9
   

Monsanto name to become Bayer

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:57 am
@Glennn,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:01 am
@maporsche,
So, the answer is no, you cannot cite even one safety study that shows the safety of GMOs, who conducted the study, and where the study was done. That will do.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:06 am
@Glennn,
I just gave you a source citing hundreds of studies.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:07 am
From page 237 of the document (there are MANY more).


Abbadi, A., F. Domergue, J. Bauer, J.A. Napier, R. Welti, U. Zähringer, P. Cirpus, and E. Heinz.
2004. Biosynthesis of very-long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in transgenic oilseeds:
Constraints on their accumulation. Plant Cell 16:2734–2748.
Abbas, H.K., W.T. Shier, and R.D. Cartwright. 2007. Effect of temperature, rainfall and planting
date on aflatoxin and fumonisin contamination in commercial Bt and non-Bt maize
hybrids in Arkansas. Phytoprotection 88:41–50.
Abraham, T.M., K.M. Pencina, M.J. Pecina, and C.S. Fox. 2015. Trends in diabetes incidence:
The Framingham heart study. Diabetes Care 38:482–487.
ADAS, 2015. Strategy support for the post-market monitoring (PMM) of GM plants: Review
of existing PPM strategies developed for the safety assessment of human and animal
health. EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-739.
Ahuja, I., R. Kissen, and A.M. Bones. 2012. Phytoalexins in defense against pathogens. Trends
in Plant Science 17:73–90.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2012. Statement by the AAAS Board
of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. October 20. Available at http://
www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2015.
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fifth Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Amos, J. September 19, 2012. French GM-fed Rat Study Triggers Furore. Online. BBC News.
Available at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19654825. Accessed December
13, 2015.
An, R. 2015. Educational disparity in obesity among U.S. adults, 1984–2013. Annals of
Epidemiology 25:637–642.
Arjó, G., T. Capell, X. Matias-Guiu, C. Zhu, P. Christou, and C. Piñol. 2012. Mice fed on
a diet enriched with genetically engineered multivitamin corn show no sub-acute toxic
effects and no sub-chronic toxicity. Plant Biotechnology Journal 10:1026–1034.
Astwood, J.D., J.N. Leach, and R.L. Fuchs. 1996. Stability of food allergens to digestion in
vitro. Nature Biotechnology 14:1269–1273.
Bartholomaeus, A., W. Parrott, G. Bondy, and K. Walker. 2013. The use of whole food animal
studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: Limitations and recommendations.
Critical Reviews in Toxicology 43:1–24.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
238 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Belknap, J.K., S.R. Mitchell, L.A. O’Toole, M.L. Helms, and J.C. Crabbe. 1996. Type I and
type II error rates for quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping studies using recombinant
inbred mouse strains. Behavior Genetics 26:149–160.
Bennett, R., S. Morse, and Y. Ismael. 2006. The economic impact of genetically modified
cotton on South African smallholders: Yield, profit and health effects. Journal of Development
Studies 42:662–677.
Berry, C. 2013. Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology 53:445–446.
Bhatnagar-Mathur, P., S. Sunkara, M. Bhatnagar-Panwar, F. Waliyar, and K.K. Sharma. 2015.
Biotechnological advances for combating Aspergillus flavus and aflatoxin contamination
in crops. Plant Science 234:119–132.
Birol, E., J.V. Meenakshi, A. Oparinde, S. Perez, and K. Tomlins. 2015. Developing country
consumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: A synthesis. Food Security 7:555–568.
Bøhn, T., M. Cuhra, T. Traavik, M. Sanden, J. Fagan, and R. Primicerio. 2014. Compositional
differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM
soybeans. Food Chemistry 153:207–215.
Boobis, A.R., B.C. Ossendorp, U. Banasiak, P.Y. Hamey, I. Sebestyen, and A. Moretto.
2008. Cumulative risk assessment of pesticide residues in food. Toxicology Letters
180:137–150.
Bowen, K.L., K.L. Flanders, A.K. Hagan, and B. Ortiz. 2014. Insect damage, aflatoxin content,
and yield of Bt corn in Alabama. Journal of Economic Entomology 107:1818–1827.
Bowers, E., R. Hellmich, and G. Munkvold. 2014. Comparison of fumonisn contamination
using HPLC and ELISA methods in Bt and near-isogenic maize hybrids infested with
European corn borer or Western bean cutworm. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 62:6463–6472.
Brigulla, M., and W. Wackernagel. 2010. Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign
DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues. Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology 86:1027–1041.
Brix, A.E., A. Nyska, J.K. Haseman, D.M. Sells, M.P. Jokinen, and N.J. Walker. 2005. Incidences
of selected lesions in control female Harlan Sprague–Dawley rates from twoyear
studies performed by the National Toxciology Program. Toxicologic Pathology
33:477–483.
Brouk, M.J., B. Cvetkovic, D.W. Rice, B.L. Smith, M.A. Hinds, F.N. Owens, C. Iiams, and T.E.
Sauber. 2011. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain
produced from genetically modified corn containing event DAS-59122–7 compared to a
nontransgenic, near-isogenic control. Journal of Dairy Science 94:1961–1966.
Bush, R.K., S.L. Taylor, J.A. Nordlee, and W.W. Busse. 1985. Soybean oil is not allergenic to
soybean-sensitive individuals. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 76:242–245.
Butler, D. October 11, 2012. Hyped GM Maize Study Faces Growing Scrutiny. Online.
Nature. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growingscrutiny-1.11566.
Accessed December 13, 2015.
Buzoianu, S.G., M.C. Walsh, M.C. Rea, O. O’Donovan, E. Gelencsér, G. Ujhelyi, E. Szabó,
A. Nagy, R.P. Ross, G.E. Gardiner, and P.G. Lawlor. 2012a. Effects of feeding Bt maize
to sows during gestation and lactation on maternal and offspring immunity and fate of
transgenic material. PLoS ONE 7:e47851.
Buzoianu, S.G., M.C. Walsh, M.C. Rea, J.P. Cassidy, R.P. Ross, G.E. Gardiner, and P.G.
Lawlor. 2012b. Effect of feeding genetically modified Bt MON810 maize to approximately
40-day-old pigs for 110 days on growth and health indicators. Animal 6:1609–1619.
Buzoianu, S.G., M.C. Walsh, M.C. Rea, O. O’Sullivan, F. Crispie, P.D. Cotter, P.R. Ross, G.E.
Gardiner, and P.G. Lawlor. 2012c. The effect of feeding Bt MON810 maize to pigs for
110 days on intestinal microbiota. PLoS One 7:e33668.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 239
Buzoianu, S.G., M.C. Walsh, M.C. Rea, O. O’Sullivan, F. Crispie, P.D. Cotter, P.R. Ross,
G.E. Gardiner, and P.G. Lawlor. 2012d. High-throughput sequence-based analysis of the
intestinal microbiota of weanling pigs fed genetically modified MON810 maize expressing
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab (Bt maize) for 31 days. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 78:4217–4224.
Buzoianu, S.G., M.C. Walsh, M.C. Rea, L. Quigley, O. O’Sullivan, P.D. Cotter, R.P. Ross,
G.E. Gardiner, and P.G. Lawlor. 2013a. Sequence-based analysis of the intestinal Microbiota
of sows and their offspring fed genetically modified maize expressing a truncated
form of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein (Bt Maize). Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 79:7735–7744.
Buzoianu, S.G., M.C. Walsh, M.C. Rea, J.P. Cassidy, T.P. Ryan, P.R. Ross, G.E. Gardiner,
and P.G. Lawlor. 2013b. Transgenerational effects of feeding genetically modified maize
to nulliparious sows and offspring on offspring growth and health. Journal of Animal
Science 91:318–330.
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2003. Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety
Assessment of Foods Using Recombinant DNA Plants. Doc CAC/GL 45-2003. Rome:
World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization.
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2008. Annex 2: Food Safety Assessment of Foods
Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants Modified for Nutritional or Health Benefits
in Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Using Recombinant
DNA Plants. Doc CAC/GL 45-2003. Rome: World Health Organization and Food and
Agriculture Organization.
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2009. Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology.
Rome: World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization.
Callahan, P. January 28, 2016. Court clears way for revival of worrisome weedkiller. EPA nixes
approval of Enlist Duo weed killer. Online. Chicago Tribune. Available at http://www.
chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-dow-enlist-duo-court-ruling-20160127-. Accessed
March 21, 2016.
Calsamiglia, S., B. Hernandez, G.F. Hartnell, and R. Phipps. 2007. Effects of corn silage derived
from a genetically modified variety containing two transgenes on feed intake, milk
production, and composition, and the absence of detectable transgenic deoxyribonucleic
acid in milk in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90:4718–4723.
Catassi, C., D. Kryszak, B. Bhatti, C. Strugeon, K. Helzlsouer, S.L. Clipp, D. Gelfond, E.
Puppa, A. Sferruzza, and A. Fasano. 2010. Natural history of celiac disease autoimmunity
in a USA cohort followed since 1974. Annals of Medicine 42:530–538.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2014. Prevalence of autism spectrum
disorder among children aged 8 years—autism and developmental disabilities monitoring
network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63:1–21.
Coresh, J., B.C. Astor, T. Greene, G. Eknoyan, and A.S. Levey. 2003. Prevalence of chronic
kidney disease and decreased kidney function in the adult US population: Third national
health and nutrition examination survey. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 41:1–12.
Coresh, J., E. Selvin, L.A. Stevens, J. Manzi, J.W. Kusek, P. Eggers, F. Van Lente, and A.S.
Levey. 2007. Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States. Journal of the
