# data[].attributes.body
Genetic Engineering is the use of technology to change an organism's genes. Current technology  allows us to add or remove gene information from organisms. An organism that goes through the process of adding and/or removing genes is called GMO (genetically modified organism).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a GMO? Under the Non-GMO Project Standard, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism to which biotechnology has been applied. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Are GMOs safe?

# data[].attributes.headline
Risk to an Individual: Changing a Person's Genes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Risk to an Individual: Changing a Person's Genes.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the bigger concerns about GMO food is that some of the genetically DNA can be unstable which may cause unintended mutations that can not only damage the food being ingested, but also the person eating it. There is evidence that shows mutated DNA is tied to cancer, autism, and other illnesses that harmful to an individual.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
August 10, 2015

by Megan L. Norris

Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer.

GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis

After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity.

Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment.

In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats' health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals.

Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level.

Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1].

The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring

Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations?

To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn.

To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring.

Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations.
Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity.
Can GMOs change our genes?

Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food.

To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic.

Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats' DNA [5].

A strong argument for GMO health safety

After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.

References

1. European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials. "Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.," Food Chem. Toxicol., vol. 46 Suppl 1, pp. S2-70, Mar. 2008

2. G. Flachowsky, A. Chesson, and K. Aulrich, "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants.," Arch. Anim. Nutr., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1-40, 2005.

3. Cera-gmc.org, 'Welcome to the Center for Environmental Risk Assessment | CERA', 2015. [Online]. [Accessed: 11- Jul- 2015].

4. Tamar Haspel. "Genetically modified foods: What is and isn't true". Washington Post. October 15, 2013.

5. Jeffrey Smith. "GM Potatoes Damaged Rats." Genetic Roulette, Section I: Documented Health Risks.

6. G. S. Rhee, D. H. Cho, Y. H. Won, J. H. Seok, S. S. Kim, S. J. Kwack, R. Da Lee, S. Y. Chae, J. W. Kim, B. M. Lee, K. L. Park, and K. S. Choi, "Multigeneration reproductive and developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on rats.," J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. A, vol. 68, no. 23-24, pp. 2263-2276, 2005.

7. Z. L. Chen, H. Gu, Y. Li, Y. Su, P. Wu, Z. Jiang, X. Ming, J. Tian, N. Pan, and L. J. Qu, "Safety assessment for genetically modified sweet pepper and tomato," Toxicology, vol. 188, no. 2-3, pp. 297-307, 2003.

8. D. G. Brake, R. Thaler, and D. P. Evenson, "Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Corn on Mouse Testicular Development by Dual Parameter Flow Cytometry," J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 2097-2102, 2004.

9. D. A. Jonas, I. Elmadfa, K. H. Engel, K. J. Heller, G. Kozianowski, a. König, D. Müller, J. F. Narbonne, W. Wackernagel, and J. Kleiner, "Safety considerations of DNA in food," Ann. Nutr. Metab., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 235-254, 2001.

10. FDA: Guidance to Industry for Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, Section V (C).

GMOs, Human Biology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public's Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Megan L. Norris Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer.

# data[].attributes.body
When compare to Europe, the United Sates seems to have very lax regulations regarding  labeling and industry restrictions  controlling GMO companies. The United States needs to make sure to request more extensive testing on GMO products that are imported into the country always keeping in mind public health first.

# data[].attributes.headline
Risk to the environment: Evolution of Super-weeds and Super-pests. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Risk to the environment: Evolution of Super-weeds and Super-pests. 

# data[].attributes.body
The production GMOs can lead to the evolution of super-weeds, weeds that can no longer be killed by herbicides, as it has happened before. This is also the same for super-pests, pests that have become resistant to toxins that are on pest resistant crops.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The early warnings of environmentalists about the negative impacts of genetically modified (GM) plants are being proven correct. We are now observing the following serious problems:

Increased Herbicide Use: The widespread cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant crops has pushed up the use of herbicides such as glyphosate. Herbicide sales in Canada have increased by 234% since GM crops have been introduced (1994-2020).

"Superweeds": The use of specific herbicides with GM herbicide-tolerant crops has led to the evolution and spread of "superweeds," or weeds that can no longer be killed by those herbicides. Since 1996, 57 weed species have developed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.

"Superpests": Some insects have developed resistance to the toxins in GM insect-resistant crops. The first case in Canada was reported in May 2019.

Contamination: Contamination from GM plants is has serious ecological, economic and social impacts. Gene flow from GM crops poses a threat to wild and weedy crop relatives, non-GM crops and foods, and organic farming. There have been escape events in Canada with GM canola, flax, wheat and pigs.

Biodiversity Loss: The use of some GM crops can have negative impacts on non-target organisms and on soil and water ecosystems. For example, the expansion of GM herbicide-tolerant corn and soy, which are twinned with herbicides, has destroyed much of the habitat of the monarch butterfly in North America.

Increased Pesticide Use

Herbicide-Tolerant Crops and Herbicide Use

100% of the GM crops currently grown in Canada - corn, soy, canola, sugar beet and alfalfa - are engineered to be tolerant to one or more specific herbicides. Most are tolerant to multiple herbicides. Glyphosate is the top pesticide ingredient sold in Canada, and its use tripled between 2005 and 2011.
Between 1994 and 2020, herbicide sales in Canada increased by 234%.
Data from the US and Latin America also shows that GM herbicide tolerant crops have increased herbicide use. In the US, scientist Charles Benbrook found that total pesticide use was 24% higher for GM crops than it was for non-GM crops by 2011. The 2013 report " Soybean production in the Southern Come of the Americas: Update on Land and Pesticides Use " compiles and analyzes specific data on land and pesticide use in the main soybean producing countries of the Southern Cone of South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

Insect-Resistant Crops and Pesticide Use

GM insect-resistant (Bt) crops are engineered to produce a toxin that makes the entire plant toxic to some insects, such as butterflies and beetles. In the US, Bt crops decreased the use of insecticides by 124 million pounds between 1996 and 2011. However, the toxin produced by the plant may also have adverse environmental impacts. Bt crops simply change the way that pesticides are used, from sprayed on, to built in. Overall, GM crops in the US have increased pesticide use by 403 million pounds (183 million kgs).

