Genetically Modified Food Crops

"The power of pseudoscience to generate fear must not be underestimated. Once instilled, facts rarely dissipate that fear. It's worrisome it took over a year for the journal to do the right thing."
Robert Wager, Vancouver Island University biologist

GM crops: Promise and reality    nature.com/gmcrops

The introduction of the first transgenic plant 30 years ago heralded the start of a second green revolution, providing food to the starving, profits to farmers and environmental benefits to boot. Many GM crops fulfilled the promise. But their success has been mired in controversy with many questioning their safety, their profitability and their green credentials. A polarized debate has left little room for consensus.

The journal that Dr. Wager was referring to would be the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. It published an article that made sensational headlines around the world last year, claiming to have discovered evidence proving unequivocally that 'Frankenfoods' are hazardous to the health of living creatures. The article, written as a result of a French study claiming a steady diet of genetically modified corn caused tumours in rats was heartily embraced by all those who dread the very thought of GM foods contaminating anyone's dinner table.

The study authors claimed that rats fed a diet of Monsanto's genetically modified corn, or given water in which the herbicide Roundup was contained at levels permitted in the United States, died an earlier death due to the misadventure of having imbibed those dread bits of food or chemicals, as opposed to rats fed a standard diet.

And while the journal has now retracted the article and its controversial findings a year after its original publication, scientists who scorned the French study consider the damage done to be irreversible. Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, feels Dr. Wager, will now be elevated on a martyr's plinth by all those who have no problems believing that genetically modified food crops present a danger to humanity.

Reason, religion and food security  - Jon Entine - June 10, 2013 - Genetic Literary Project

Being Gilles-Eric Seralini: Inside the mind of the anti-GM movement

It’s tempting to characterize this dispute as a battle between science and ideology, but that would be simplistic. Issues of risk, notions of “Nature” and “natural”—these are emotional, even religious beliefs. How we view food is deeply personal. Science can only take us so far—but it’s pretty far.
We all can appreciate why any debate over farming, food and modern technology tends toward contentious. After all, we are talking about our children and our health. The one thing we can agree on is that everyone, on all sides of this discussion, wants abundant, highly nutritious food produced with the least environmental damage.
We decided to focus the forum on global food security. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 868 million people are undernourished. Food security has improved in recent decades, as the undernourishment rate dropped from 18.6% in 1990-1992 to 12.5%. But over the same period, population grew from 5.4 to 7.0 billion—and it’s on track to grow to 9 million over the next two to three decades. As Bill Gates once said, “The world is getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not getting better for everyone.”
Global food security is a complex challenge. Agriculturally rich regions like North America, Argentina and Brazil must produce enough to make up for production deficits in Asia, Africa and even Europe. We will need 70-100% more food by 2050 to match population and prosperity growth, and it must occur in the face of more frequent extreme weather events marked by floods, droughts and heat waves.
One thing we know is that technology—including biotechnology—must play a central role, just as it did in the Green Revolution. Beginning in the late 1940s, genetic research led to the breeding of high-yield grains. Combined with the use of new fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, output soared. Since 1950, world wheat production alone has increased by more than 300%.
That said, the environmental consequences of high-yield industrial scale farming are daunting. Organic farming can play a role, but it’s at best a marginal part of the solution. Although no one believes it’s a silver bullet, the overwhelming consensus of the science and farming communities is that genetic engineering can and will be part of farmers suite of tools for addressing increasing food needs while mitigating environmental damage.

 Rats, claimed the article since retracted, fed the genetically modified diet suffered from tumours. And from severe liver and kidney damage. Transpose that scenario to the health of human beings, trusting the assurances of science and the manufacturers of GM seed and pesticides and you have a gruesome prospect for the future, with people dropping off like flies from the horrible after-effects of having consumed GM foods.