American Medical Association 298:2038–2047.
Costa, J., I. Mafra, J.S. Amaral, and M.B.P.P. Oliveira. 2010a. Detection of genetically modified
soybean DNA in refined vegetable oils. European Food Research and Technology
230:915–923.
Costa, J., I. Mafra, J.S. Amaral, and M.B.P.P. Oliveira. 2010b. Monitoring genetically modified
soybean along the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining processes by polymerase
chain reaction techniques. Food Research International 43:301–306.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
240 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Council on Science and Public Health of the American Medical Association House of Delegates.
2012. Report 2 (A-12). Labeling of Bioengineered Foods (Resolutions 508 and
509-A-11). Available at http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA%20Report.
pdf. Accessed March 12, 2016.
Datta, S.K., K. Datta, V. Parkhi, M. Rai, N. Baisakh, G. Sahoo, S. Rehana, A. Bandyopadhyay, M.
Alamgir, M.S. Ali, E. Abrigo, N. Oliva, and L. Torrizo. 2007. Golden Rice: Introgression,
breeding, and field evaluation. Euphytica 154:271–278.
David, L.A., C.F. Maurice, R.N. Carmody, D.B. Gootenberg, J.E. Button, B.E. Wolfe, A.V.
Ling, A.S. Devlin, Y. Varma, M.A. Fischbach, S.B. Biddinger, R.J. Dutton, and P.J.
Turnbaugh. 2014. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome.
Nature 505:559–563.
Davis, R.K., G.T. Stevenson, and K.A. Busch. 1956. Tumor incidence in normal SpragueDawley
female rats. Cancer Research 16:194–197.
DeFrancesco, L. 2013. How safe does transgenic food need to be? Nature Biotechnology
31:794–802.
de Luis, R., M. Lavilla, L. Sanchez, M. Calvo, and M.D. Perez. 2009. Immunochemical
detection of Cry1A(b) protein in model processed foods made with transgenic maize.
European Food Research and Technology 229:15–19.
De Moura, F.F., A. Miloff, and E. Boy. 2015. Retention of provitamin A carotenoids in staple
crops targeted for biofortification in Africa: Cassava, maize and sweet potato. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 55:1246–1269.
De Roos, A.J., A. Blair, J.A. Rusiecki, J.A. Hoppin, M. Svec, M. Dosemeci, D.P. Sandler, and
M.C. Alavanja. 2005. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators
in the Agricultural Health Study. Environmental Health Perspective 113:49–54.
Demont, M., and A.J. Stein. 2013. Global value of GM rice: A review of expected agronomic
and consumer benefits. New Biotechnology 30:426–436.
Dethlefsen, L., and D A. Relman. 2011. Incomplete recovery and individualized responses of
the human distal gut microbiota to repeated antibiotic perturbation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 4554–4561.
Dev, M.S., and N.C. Rao. 2007. Socio-economic Impact of Bt Cotton. Monograph No. 3.
Hyderabad: Centre for Economic and Social Studies.
Diaz, C., C. Fernandez, R. McDonald, and J.M. Yeung. 2002. Determination of Cry9C
protein in processed foods made with StarLink™ corn. Journal of AOAC International
85:1070–1076.
Dinse, G.E., S.D. Peddada, S.F. Harris, and S.A. Elmore. 2010. Comparison of NTP historical
control tumor incidence rates in female Harlan Sprague–Dawley and Fischer 344/N rats.
Toxicologic Pathology 38:765–775.
Dixon, R.A. 2001. Natural products and disease resistance. Nature 411:843–847.
Dixon, R.A. 2004. Phytoestrogens. Annual Review of Plant Biology 55:225–261.
Domingo, J.L., and J.G. Bordonaba. 2011. A literature review on the safety assessment of
genetically modified plants. Environment International 37:734–742.
Dona, A., and I.S. Arvanitoyannis. 2009. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49:164–175.
Duke, S.O., A.M. Rimando, P.F. Pace, K.N. Reddy, and R.J. Smeda. 2003. Isoflavone, glyphosate,
and aminomethylphosphonic acid levels in seeds of glyphosate-treated, glyphosate
resistant soybean. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51:340–344.
Dung, L.T., and L.H. Ham. 2013. Comments on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide
and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.” Food and Chemical Toxicology
53:443–444.
Dunn, O.J. 1961. Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical
Association 56:52–64.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 241
EC (European Commission). 2010a. A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research (2001–2010).
Brussels: European Commission.
EC (European Commission). 2010b. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific
purposes. Official Journal of the European Union 276:33–79.
EC (European Commission). 2013. Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 503/2013
of 3 April 2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed
in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of
the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No
1981/2006. Official Journal of the European Union 157:1–48.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2007. Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically
Modified Organisms on the Analysis of Data from a 90-day Rat Feeding Study with
MON 863 Maize. Available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_
output/files/main_documents/GMO_statement_MON863%2C0.pdf. Accessed December
13, 2015.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2010. Scientific opinion on the assessment of
allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed. EFSA Journal
8:1700.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2011a. Guidance on risk assessment of food and
feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 9:2150.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2011b. Scientific opinion on guidance on conducting
repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. EFSA Journal
9:2438.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2011c. Statistical significance and biological relevance.
EFSA Journal 9:2372.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2012. Review of the Séralini et al. (2012) publication
on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603
as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology. EFSA
Journal 10:2910.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2013. Scientific Opinion on application EFSAGMO-NL-2007-45
for the placing on the market of herbicide-tolerant, high-oleic acid,
genetically modified soybean 305423 for food and feed uses, import and processing under
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Pioneer. EFSA Journal 11:3499.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2015. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide
risk assessment for the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal 13:4302.
Einspanier, R. 2013. The fate of transgenic DNA and newly expressed proteins. Pp. 130–139
in Animal Nutrition with Transgenic Plants, G. Flachowsky, ed. Oxfordshire: UK: CABI
Biotechnology Series.
El Ouakfaoui, S., and B. Miki. 2005 The stability of the Arabidopsis transcriptome in transgenic
plants expressing the marker genes nptII and uidA. Plant Journal 41:791–800.
Entine, J. 2014. A Science-based Look at Genetically Engineered Crops. Presentation to the
National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience
and Future Prospects, September 16, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Good laboratory practice standards.
Federal Register 54:34067.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies Cry1F
Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production (Plasmid Insert PHI 8999)
in Corn. Available at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=chemicalsearch:3:0::no:
1,3,31,7,12,25:p3_xchemical_id:1322. Accessed October 10, 2015.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
242 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. EPA Releases Draft Report on Starlink
corn. Online. EPA Press Release. Available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/
blab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/cd9013801973259885256a0800710574?Open
Document. Accessed March 12, 2016.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Glyphosate; Pesticide tolerances. Federal
Register 78:25396–25401.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. Final Registration of Enlist Duo™
Herbicide. October 15. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/
documents/final_registration_-_enlist_duo.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2015.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014b. Memorandum: Response to Public
Comments Received Regarding New Uses of Enlist Duo™ on Corn and Soybeans. October
14. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/
response_to_comments.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2015.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014c. SAP Minutes No. 2014-02, A Set
of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding:
RNAi Technology: Problem Formulation for Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 243
Fernandez, A., E.N.C. Mills, M. Lovik, A. Spök, A. Germini, A. Mikalsen, and J.M. Wal.
2013. Endogenous allergens and compositional analysis in the allergenicity assessment
of genetically modified plants. Food and Chemical Toxicology 62:1–6.
Feron, V.J., and J.P. Groten. 2002. Toxicological evaluation of chemical mixtures. Food and
Chemical Toxicology 40:825–839.
Ferruzzi, M.G. 2010. The influence of beverage composition on delivery of phenolic compounds
from coffee and tea. Physiology & Behavior 100:33–41.
Finamore, A., M. Roselli, S. Britti, G. Monastra, R. Ambra, A. Turrini, and E. Mengheri.
2008. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning
and old mice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56:11533–11539.
Folta, K. 2014. Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology 65:392.
Fonseca, C., S. Planchon, J. Renaut, M.M. Oliveira, and R. Batista. 2012. Characterization
of maize allergens—MON810 vs. its non-transgenic counterpart. Journal of Proteomics
75:2027–2037.
Forouzanfar, M.H., K.J. Foreman, A.M. Delossantos, R. Lozano, A.D. Lopez, C.J.L. Murray,
and M. Naghavi. 2011. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and
