several more years before a trend emerges.

Antibacterial resistance

Some GMOs contain changes that make them resistant to certain antibiotics. In theory, the genes from these plants could enter humans or animals when they eat them. As a result, the person or animal could also develop antibiotic resistance.

The likelihood of this happening is very small, but the and other health authorities have guidelines in place to prevent it.

Changes in human DNA

In 2009, some food scientists noted that food DNA can survive as far as the gut, and there have been concerns that this could affect the immune system.

Some people have also raised fears that eating GMO food could lead to genetic changes in humans. However, most of the DNA in food - whether GMO or not - either is destroyed by cooking or breaks down before it reaches the large intestine.

Small fragments of DNA from food can and do enter the bloodstream and body organs, but there is no evidence that they have any impact on genetic makeup or human health.

Toxicity for body organs

In 2009, some researchers suggested that GMO foods might impact the liver, kidney, pancreas, and reproductive system. They did not have evidence to confirm this and called for further studies.

The use of GMO crops may even reduce the risk of toxicity from some substances, as farmers can avoid using pesticides that have been harmful in the past.

Climate change and severe weather events are disrupting food production and supply. GMO foods could help maintain supplies in the face of changing environmental conditions and a growing population.

Pros

Genetically modifying some foods could make them:

easier to store and transport

less prone to waste due to disease and aging

more likely to grow in areas with poor quality soil

higher in nutrients

Also, a suggests GMO foods could help slow climate change by reducing greenhouse gases.

Cons

Environmental concerns :

the risk of outcrossing, where genes from GMO foods pass into wild plants and other crops

a negative impact on insects and other species

reduction in other plant types, leading to a loss of biodiversity

The risks will vary depending on local conditions.

In the U.S., the does not require special labeling for GMO foods. This is because they must meet the same safety standards as other foods, and there should be no need for additional regulation.

However, a GMO food needs a special label if it is "materially different" from its conventional counterpart. For example:

a GMO canola oil with more lauric acid than traditional canola oil will be labeled "laurate canola oil"

a GMO soybean oil with more oleic acid than non-GMO soybean oil must be labeled "high oleic soybean oil"

a GMO soybean oil with a high level of stearidonic acid, which does not naturally occur in the oil, must be labeled "stearidonate soybean oil"

However, the 2018 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard states that all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must now carry the label "derived from bioengineering" or "bioengineered." Specific symbols show whether a food has been bioengineered.

Foods that are bioengineered and products that contain bioengineered foods must carry a specific label. If a product does not have this kind of label, it does not contain bioengineered ingredients.

Foods that are likely to be GMO :

sugar beet, as 99.9% of sugar beet in the U.S. is GMO

canola products, as 95% of them are GMO in the U.S.

soybean products, since 94% of soybean in the U.S. is GMO

corn, as 92% of corn planted in the U.S. is GMO

cottonseed oil, since 94% of cotton is GMO

Many GMO crops also become ingredients in other foods, for example:

cornstarch in soups and sauces

corn syrup used as a sweetener

corn, canola, and soybean oils in mayonnaise, dressings, and bread

sugar derived from sugar beets

Genetic modification is when scientists insert new DNA into the gene pool of an existing plant.

For this to happen, the following needs to take place:

1. Scientists transfer new DNA into plant cells.

2. They grow the cells in tissue culture, and a plant develops.

3. The new plant produces seeds.

4. A person grows plants from the new seeds.

5. The new plants will have genetic features that make them, for example, more nutritious or resistant to pests, disease, or climate factors.

For thousands of years, people have used processes such as selective breeding or crossbreeding to produce more viable crops. However, changes took a long time to achieve, and it was hard to make specific changes.

In recent years, developments in genetic engineering have allowed scientists to make specific changes more quickly. The crops produced in this way are called GMO crops. The first GMO food to appear on the market was a tomato, in .

The following are the most common GMO crops produced and sold in the U.S.:

Derivatives of these foods, such as cornstarch and sugar, also feature in other manufactured foods. It is worth noting that of all sugar beet harvested in the U.S. is GMO, as well as over 90% of all canola, corn, soybean, and cotton.

Below, we answer some questions people often ask about GMO foods.

What common foods are GMO?

The likelihood that any food derived from corn, cottonseed, soybean, canola, or sugar beet will be GMO food in the U.S. is or higher.

Which GMO foods to avoid?

There is no specific GMO food to avoid. GMO foods undergo strict testing before they can be commercialized. Moreover, this could make them safer than other foods, which do not undergo testing.

Is GMO food safe?

Currently, there is no evidence that GMO foods cause cancer, allergies, or any other health conditions. However, research is ongoing.

What are the risks of GMO foods?

Health authorities vet all GMO and other foods for safety before manufacturers can sell them, and research is ongoing.

So far, scientists have found no evidence that commercially available GMO foods are dangerous for health. Environmental concerns the risk of altered genes entering wild species.

Genetic modification can make plants resistant to disease and tolerant of herbicides, and therefore, the process can increase the amount of food that farmers can grow. This in turn can reduce food prices and contribute to food security.

GMO crops are relatively new, and researchers are still investigating their long-term safety and health effects, but no evidence has yet emerged that currently available GMO foods are harmful to human health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are genetically modified organism (GMO) foods safe? Learn what the research says about the effects of GMO foods on human health and the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
"Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When examining population ecology, a common story comes to mind. Imagine a habitat with endless resources, and no predation or competition. It sounds like this would be ideal for sustaining population. What could possibly go wrong? This type of environment is the perfect breeding ground for the overpopulation of any species. If a population has enough food to sustain and thrive, exponential breeding will occur. For several generations this growth will not be a significant problem. However, soon there won't be enough food to sustain the entire population. Food becomes scarce, and individuals begin to compete for limited resources. Only the most fit of the individuals will survive, while the weak will die off due to disease and starvation. The population will plummet drastically, leaving only several individuals left. This cycle is related to the carrying capacity of a species, which is the size of the population that can be sustained indefinitely. By exceeding this limit, the clock starts to tick until disaster strikes.The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on either side. One of the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is the potential for environmental harm. First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath Organization defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. With these changes come some potentially problematic environmental challenges.

Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees.

Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be effective, but their toxic legacies will remain.

Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into consideration. Evidence also suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even larger ecological shifts, meaning that there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are modified to be resistant to some modern agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in natural settings, where GMOs, of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human modified, plants to become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems.

Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop fashion, many heritage seeds are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed flowers and, therefore, less nectar for pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are integral to healthy soil for plants to grow without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are left in the soil of GM crops. Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO foods, meaning that soil is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing process. A cycle of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is then created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow GM foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This exposes different bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems.

All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s DNA may end up in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms from insects to larger pests. Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the air into the environment. Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our health.

Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as well. It goes without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we interact with nature can cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food we are consuming, and the way modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment, is one effective way of consciously interacting with the natural world.
Debate on GMO Genetic Engineering-sites at PSU Impact of GMO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When examining population ecology, a common story comes to mind. Imagine a habitat with endless resources, and no predation or competition. It sounds like this would be ideal for sustaining population. What could possibly go wrong? This type of environment is the perfect breeding ground for the overpopulation of any species.