Nor did Professor Seralini stop at merely publishing the words of his dire warnings; grotesque photographs of rats with bulging tumours featured in British tabloids, about the dangers of "Frankenfoods". They had the word of the science as engineered by a long-time critic of genetically engineered food crops. And while many scientists criticized the evidence and study methods, some pointed out that the laboratory rats used in his experience were from the outset known to be susceptible to tumours.

The new editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology forwarded a letter earlier in November of 2013 to Professor Seralini giving him the option of agreeing to withdraw his article voluntarily, or the journal would retract it for him, for themselves, for science. On Thursday they did just that, stating that an "in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached" from the small sample of rats studied.

Furthermore, the known high incidence of tumours in the strain of lab rats studied "cannot be excluded as the cause of their higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups".  The study, noted Cami Ryan at the University of Saskatchewan, has been discredited by food and feed safety agencies around the world: "Retraction seemed inevitable" she commented.

"It was clear from even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication, and in this instance the peer review process did not work properly", noted David Spiegelhalter at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. "I suppose it is better late than never. Sadly the withdrawal of this paper will not generate the publicity garnered by its initial publication."

Through all of this, Professor Seralini is unmoved and unrepentant. The retraction, he asserts, resulted from the journal's editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman. Whose previous work included several years on behalf of biotechnology giant Monsanto. A fair enough observation to be sure. But hardly conclusive of a surrender of professional integrity.

 Reason, religion and food security  - Jon Entine - June 10, 2013 - Genetic Literary Project

What is agricultural genetic engineering?
The Food and Drug Administration recently addressed its role in regulating food safety and the relative riskiness of GE crops. Selective breeding turned inedible wild grains, like corn and wheat into delicious modern varieties. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years, but it is terribly imprecise.
As the FDA notes, “These genes [from traditional selective breeding] may include the gene responsible for the desired characteristic, as well as genes responsible for unwanted characteristics.” Genetic engineering, rather, can “introduce the desired characteristic without also introducing genes responsible for unwanted characteristics.”
Introduced first in the US in the mid-1990s, genetically engineered crops are now grown by more than 17 million farmers in 28 countries. Eighty-one percent of the world’s soybeans, 81% of cottonseed, 35% of corn and 30% of canola are now grown using GE seeds. In 2012, the global area of biotech crops continued to increase for the 17th year. Their commercial value worldwide exceeds $185 billion per year. In the US, the use of herbicide tolerant soybeans, cotton and corn, and pesticide-resistant Bt cotton and corn is even more pronounced.
Almost all GE crops are based on two well-established and rigorously tested technologies. First, Bt crops produce a bacterial protein known as Bacillus thuringiensis. It’s naturally occurring—and it’s widely used by organic farmers to selectively kill pest insects. Genetically engineered Bt crops simply produce their own Bt. The effects are identical to what happens on organic farms—which is what makes protests against genetically engineered Bt crops seem so bizarre to scientists. The net result is that Bt crops increase yields because farmers lose fewer crops to insect pests.
The other major GE crops are those designed to be herbicide-resistant, most commonly glyphosate, better known as Monsanto’s Roundup. Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment. Because the weed killer is more powerful and less toxic than the chemicals that it competed with, farmers quickly adopted glyphosate—even more so after Monsanto introduced genetically engineered versions that were paired with the herbicide. The use of crops engineered for herbicide resistance reduces inputs, cost, and labor for farmers. It’s agricultural sustainability at work.
In the US, the use of herbicide tolerant soybeans, cotton and corn, and pesticide resistant Bt cotton and corn has soared since their introduction. It’s estimated that 90% of the farmers around the world that grow GE crops—roughly 15 million people—are resource-poor. The total acreage of GE crops in developing countries now exceeds that of the developed world. 
That said, the environmental consequences of high-yield industrial scale farming are daunting. Organic farming can play a role, but it’s at best a marginal part of the solution. Although no one believes it’s a silver bullet, the overwhelming consensus of the science and farming communities is that genetic engineering can and will be part of farmers suite of tools for addressing increasing food needs while mitigating environmental damage.