2010: A systematic analysis. Lancet 378:1461–1484.
Franz J.E., M.K. Mao, and J.A. Sikorski. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. ACS
Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Friedman, M. 2006. Potato glycoalkaloids and metabolites: Roles in the plant and in the diet.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54:8655–8681.
Fryar, C.D., M.D. Carroll, and C.L. Ogden. 2014. Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and
extreme obesity among adults: United States, 1960–1962 through 2011–2012. Available
at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_11_12/obesity_adult_11_12.pdf.
Accessed October 13, 2015.
FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand). 2013. GM Food Labelling. Available
at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/labelling/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed
December 22, 2015.
Fukushima, A., M. Kusano, R.F. Mejia, M. Iwasa, M. Kobayashi, M. Hayashi, A. WatanabeTakahashi,
T. Narisawa, T. Tohge, M. Hur, E. Sykin Wurtele, B.J. Nikolau, and K. Saito.
2014. Metabolomic characterization of knockout mutants in Arabidopsis: Development
of a metabolite profiling database for knockout mutants in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology
165:948–961.
Furgał-Dierżuk, I., J. Strzetelski, M. Twardowska, K. Kwiatek, and M. Mazur. 2015. The effect
of genetically modified feeds on productivity, milk composition, serum metabolite profiles
and transfer of tDNA into milk of cows. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 24:19–30.
Gannon, B., C. Kaliwile, S.A. Arscott, S. Schmaelzle, J. Chileshe, N. Kalungwana, M.
Mosonda, K. Pixley, C. Masi, and S.A. Tanumihardjo. 2014. Biofortified orange maize
is as efficacious as a vitamin A supplement in Zambian children even in the presence of
high liver reserves of vitamin A: A community-based, randomized placebo-controlled
trial. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 100:1541–1550.
García-Villalba, R., C. León, G. Dinelli, A. Segura-Carretero, A. Fernández-Gutiérrez, V.
Garcia-Cañas, and A. Cifuentes. 2008. Comparative metabolomic study of transgenic
versus conventional soybean using capillary electrophoresis-time-of-flight mass
spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 1195:164–173.
Gasnier, C., C. Dumont, N. Benachour, E. Clair, M.C. Chagnon, and G.-É. Séralini. 2009.
Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.
Toxicology 262:184–191.
Goodman, R. 2015. Evaluating GE Food Sources for Risks of Allergy: Methods, Gaps and
Perspective. Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Genetically
Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, March 5, Washington, DC.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
244 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Goodman, R.E., R. Panda, and H. Ariyarathna. 2013. Evaluation of endogenous allergens
for the safety evaluation of genetically engineered food crops: Review of potential risks,
test methods, examples and relevance. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
61:8317–8332.
Graf, L., H. Hayder, and U. Mueller. 2014. Endogenous allergens in the regulatory assessment
of genetically engineered crops. Food and Chemical Toxicology 73:17–20.
Green, P.H., and C. Cellier. 2007. Celiac disease. New England Journal of Medicine
357:1731–1743.
Guertler, P., V. Paul, C. Albrecht, and H.H.D. Meyer. 2009. Sensitive and highly specific
quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA for recording a potential transfer of novel DNA
and Cry1Ab protein from feed into bovine milk. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
393:1629–1638.
Gupta. R., A. Sheikh, D.P. Strachan, and H.R. Anderson. 2007. Time trends in allergic
disorders in the UK. Thorax 62:91–96.
Guyton, K.Z., D. Loomis, Y. Grosse, F.E. Ghissassi, L. Benbrahim-Tallaa, N. Guha, C.
Scoccianti, H. Mattock, and K. Straif. 2015. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos,
parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncology 16:490–491.
Halle, I., and G. Flachowsky. 2014. A four-generation feeding study with genetically modified
(Bt) maize in laying hens. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 23:58–63.
Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, and M. Nemeth. 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance
study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 42:1003–1014.
Hammond, B.G., R. Dudek, J.K. Lemen, and M.A. Nemeth. 2006. Results of a 90-day safety
assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 44:1092–1099.
Hammond, B., D.A. Goldstein, and D. Saltmiras. 2013. Response to original research article,
‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified
maize.’ Food and Chemical Toxicology 53:459–464.
Hayes, A.W. 2014. Retraction notice to ‘‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.’’ Food and Chemical Toxicology 63:244.
He, X.Y., K.L. Huang, X. Li, W. Qin, B. Delaney, and Y.B. Luo. 2008. Comparison of grain
from corn rootworm resistant transgenic DAS-59122-7 maize with non-transgenic maize
grain in a 90-day feeding study in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology
46:1994–2002.
He, X.Y., Z. Mao, Y.B. Tang, X. Luo, S.S. Li, J.Y. Cao, B. Delaney, and L.H. Kun. 2009. A
90-day toxicology study of transgenic lysine-rich maize grain (Y642) in Sprague-Dawley
rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology 47:425–432.
Health Canada. 1999. Novel Food Information—Food Biotechnology, High Lauric Acid
Canola Lines 23-198, 23-18-17. Available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/
hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/gmf-agm/ofb-096-100-a-eng.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2016.
Health Canada. 2015. Proposed Re-evaluation Decision PRVD2015-01, Glyphosate. Available
at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_prvd2015-01/prvd2015-
01-eng.php. Accessed March 13, 2016.
Hefferon, K.L. 2015. Nutritionally enhanced food crops; Progress and perspectives. International
Journal of Molecular Sciences 16:3895–3914.
Hellenas, K.E., C. Branzell, H. Johnsson, and P. Slanina. 1995. High levels of glycoalkaloids in
the established Swedish potato variety Magnum Bonum. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture 23:520–523.
Herman, R.A. and W.D. Price. 2013. Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified
(GM) crops: 20 years of research. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
61:11695–11701.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 245
Herman, R.A., N.P. Storer, and Y. Gao. 2006. Digestion assays in allergenicity assessment of
transgenic proteins. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1154–1157.
Hernández, A.F., T. Parrón, A.M. Tsatsakis, M. Requena, R. Alarcón, and O. López-Guarnido.
2013. Toxic effects of pesticide mixtures at a molecular level: Their relevance to human
health. Toxicology 307:136–145.
Hidalgo, F.J., and R. Zamora. 2006. Peptides and proteins in edible oils: Stability, allergenicity,
and new processing trends. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17:56–63.
Hilbeck, A., R. Binimelis, N. Defarge, R. Steinbrecher, A. Székács, F. Wickson, M. Antoniou,
P.L. Bereano, E.A. Clark, M. Hansen, E. Novotny, J. Heinemann, H. Meyer, V. Shiva,
and B. Wynne. 2015. No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences
Europe 27:4.
Hohlweg, U., and W. Doerfler. 2001. On the fate of plant or other foreign genes upon the uptake
in food or after intramuscular injection in mice. Molecular Genetics and Genomics
265:225–233.
Hotz, C., C. Loechl, A. Lubowa, J.K. Tumwine, G. Ndeezi, A. Nandutu Masawi, R. Baingana,
A. Carriquiry, A. de Brauw, J.V. Meenakshi, and D.O. Gilligan. 2012a. Introduction of
beta-carotene-rich orange sweet potato in rural Uganda resulted in increased vitamin
A intakes among children and women and improved vitamin A status among children.
Journal of Nutrition 142:1871–1880.
Hotz, C., C. Loechl, A. de Brauw, P. Eozenou, D. Gilligan, M. Moursi, B. Munhaua, P.
van Jaarsveld, A. Carriquiry, and J.V. Meenakshi. 2012b. A large-scale intervention to
introduce orange sweet potato in rural Mozambique increases vitamin A intakes among
children and women. British Journal of Nutrition 108:163–176.
Huang, J., R. Hu, C. Fan, C.E. Pray, and S. Rozelle. 2002. Bt cotton benefits, costs, and impacts
in China. AgBioForum 5:153–166.
Huang, J., R. Hu, S. Rozelle, and C. Pray. 2005. Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers’ fields:
Assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 308:688–690.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2002. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation
of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 82: Some Traditional Herbal Medicines,
Some Mycotoxins, Naphthalene, and Styrene. Lyon, France: IARC.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2006. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation
of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 88: Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol, and
1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Lyon, France: IARC.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2015. Glyphosate. Part of Volume
112 in International
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
246 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Jones, Y. M., and A. De Brauw. 2015. Using Agriculture to Improve Child Health: Promoting
Orange Sweet Potatoes Reduces Diarrhea. World Development 74:15–24.
Joshi, L., J.M. van Eck, K. Mayo, R.G. Silvestro, M.E. Blake, T. Ganapathi, V. Haridas, J.U.
Gutterman, and C.J. Arntzen. 2002. Metabolomics of plant saponins: Bioprospecting
triterpene glycoside diversity with respect to mammalian cell targets. OMICS A Journal
of Integrative Biology 6:235–246.
Keese, P. 2008. Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety
Research 7:123–149.
Kiliç, A., and M.T. Akay. 2008. A three-generation study with genetically modified Bt corn
in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food and Chemical Toxicology
46:1164–1170.
Knudsen, I., and M. Poulsen. 2007. Comparative safety testing of genetically modified foods in