Herbicide-Resistant Weeds

One of the consequences of the increased use of specific herbicides with GM herbicide-tolerant crops has been the emergence and spread of herbicide-resistant (HR) weeds, or "superweeds". These are weeds that develop resistance to certain herbicides when they are widely and frequently applied.

The emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds predates GM crops. The first instances of herbicide-resistant weeds were observed in the 1950s with the introduction and wider use of industrial farming methods and chemical herbicides. As herbicide-use has increased, so has the number and range of herbicide-resistant weeds. GM crops have accelerated and entrenched this pattern because the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops, particularly glyphosate-tolerant "Roundup Ready" crops, has meant that large areas of cropland are repeatedly sprayed with the same herbicide.

There are currently 57 species of weeds that are tolerant to glyphosate around the world. Eight of these species are found in Canada, and 17 of them are found in the US.

Herbicide resistant weeds also present economic costs for farmers. In the US, weed management costs in infested fields is 50-100% higher per hectare than in those without glyphosate-resistant weeds. Some weeds have developed resistance to multiple herbicides, making them even harder to control. The spread of HR weeds in turn drives up herbicide use, leading to a "pesticide treadmill" that has serious impacts on the environmental and human health.

Superbugs

In May 2019, it was reported that corn farmers in Canada are observing that the European corn borer, an insect pest, has developed resistance to the genetically engineered (genetically modified or GM) trait designed to kill it. This is the first report in the world of the European corn borer (ECB) developing resistance to a genetically engineered trait used to confer insect resistance. It is also the first report in Canada of any insect pest developing resistance to a genetically engineered trait.

Press Release - June 11, 2019: First Canadian Case of Insect Resistance to Genetically Engineered Corn Discovered

The development of resistance in other insect pests targeted by Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) traits in corn has been observed in the U.S., South Africa and Brazil. Additionally, in the U.S. and other countries, some cotton pests have also developed resistance to Bt cotton traits.

A 2023 study that studied published cases of Bt resistance found 26 cases of resistance to Bt crops by 2020, involving 11 insect species in seven countries, up from 3 cases in 2005. Several other cases showed signs of early resistance.

Contamination

CBAN Report & Report Summary - March 2019: GM Contamination in Canada: The failure to contain living modified organisms - incidents and impacts"

Once released into our environment, genetically engineered (also called genetically modified or GM) organisms are difficult or impossible to control or recall. Each release of a GM organism is an experiment - some are more controlled and controllable than others.

GM contamination is the unwanted escape and spread of GMOs or genetic material from GMOs to non-GM plants, animals and foods. This dispersal can occur through a number of ways, including pollen spread and seed escape, and mixing of food and feed. GM contamination is living pollution that can self-replicate. Such contamination can have negative environmental, social and economic impacts. So far, the impacts have been economic and social - so far, farmers have been the first to pay the price of GM contamination.
There have been escape events in Canada with GM canola, flax, wheat and pigs.

Some escape events occurred with GMOs approved by our government (canola and flax), and others with experimental unapproved GM plants and animals (wheat and pigs).

Some were isolated incidents (wheat and pigs), while others are widespread or ongoing contamination cases (canola and flax).

For more information, see our report or our webpage on contamination.

Biodiversity

Herbicide-tolerant crop systems have encouraged the use of herbicides that reduce overall plant diversity in agricultural systems and can limit habitat and food sources for other important organisms.

Monarch butterfly populations have declined by more than 90% in under 20 years. It is estimated that the butterflies may have lost more than 165 million acres of habitat in this time-frame largely due to the increase in the use of the herbicide glyphosate, which kills the common milkweed that the butterfly needs to breed. Click here for detailed information from the Centre for Food Safety US.

Click here to read CBAN's comments to the Environment and Climate Change Canada calling for the Species at Risk Public Registry office to designate the Monarch butterfly as an endangered species.

Pollen and other plant parts containing toxins from genetically engineered insect-resistant (Bt) corn are washing into streams near cornfields. Lab trials showed that consumption of Bt corn byproducts produces increased mortality and reduced growth in caddisflies, aquatic insects that are related to the pests targeted by the toxin in Bt corn.

Non-Target Effects

The Nature Institute has established a project called " Nontarget Effects of Genetic Manipulation" to "make evidence about the wide-ranging and never wholly predictable effects of genetic engineering readily accessible to concerned citizens, policy makers, and scientists." Click here to read their introductory paper " Understanding the Nontarget Effects of Genetic Manipulation."

"When foreign genes are introduced into an organism, creating a transgenic organism (commonly called a genetically modified or genetically engineered organism), the results for the organism and its environment are almost always unpredictable. The intended result may or may not be achieved in any given case, but the one almost sure thing is that unintended results - nontarget effects - will also be achieved...Nontarget effects within the host organism are not necessarily due only to the gene directly related to the intended effect. There are numerous ways in which the genetic manipulation can affect changes in the host organism. Although the genetic intervention may seem simple, in reality one is dealing with a complex web of relations that can be altered in manifold ways."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The early warnings of environmentalists about the negative impacts of genetically modified (GM) plants are being proven correct. We are now observing the following serious problems: Increased Herbicide Use: The widespread cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant crops has pushed up the use of herbicides such as glyphosate.