a 90-day rat feeding study design allowing the distinction between primary and secondary
effects of the new genetic event. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 49:53–62.
Kouser, S., and M. Qaim. 2011. Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder
agriculture: A panel data analysis. Ecological Economics 70:2105–2113.
Kouser, S., and M. Qaim. 2013. Valuing financial, health, and environmental benefits of Bt
cotton in Pakistan. Agricultural Economics 44:323–335.
Krimsky, S. 2015. An illusory consensus behind GMO health assessment. Science, Technology,
& Human Values 40:883–914.
Krishnan, H.B., M.S. Kerley, G.L. Allee, S. Jang, W.S. Kim, and C.J. Fu. 2010. Maize 27 kDa
gamma-zein is a potential allergen for early weaned pigs. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry 58:7323–7328.
Kuc, J. 1982. Phytoalexins from the Solanaceae. Pp. 81–105 in Phytoalexins, J.A. Bailey and
J.W. Mansfield, eds. New York: Wiley.
Kuiper, H.A., E.J. Kok, and H.V. Davies. 2013. New EU legislation for risk assessment of GM
food: No scientific justification for mandatory animal feeding trials. Plant Biotechnology
Journal 11:781–784.
Ladics, G.S., and M.K. Selgrade. 2009. Identifying food proteins with allergenic potential:
Evolution of approaches to safety assessment and research to provide additional tools.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 54:S2-S6.
Ladics, G.S., G.J. Budziszewski, R.A. Herman, C. Herouet-Guicheney, S. Joshi, E.A. Lipscomb,
S. McClain, and J.M. Ward. 2014. Measurement of endogenous allergens in genetically
modified soybeans—Short communication. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
70:75–79.
Langkilde, S., M. Schrøder, T. Frank, L.V.T. Shepherd, S. Conner, H.V. Davies, O. Meyer, J.
Danier, M. Rychlik, W.R. Belknap, K.F. McCue, K.-H. Engel, D. Stewart, I. Knudsen,
and M Poulsen. 2012. Compositional and toxicological analysis of a GM potato line
with reduced α-solanine content—A 90-day feeding study in the Syrian Golden hamster.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 64:177–185.
Lee, S.H., and B.R. Hamaker. 2006. Cys 155 of 27 kDa maize γ-zein is a key amino acid to
improve its in vitro digestibility. FEBS Letters 580:5803–5806.
Ley, R.E. 2010. Obesity and the human microbiome. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology
26:5–11.
Liebsch, M., B. Grune, A. Seiler, D. Butzke, M. Oelgeschläger, R. Pirow, S. Adler, C. Riebeling,
and A. Luch. 2011. Alternatives to animal testing: Current status and future perspectives.
Archives of Toxicology 85:841–858.
Litten-Brown, J.C., A.M. Corson, and L. Clarke. 2010. Porcine models for the metabolic
syndrome digestive and bone disorders: A general overview. Animal 4:899–920.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 247
Liu, P., X. He, D. Chen, Y. Luo, S. Cao, H. Song, T. Liu, K. Huang, and W. Xu. 2012. A
90-day subchronic feeding study of genetically modified maize expressing Cry1Ac-M
protein in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:3215–3221.
Lividini, K., and J.L. Fielder. 2015. Assessing the promise of biofortification: A case study of
high provitamin A maize in Zambia. Food Policy 54:65–77.
Livingston, M, J. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. Unger, C. Osteen, D. Schimmelpfennig, T. Park,
and D. Lambert. 2015. The Economics of Glyphosate Resistance Management in Corn
and Soybean Production. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic
Research Service.
Ludvigsson, J.F., A. Rubio-Tapia, C.T. van Dyke, L.J. Lelton, A.R. Zinsmeister, B.D. Lahr, and
J.A. Murray. 2013. Increasing incidence of celiac disease in a North American population.
American Journal of Gastroenterology 108:818–824.
Lusk, R.W. 2014. Diverse and widespread contamination evident in the unmapped depths of
high throughput sequencing data. PLoS ONE 9:e110808.
MacKenzie, S.A., I. Lamb, J. Schmidt, L. Deege, M.J. Morrisey, M. Harper, R.J. Layton, L.M.
Prochaska, C. Sanders, M. Locke, J.L. Mattsson, A. Fuentes, and B. Delaney. 2007.
Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-01507-1
in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology 45:551–562.
Macpherson, A.J., K.D. McCoy, F-.E. Johansen, and P. Brandtzaeg. 2008. The immune
geography of IgA induction and function. Mucosal Immunology 1:11–22.
Magana-Gomez, J.A., and A.M.C. de la Barca. 2009. Risk assessment of genetically modified
crops for nutrition and health. Nutrition Reviews 67:1–16.
Martin, C., Y. Zhang, C. Tonelli, and K. Petroni. 2013. Plants, diet, and health. Annual
Review of Plant Biology 64:19–46.
Martín-Hernández, C., S. Bénet, and L. Obert. 2008. Determination of proteins in refined and
nonrefined oils. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56:4348–4351.
Marx-Stoelting, P., A. Braeuning, T. Buhrke, A. Lampen, L. Niemann, M. Oelgeschlaeger, S.
Rieke, F. Schmidt, T. Heise, R. Pfeil, and R. Solecki. 2015. Application of omics data
in regulatory toxicology: Report of an international BfR expert workshop. Archives in
Toxicology 89:2177–2184.
Mazza, R., M. Soave, M. Morlacchini, G. Piva, and A. Marocco. 2005. Assessing the transfer
of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Transgenic Research
14:775–784.
Miller, E.R., and D.E. Ullrey. 1987. The pig as a model for human nutrition. Annual Review
of Nutrition 7:361–382.
Miller, H.I. 1999. Substantial equivalence: Its uses and abuses. Nature Biotechnology
17:1042–1043.
Millstone, E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer. 1999. Beyond “substantial equivalence.” Nature
401:525–526.
Mink, P.J., J.S. Mandel, J.I. Lundin, and B.K. Sceurman. 2011. Epidemiologic studies of
glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: A review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
61:172–184.
Mink, P.J., J.S. Mandel, B.K. Sceurman, and J.I. Lundin. 2012. Epidemiologic studies of
glyphosate and cancer: A review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 63:440–452.
Munkvold, G.P., and A.E. Desjardins. 1997. Fumonisins in maize: Can we reduce their occurrence?
Plant Disease 81:556–565.
Murray, J.A., C. Van Dyke, M.F. Plevak, R.A. Dierkhising, A.R. Zinsmeister, and L.J. Melton.
2003. Trends in the identification and clinical features of celiac disease in a North
American community, 1950–2001. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 1:19–27.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
248 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Murthy, H.N., M.I. Georgiev, S.-Y. Park, V.S. Dandin, and K.-Y. Paek. 2015. The safety assessment
of food ingredients derived from plant cell, tissue and organ cultures: A review.
Food Chemistry 176:426–432.
Muzzalupo, I., F. Pisani, F. Greco, and A. Chiappetta. 2015. Direct DNA amplification from
virgin olive oil for traceability and authenticity. European Food Research and Technology
241:151–155.
Nakabayashi, R., K. Yonekura-Sakakibara, K. Urano, M. Suzuki, Y. Yamada, T. Nishizawa,
F. Matsuda, M. Kojima, H. Sakakibara, K. Shinozaki, A.J. Michael, T. Tohge, M.
Yamazaki, and K. Saito. 2014. Enhancement of oxidative and drought tolerance in
Arabidopsis by overaccumulation of antioxidant flavonoids. Plant Journal 77:367–379.
National Toxicology Program. 2014. Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service.
NCI (National Cancer Institute). 2014. Surveillance, Epidemology and End Results
(SEER) Program. Available at http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/
cancerfactsfigures2015/index. Accessed October 29, 2015.
Nemeth, A., A. Wurz, L. Artim, S. Charlton, G. Dana, K. Glenn, P. Hunst, J. Jennings, R.
Shilito, and P. Song. 2004. Sensitive PCR analysis of animal tissue samples for fragments
of endogenous and transgenic plant DNA. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
52:6129–6135.
Netherwood, T., S.M. Martin-Orue, A.G. O’Donnell, S. Gockling, J. Graham, J.C. Mathers,
and H.J. Gilbert. 2004. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotechnology 22:204–209.
Nicolia, A., A. Manzo, F. Veronesi, and D. Rosellini. 2014. An overview of the last 20 years of
genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 34:77–88.
Nordlee, J.A., S.L. Taylor, J.A. Townsend, L.A. Thomas, and R.K. Bush. 1996. Identification
of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybean. New England Journal of Medicine
334:688–692.
Novak, W.K., and A.G. Haslberger. 2000. Substantial equivalence of antinutritional and inherent
plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology
38:473–483.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science
and Regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The
Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches
to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and
a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nwaru, B.I., L. Hickstein, S.S. Panesar, G. Roberts, A. Muraro, and A. Sheikh. 2014. Prevalence
of common food allergies in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy
69:992–1007.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1993. Safety Evaluation
of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1998a. Test No. 408:
Repeated Dose 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents in OECD Guidelines for the Testing
of Chemicals. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 1998b. Principles of
Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring. Available at http://www.oecd.org/
officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/mc/chem(98)17&doclanguage=en.
Accessed October 13, 2015.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 249
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2000. Report
of the Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds. Available at
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/mc/
chem(98)17&doclanguage=enhttp://www.biosafety.be/ARGMO/Docments/report_
taskforce.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2015.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2006. An Introduction
to the Food/Feed Safety Consensus Documents of the Task Force. Series on the Safety of
Novel Foods and Feeds, No 14. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2015. Safety Assessment
of Foods and Feeds Derived from Transgenic Crops, Volume 2, Novel Food and Feed
Safety. Paris: OECD.
Oguchi, T., M. Onishi, Y. Chikagawa, T. Kodama, E. Suzuki, M. Kasahara, H. Akiyama, R.
Teshima, S. Futo, A. Hino, S. Furui, and K. Kitta. 2009. Investigation of residual DNAs
in sugar from sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of the Food Hygenic Society of Japan
50:41–46.
Onose, J., T. Imai, M. Hasumura, M. Ueda, Y. Ozeki, and M. Hirose. 2008. Evaluation of
subchronic toxicity of dietary administered Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis
var. Kurustaki HD-1 in F344 male rats with chemically induced gastrointestinal impairment.
Food and Chemical Toxicology 46:2184–2189.
Paine, J.A., C.A. Shipton, S. Chaggar, R.M. Howells, M.J. Kennedy, G. Vernon, S.Y. Wright, E.
Hinchliffe, J.L. Adams, A.L. Silverstone, and R. Drake. 2005. Improving the nutritional
value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology
23:482–487.
Panchin, A.Y., and A.I. Tuzhikov. 2016. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm
when corrected for multiple comparisons. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, Early
Online:1–5.
Patisaul, H.B., and W. Jefferson. 2010. The pros and cons of phytoestrogens. Frontiers in
Neuroendocrinology 31:400–419.
Patterson, J.K., X.G. Lei, and D.D. Miller. 2008. The pig as an experimental model for elucidating
the mechanisms governing dietary influence on mineral absorption. Experimental
Biology and Medicine 233:651–664.
Pecetti, L., A. Tava, A. Romani, M.G. De Benedetto, and P. Corsi. 2006. Variety and environment
effects on the dynamics of saponins in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.). European
Journal of Agronomy 25:187–192.
Phipps, R.H., E.R. Deaville, and B.C. Maddison. 2003. Detection of transgenic DNA and endogenous
plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood and feces of lactating
dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86:4070–4078.
Poulsen, M., M. Schrøder, A. Wilcks, S. Kroghsbo, R.H. Lindecrona, A. Miller, T. Frenzel,
J. Danier, M. Rychlik, Q. Shu, K. Emami, M. Taylor, A. Gatehouse, K.H. Engel, and I.
Knudsen. 2007. Safety testing of GM-rice expressing PHA-E lectin using a new animal
test design. Food Chemistry and Toxicology 45:364–377.
Racovita, M., D.N. Oboryo, W. Craig, and R. Ripandelli. 2015. What are the non-food impacts
of GM crop cultivation on farmers’ health. Environmental Evidence 4:17.
Ren, Y., T. Wang, Y. Peng, B. Xia, and L.J. Qu. 2009. Distinguishing transgenic from nontransgenic
Arabidopsis plants by (1)H NMR-based metabolic fingerprinting. Journal of
Genetics and Genomics 36:621–628.
Rhee, G.S., D.H. Cho, Y.H. Won, J.H. Seok, S.S. Kim, S.J. Kwack, R.D. Lee, S.Y. Chae, J.W.
Kim, B.M. Lee, K.L. Park, and K.S. Choi. 2005. Multigenerational reproductive and
developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on rats.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues 68:2263–2276.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
250 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Ricroch, A.E. 2013. Assessment of GE food safety using “-omics” techniques and long-term
animal feeding studies. New Biotechnology 30:349–354.
Ricroch, A., J.B. Bergé, and M. Kuntz. 2011. Evaluation of genetically engineered crops
using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology
155:1752–1761.
Ricroch, A.E., A. Berheim, C. Snell, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and M. Kuntz. 2013a. Long-term
and multi-generational animal feeding studies. Pp. 112–127 in Animal Nutrition with
Transgenic Plants, G. Flachowsky, ed. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Biotechnology Series.
Ricroch, A., A. Berheim, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and M. Kuntz. 2013b. Assessment of the health
impact of GE plant diets in long term and multigenerational animal feeding trials. P. 234
in Animal Nutrition with Transgenic Plants, G. Flachowsky, ed. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI
Biotechnology Series.
Ricroch, A.E., A. Boisron, and M. Kuntz. 2014. Looking back at safety assessment of GM
food/feed: An exhaustive review of 90-day animal feeding studies. International Journal
of Biotechnology 13:230–256.
Riddle, M.S., J.A. Murray, and C.K. Porter. 2012. The incidence and risk of celiac disease in a
healthy US population. American Journal of Gastroenterology 107:1248–1255.
Rizzi, A., L. Brusetti, S. Arioli, K.M. Nielsen, I. Tamagnini, A. Tamburini, C. Sorlini, and D.
Daffonchio. 2008. Detection of feed-derived maize DNA in goat milk and evaluation of
the potential of horizontal transfer to bacteria. European Food Research and Technology
227:1699–1709.
Rizzi, A., N. Raddadi, C. Sorlini, L. Nordgård, K.M. Nielsen, and D. Daffonchio. 2012.
The stability and degradation of dietary DNA in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals:
Implications for horizontal gene transfer and the biosafety of GMOs. Critical Reviews
in Food Science and Nutrition 52:142–161.
Roberfroid, M. 2014. Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology 65:390.
Rommens, C.M., H. Yan, K. Swords, C. Richael, and J. Ye. 2008. Low-acrylamide French
fries and potato chips. Plant Biotechnology Journal 6:843–853.
Ruan, C.J., H.B. Shao, and J.A. Teixeira da Silva. 2012. A critical review on the improvement
of photosynthetic carbon assimilation in C3 plants using genetic engineering. Critical
Reviews in Biotechnology 32:1–21.
Rubio-Tapia, A., J.F. Ludvigsson, T.L. Brantner, J.A. Murray, and J.E. Everhart. 2012. The
prevalence of celiac disease in the United States. American Journal of Gastroenterology
107:1538–1544.
Ruiz-Lopez, N., R.P. Haslam, J.A. Napier, and O. Sayanova. 2014. Successful high-level
accumulation of fish oil omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in a transgenic
oilseed crop. Plant Journal 77:198–208.
Saltzman, A., E. Birol, H.E. Bouis, E. Boy, F.F. De Moura, Y. Islam, and W.H. Pfeiffer. 2013.
Biofortification: Progress toward a more nourishing future. Global Food Security 2:9–17.
Sanahuja, G., G. Farré, J. Berman, U. Zorrilla-López, R.M. Twyman, T. Capell, P. Christou,
and C. Zhu. 2013. A question of balance: Achieving appropriate nutrient levels in biofortified
staple crops. Nutritional Research Reviews 26:235–245.
Sanders, D. 2013. Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology 53:450–453.
Schubbert, R., U. Hohlweg, D. Renz, and W. Doerfler. 1998. On the fate of orally ingested
foreign DNA in mice: Chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus.
Molecular Genetics and Genomics 259:569–576.
Séralini, G.E. 2014. Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Genetically
Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, September 16, Washington,
DC.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 251
Séralini, G.E., D. Cellier, and J.S. de Vendomois. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study
with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 52:596–602.
Séralini, G.E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, and
J.S. de Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Rounduptolerant
genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:4221–4231.
Séralini, G.E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, and
J.S. de Vendômois. 2014. Republished study: Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide
and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe
26:14.
Shepherd, L.V.T., C.A. Hackett, C.J. Alexander, J.W. McNicol, J.A. Sungurtas, D. Stewart,
K.F. McCue, W.R. Belknap, and H.V. Davies. 2015. Modifying glycoalkaloid content in
transgenic potato—Metabolome impacts. Food Chemistry 187:437–443.
Simó, C., C. Ibáñez, A. Valdés, A. Cifuentes, and V. García-Cañas. 2014. Metabolomics of
genetically modified crops. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 15:18941–18966.
Sinden, S.L., and R.E. Webb. 1972. Effect of variety and location on the glycoalkaloid content
of potatoes. American Potato Journal 49:334–338.
Singhal, K.K., A.K. Tyagi, Y.S. Rajput, M. Singh, H. Kaur, T. Perez, and G.F. Hartnell.
2011. Feed intake, milk production and composition of crossbred cows fed with insectprotected
Bollgard II® cottonseed containing Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab proteins. Animal
5:1769–1773.
Small, E. 1996. Adaptations to herbivory in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Canadian Journal of
Botany 74:807–822.
Smith, J.M. 2003. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating. Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books.
Smith, J.M. 2013. Are genetically modified foods a gut-wrenching combination? Institute for
Responsible Technology. Available at http://responsibletechnology.org/glutenintroduction/.
Accessed October 12, 2015.
Smith, J.M. 2014. Recommendations for the Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops.
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Genetically Engineered
Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, September 16, Washington, DC.
Snell, C., A. Bernheim, J.B. Berge, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and A.E. Ricroch. 2012.
Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational
animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:1134–1148.
Spisák, S., N. Solymosi, P. Ittzés, A. Bodor, D. Kondor, G. Vattay, B. Barták, F. Sipos, O.
Galamb, Z. Tulassay, Z. Szállási, S. Rasmussen, T. Sicheritz-Ponten, S. Brunak, B.
Molnár, and I. Csabai. 2013. Complete genes may pass from food to human blood.
PLoS ONE 8:e69805.
Springob, K., and T.M. Kutchan. 2009. Introduction to the different classes of natural products.
Pp. 3–50 in Plant-Derived Natural Products, A.E. Osbourn and V. Lanzotti, eds.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Steinke, K., P. Guertler, V. Paul, S. Wiedemann, T. Ettle, C. Albrecht, H.H.D. Meyer, H.
Spiekers, and F.J. Schwarz. 2010. Effects of long-term feeding of genetically modified
corn (event MON810) on the performance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal
Physiology and Animal Nutrition 94:e185–e193.
Swiatkiewicz, S., M. Swiatkiewicz, A. Arczewska-Wlosek, and D. Jozefiak. 2014. Genetically
modified feeds and their effect on the metabolic parameters of food-producing animals:
A review of recent studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 198:1–19.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
252 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
Taylor, A. November 25, 2015. EPA nixes approval of Enlist Duo weed killer. Online.
The Des Moines Register. Available at http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/
agriculture/2015/11/25/epa-nixes-approval-enlist-duo-weed-killer/76386952/. Accessed
December 13, 2015.
Taylor, B., H. Jick, and D. MacLaughlin. 2013. Prevalence and incidence rates of autism in the
UK: Time trend from 2004–2010 in children aged 8 years. BMJ 3:e003219.
Thayer, K.A., J.J. Heindel, J.R. Bucher, and M.A. Gallo. 2012. Role of environmental chemicals
in diabetes and obesity: A National Toxicology Program workshop review. Environmental
Health Perspectives 120:779–789.
Trabalza-Marinucci, M., G. Brandi, C. Rondini, L. Avellini, C. Giammarini, S. Costarelli, G.
Acuti, C. Orlandi, G. Filippini, E. Chiaradia, M. Malatesta, S. Crotti, C. Antonini, G.
Amagliani, E. Manuali, A.R. Mastrogiacomo, L. Moscati, M.N. Haouet, A. Gaiti, and
M. Magnani. 2008. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing
genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livestock
Science 113:178–190.
Treutter, D. 2006. Significance of flavonoids in plant resistance: A review. Environmental
Chemistry Letters 4:147–157.
Trikha, A., J.A. Baillargeon, Y.F. Kuo, A. Tan, K. Pierson, G. Sharma, G. Wilkinson, and R.S.
Bonds. 2013. Development of food allergies in patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux
Disease treated with gastric acid suppressive medications. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology
24:582–588.
Turnbaugh, P.J., M. Hamady, T. Yatsunenko, B.L. Cantarel, A. Duncan, R.E. Ley, M.L. Sogin,
W.J. Jones, B.A. Roe, J.P. Affourtit, M. Egholm, B. Henrissat, A.C. Heath, R. Knight, and
J.I. Gordon. 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457:480–484.
Untersmayr, E., and E. Jensen-Jarolim. 2008. The role of protein digestibility and antacids
on food allergy outcomes. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 121:1301–1308.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 65+ in the United States: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Pharmacopeia. 2000. Pharmacopeia, simulated gastric fluid, TS, simulated intestinal
fluid, TS. United States Pharmacopeial Convention, v. 24. The National Formulary 9 (US
Pharmacopiea Board of Trustees), Rockville, MD, 2235.
USDA–APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service).
2014a. Dow AgroSciences Petitions (09-233-01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for Determinations
of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties. Final
Environmental Impact Statement—August 2014. Available at https://www.regulations.
gov/document?D=APHIS-2013-0042-10218. Accessed May 9, 2016.
USDA–APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service).
2014b. Record of Decision: Dow AgroSciences Petitions (09-233-01p, 09-349-01p, and
11-234-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and
Soybean Varieties. Available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/24d_rod.pdf.
Accessed December 13, 2015.
USDA–APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service).
2014c. Determinations of Nonregulated Status: J.R. Simplot Co.; Potato Genetically
Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise. Available
at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0067-0384. Accessed
December 22, 2015.
USRDS (United States Renal Data System). 2014. CKD in the general population. Pp. 12–22
in 2014 USRDS Annual Data Report Volume 1. Available at http://www.usrds.org/2014/
view/Default.aspx. Accessed October 13, 2015.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS 253
Valdés, L., A. Cuervo, N. Salazr, P. Ruas-Madiedo, M. Gueimondea, and S. González. 2015.
The relationship between phenolic compounds from diet and microbiota: Impact on human
health. Food & Function 6:2424–2439.
van den Eede, G., H. Aarts, H.J. Buhk, G. Corthier, H.J. Flint, W. Hammes, B. Jacobsen, T.
Midtvedt, J. van der Vossen, A. von Wright, W. Wackernagel, and A. Wilcks. 2004. The
relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified
(GM) plants. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42:1127–1156.
Van Eenennaam, A.L., and A.E. Young. 2014. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered
feedstuffs on livestock populations. Journal of Animal Science 92:4255–4278.
VanEtten, H., J.W. Mansfield, J.A. Bailey, and E.E. Farmer. 1994. Two classes of plant
antibiotics: Phytoalexins versus “phytoanticipins.” The Plant Cell 6:1191–1192.
Verhoeckx, K.C.M., Y.M. Vissers, J.L. Baumert, R. Faludi, M. Feys, S. Flanagan, C. HerouetGuicheney,
T. Holzhauser, R. Shimojo, N. van der Bolt, H. Wichers, and I. Kimber. 2015.
Food processing and allergenicity. Food and Chemical Toxicology 80:223–240.
Wal, J.M. 2015. Assessing and managing allergenicity of genetically modified (GM) foods.
Pp. 161–178 in Handbook of Food Allergen Detection and Control, S. Flanagan, ed.
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Walsh, M.C., S.G. Buzoianu, G.E. Gardiner, M.C. Rea, E. Gelencsér, A. Jánosi, M.M. Epstein,
R.P. Ross, and P.G. Lawlor. 2011. Fate of transgenic DNA from orally administered
Bt MON810 maize and effects on immune response and growth in pigs. PLoS ONE
6:e27177.
Walsh, M.C., S.G. Buzoianu, M.C. Rea, O. O’Donovan, E. Gelencsér, G. Ujhelyi, R.G. Ross,
G.E. Gardiner, and P.G. Lawlor. 2012a. Effects of feeding Bt MON810 maize to pigs
for 110 days on peripheral immune response and digestive fate of the Cry1Ab gene and
truncated Bt toxin. PLoS ONE 7:e36141.
Walsh, M.C., S.G. Buzoianu, G.E. Gardiner, M.C. Rea, R.P. Ross, J.P. Cassidy, and P.G. Lawlor.
2012b. Effects of short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize on growth performance, organ
morphology and function in pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 107:364–371.
Walsh, M.C., S.G. Buzoianu, G.E. Gardiner, M.C. Rea, O. O’Donovan, R.P. Ross, and P.G.
Lawlor. 2013. Effects of feeding Bt MON810 maize to sows during first gestation
and lactation on maternal and offspring health indicators. British Journal of Nutrition
109:873–881.
Wang, X., X. Chen, J. Xu, C. Dai, and W. Shen. 2015. Degradation and detection of transgenic
Bacillus thuringiensis DNA and proteins in flour of three genetically modified rice
events submitted to a set of thermal processes. Food and Chemical Toxicology 84:89–98.
Weber, A. 2014. C4 Photosynthesis—A Target for Genome Engineering. Presentation to the
National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience
and Future Prospects, December 10, Washington, DC.
West, J., K.M. Fleming, L.J. Tata, T.R. Card, and C.J. Crooks. 2014. Incidence and prevalence
of celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis in the UK over two decades: Populationbased
study. American Journal of Gastroenterology 109:757–768.
Wiatrak, P.J., D.L. Wright, J.J. Marois, and D. Wilson. 2005. Influence of planting date on
aflatoxin accumulation in Bt, non-Bt, and tropical non-Bt hybrids. Agronomy Journal
97:440–445.
Wiener, J.B., M.D. Rogers, J.K. Hammitt, and P.H. Sand, eds. 2011. The Reality of Precaution:
Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe. New York: RFF Press.
Wild, C.P., and Y.Y. Gong. 2010. Mycotoxins and human disease: A largely ignored global
health issue. Carcinogensis 31:71–82.
Williams, J.H., T.D. Phillips, P.E. Jolly, J.K. Stiles, C.M. Jolly, and D. Aggarwal. 2004. Human
aflatoxicosis in developing countries: A review of toxicology, exposure, potential health
consequences, and interventions. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 80:1106–1122.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
254 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
World Health Organization. 2014. Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods.
Available at http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/Frequently_
asked_questions_on_gm_foods.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2016.
Wu, G., M. Truksa, N. Datla, P. Vrinten, J. Bauer, T. Zank, P. Cirpus, E. Heinz, and X. Qiu.
2005. Stepwise engineering to produce high yields of very long-chain polyunsaturated
fatty acids in plants. Nature Biotechnology 23:1013–1017.
Wu, Y., D.R. Holding, and J. Messing. 2010. γ-Zeins are essential for endosperm medication
in quality protein maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 107:12810–12815.
Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. 2000. Engineering
the provitamin A (β-Carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice
endosperm. Science 287:303–305.
Yudina, T.G., A.L. Brioukhanov, I.A. Zalunin, L.P. Revina, A.I. Shestakov, N.E. Voyushina,
G.G. Chestukhina, and A.I. Netrusov. 2007. Antimicrobial activity of different proteins
and their fragments from Bacillus thuringiensis parasporal crystals against clostridia and
archaea. Anaerobe 13:6–13.
Zhang, C., A. Yin, H. Li, R. Wang, G. Wu, J. Shen, M. Zhang, L. Wang, Y. Houb, H. Ouyang,
Y. Zhang, Y. Zheng, J. Wang, X. Lv, Y. Wang, F. Zhang, B. Zeng, W. Li, F. Yan, Y.
Zhao, X. Pang, X. Zhang, H. Fu, F. Chen, N. Zhao, B.R. Hamaker, L.C. Bridgewater,
D. Weinkove, K. Clement, J. Dore, E. Holmes, H. Xiao, G. Zhao, S. Yang, P. Bork, J.K.
Nicholson, H. Wei, H. Tang, X. Zhang, and L. Zhao. 2015. Dietary modulation of gut
microbiota contributes to alleviation of both genetic and simple obesity in children.
EBioMedicine 2:968–984.
Zhu, X.-G., L. Shan, Y. Wang, and W.P. Quick. 2010. C4 rice—an ideal arena for systems
biology research. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 52:762–770.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:08 am
@maporsche,
Gasnier, C., C. Dumont, N. Benachour, E. Clair, M.C. Chagnon, and G.-É. Séralini. 2009.
Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.
Toxicology 262:184–191.
___________________________________________________

What do you make of that one?

Now what were the results of those other safety studies? Your lengthy copy and paste list does not indicate conclusions. I will try to find something on the conclusions of these studies.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:10 am
@Glennn,
See the next post.

The formatting look much better in the actual report that contains the information you're pretending to seek.

Have one of those in particular you'd like to discuss?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:22 am
@maporsche,
Here is a study found in the International Journal of Biological Sciences. It is Titled: A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Here is their conclusion:

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
 
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

It seems there is a conflict between authorities here . . .
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:31 am
@Glennn,
What's the conflict?

The recommendation is that we should continue to study each GMO more and more. I agree and so do other scientists and the health organizations.

It's worth pointing out that rats and humans have different biologies and despite being close, what effects one doesn't necessarily effect the other.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:36 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
The recommendation is that we should continue to study each GMO more and more.

But that was not the response from Monsanto when confronted with the study I posted. Monsanto responded to the study by stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Quote:
It's worth pointing out that rats and humans have different biologies and despite being close, what effects one doesn't necessarily effect the other.

Makes you wonder why Monsanto, or anyone, uses mice, huh?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:39 am
@Glennn,
Some "peer review" of that study you published.

https://www.biofortified.org/2012/09/gm-corn-and-cancer/

Quote:
The study focuses on cancers in rats. For this they use the Harlan Sprague-Dawley strain of rat, which is known to be predisposed to getting cancer. Lots of them. Over 70% of males and 87% of females from this strain reportedly get cancer during their lifetime, whether they have been fed GM corn or not. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many of Seralini’s rats were found with cancer.


Quote:
Still on Figure 1, we see that several “treatment groups” of male rats receiving GM NK603 corn (the 22% group and 33% group) actually had fewer cancers than the male control group.

Similarly, a treatment group of male rats receiving 33% GM corn and Roundup had no difference to the control group, and two treatment groups receiving Roundup (A and C) had the same or less incidence of cancer compared with the control group.


Concluding with
Quote:
So, what have we learnt?
This study has shown that old Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats get cancers and other diseases. This has been shown before.

What this study does not show is that exposing these rats to GM corn and/or Roundup makes any difference to the frequency of cancers or other diseases. It can’t because no statistical tests have been applied, and perhaps most worryingly, the authors do not comprehensively report on why rats in the control group died.

This study can hardly be the basis from which any government should make policy decisions or draw conclusions about the safety of the NK603 GM maize or Roundup.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:41 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

But that was not the response from Monsanto when confronted with the study I posted. Monsanto responded to the study by stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."


Maybe Monsanto was right in this case; see the link I just posted.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:47 am
@maporsche,
In fact, the very journal where the original study was published had to issue a retraction of that study.

https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology

Stating:

Quote:
The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article.


0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:48 am
@maporsche,
Concerning your concerns about the controversial work of Seralini, Paul Deheuvels is an eminent statistician and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. Yet he was not consulted when the Academy released a statement discrediting the results of the study on GMOs, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini. Revolted by these methods, Paul Deheuvels goes back over this matter where pressures and conflicts of interest got the upper hand. Here is the beginning of an interview with him:

[Rebelle-Sante:] How did you find out about the French Academy of Sciences’ position on this matter?

[Deheuvels:] In November 2011, during an award ceremony at the Academy, I exchanged a few words with one of my colleagues at the Institute, Professor Alain-Jacques Valleron, a biostatistician, for whom I have huge respect.

He made me aware that the Academy was preparing a statement on Gilles-Eric Séralini’s article. As I am currently the only member of the French Academy of Sciences 100% specialised in statistics, I was astonished not to have been consulted to judge this research, which has an important statistical content. Alain-Jacques Valleron told me that he found this study absolutely worthless. According to him, it had no value; it did not demonstrate anything and deserved to be exposed to public contempt. In return, I gave him a completely different opinion with solid arguments that I tried to get across.

During this discussion, I accidently found out that Professor Jean-François Bach, president of the Academy, intended to make public a very critical opinion of the same study. Finding it strange I asked to be in contact with Bach. The next day, he contacted me by telephone and told me that he thought that Professor Séralini’s work should be categorically rejected. Unsurprisingly, I exposed my arguments leading to a position opposing his. During this discussion, Professor Bach kindly tempered his statements, telling me that, in the main, he and I should be able to reach a consensus. I told him that if we were able to find common ground, my reservations should be at the very least added to any communication that the Academy would be willing to make about this question, in order for the debate to remain balanced. He replied: "Too late, the shot has been fired."

The rest of the interview can be seen here:

http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/52...h-academy-of-sciences-hatchet-job-on-seralini

______________________________________________________


So already we see how things work.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:51 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

So already we see how things work.


I'm seeing how conspiracy theories may work.

The website I posted has some scientific critique about the Seralini study.

Do you have any thoughts on those?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 11:52 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
The website I posted has some scientific critique about the Seralini study. Do you have any thoughts on those?

Yes, I do.

After the publication of the study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, the first study carried out on rats fed NK603 maize over their whole lifespan, which shows that the toxicity of these GMOs on rats, many criticisms and questions have arisen about the conditions in which the study was carried out and its credibility. Dr Joel Spiroux, co-author and assistant director of the study, and president of Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) responds.

First criticism: 200 rats is too small a sample for a solid study ...

- The sample of 200 rats, 20 rats per group, is the same number of rats used [GMW note: analysed] by Monsanto in its 3-month study. In contrast, we studied many more toxicological endpoints. An experiment with more rats would have cost more money. The study already cost 3.2 million Euro.

The type of rats used, Sprague-Dawley, is known to easily develop tumours ...

- Yes, but this type of rat is used the world over for toxicological research. These rats have the advantage of being stable in biological and physical levels. They all pretty much the same profile, the same weight ... These are the rats used from the beginning in the research on GMOs by the firms that produce them, including by Monsanto. And the facts are there: those that were fed GM corn, with or without Roundup, develop more diseases. And much faster.

Looking closely, male rats fed GM corn does not generally develop more tumours than the controls ...

- One must look at the speed which which tumours are triggered. In all three treatment groups of rats, tumours or diseases of the kidneys and liver begin in the 4th month and explode in the 11th and 12th months. Which corresponds to the age of 35 to 40 years in a human. In the control group, tumours occurred mostly at the end of life, in the 23rd and 24th months, which seems to be normal in these rats.

Scientists point to the lack of information on the exact composition of the diet on which rats were fed ...

- These are standard biscuits/chow, the same again as those used by the producers of GMOs in their studies. The only difference is that we have precisely measured the concentration of GM maize: 11% for the first group, 22% for the second and 33% for the third.

The amount of GMO consumed by the rats is more than is consumed by humans...

- Think again. The doses of NK603 maize are comparable to what humans eat over a lifetime in America, where GMOs are sold freely, unlabelled, untraceable. This prevents them being identified as a cause of disease and opens the door to denial. This is why we hear for example that Americans have been eating GMOs for 15 years and are not sick.

The magazine chosen to publish the study, "Food and Chemical Toxicology," is not the most prestigious in the United States.

- It is far from being secondary: it is an internationally known scientific journal. Publications are subject to peer review, and the peer reviewers express contradictory opinions. And it's the same journal in which Monsanto and other manufacturers publish their counter-studies.

We also hear that Gilles-Eric Seralini is committedly anti-GM, that he got the results he wanted.

- Absolutely not. Gilles-Eric Seralini the Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) and researchers in his lab at the University of Caen are also working on genetically modified organisms, because it gives them access to the knowledge of life. They have nothing against GMOs for the manufacture of drugs. Insulin, for example, is produced from GMOs. This does not prevent me from prescribing it to my patients with diabetes. One can recognize these medicines by the presence on the label of the term "recombinant protein". So yes to GMOs in the pharmaceutical laboratory. However, Gilles-Eric Seralini and we are against agricultural GMOs, because they are inadequately labelled and their long-term toxicity is poorly studied.

You are not oncologists, what do you know about tumours?

- No, we are not oncologists and have never said otherwise. This is a toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study, which follows other protocols. Moreover, we have nowhere stated that tumours were cancerous. These are fibro-adenomas and kerato-acanthomas [?chirato-acantomes], which can turn into cancer in older rats.

A counter-study is needed.

- We agree. We also want a counter-study, but it must be carried out by independent researchers. Not by those who produce studies for manufacturers of GMOs. That is not the position of the EFSA at the moment (European Food Safety Agency).
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 12:08 pm
@maporsche,
Here are some responses to the issues raised concerning criticisms of the Seralini study which are supplied by scientists with expertise in this field.
________________________________________

CRITICISM: Strain of rats used Sprague-Dawley (SD) is prone to tumours

RESPONSE: SD rats have been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products. They were used in the 90-day feeding trial that was conducted by industry to evaluate the toxicity of NK603 GM maize as part of the application for approval within the EU. They were also used in the original glyphosate two-year toxicity studies conducted in 2002 for regulatory approval within the EU.

The industry standard for toxicity tests performed by industry for regulatory purposes is the international protocol set out by the OECD (Organisation for International Cooperation and Development). This says that long-term carcinogenicity studies should be performed with the same strain of rat as used in shorter mid-term experiments, because this allows effects seen in the shorter experiment to be tracked to see how they develop in the long-term experiment, without the confounding factor that would occur if a different strain of rat was employed. Therefore, based on the past use of SD rats in trials of GM food and glyphosate it was scientifically correct and consistent to use this strain in Prof Seralini's long-term study.

The rats that consumed NK603 GM maize and/or Roundup in Prof Seralini's trial had an incidence of tumours, which was not just significantly greater than the control rats but also also significantly greater than observed in previous studies of SD rats. The tumour incidence in the test groups in his study was overall around three times higher than that the normal rate observed in the Harlan Sprague Dawley rat strain he used, as reported in the literature (Brix et al., 2005) including in the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992).

Furthermore, the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts.

Just to illustrate the point by analogy. We know that a small proportion of people who never smoke get lung cancer. If you smoke, the rate/risk of getting lung cancer is about 12 times higher than if you don't smoke. The measurement is called a "relative risk". So, imagine that there is an ethnic group of people with a higher rate of naturally occurring lung cancer. We know that if people in that group smoke, their rate of lung cancer will still increase like everybody else.


CRITICISM: The control groups were far too small. Looks like "random variation" in rats liable to develop tumours.

RESPONSE: This two year life-long experiment was conducted in a GLP environment according to international OECD guidelines in terms of animals used.

Standard practice is for the control group to be matched in size to the experimental groups. The experimental groups were 20 animals [10 male + 10 female] and therefore the control group should be 20 animals.

Prof [Anthony] Trewavas is not correct to say: "The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Only 10 rodents so far as I can see and some of these develop tumours. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 (divided into groups of ten) control rodents these results are of no value." The 20 animal control group is big enough to get a measure of tumour frequency. You don't need to look at hundreds of animals. If he believes this, then he should also agree that the studies done by others including industry are also invalid.

The key thing is that there are big differences between the tumour frequencies in the control and the experimental groups (see previous answer). Claims that the results are just the result of random variation in a rat line that has a high frequency of tumours are not valid. The evidence for this is that the differences between the groups are much larger than the standard deviations of the two groups. In Seralini's study, the differences are so large that it is not necessary to use a statistical test. This study used more rats in test groups, for a far longer duration, than any previous investigation employed by industry to obtain approval for NK603 GM maize and other GM crop products.


CRITICISM: The statistical analysis was flawed. Didn't use standard methods. A "statistical fishing trip".

RESPONSE: The statistical analysis was one of a number of valid methods that could have been used to evaluate a diverse set of data sets. An expert statistician was part of the research team and this was certainly not a "fishing trip". Significance in many liver and kidney parameters are shown and highlighted in the Tables 1 and 2.


CRITICISM: No data was given about the rats' food intake or possible contamination of the maize with fungus, which could have influenced results.

RESPONSE: The rats had unrestricted access to food and water and there were no differences in consumption or drinking levels between controls and test groups except for the group exposed to the highest Roundup concentration, which drank less water, perhaps due to the presence of high amounts of this herbicide making the water taste different.

All feeds were biochemically analysed to make sure they were nutritionally equivalent and no other toxins were present.


CRITICISM: Why were some test groups healthier than controls? How does one address the 30% premature death rate of males within the control group?

RESPONSE: From the mortality and tumour incidence rates in Figures 1 and 2 some test groups were not significantly better or worse than the controls. Yes, there were some premature deaths not only in the male but also female control groups. However, the levels are still lower than that observed in most test groups.


CRITICISM: Another red flag was that tumour rates didn't increase in line with the dose of GMOs fed to animals, as scientists would expect to see if the genetically engineered corn were to blame, said Kevin Folta, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Instead, "you are likely seeing variation of normal tumour incidence in a small population of rats," he said.

RESPONSE: We are not dealing here with a regular poison effect where increasing the dose will increase toxic effects. What is observed is due to hormonal system disturbances, which are known to display nonlinear effects ("U" or "G" shape responses to exposure). That is, for example, a low dose can have a disturbing effect and a higher dose can have no effect and then an even higher dose can elicit a response (U-shape response). Indeed, non-linear responses were to be expected in the rats treated with Roundup, as glyphosate, its active ingredient, is known to disrupt the endocrine system. In addition, in this case a threshold effect was also observed where a low dose appeared to saturate the system and so a higher dose had no additional effect.

(For an authoritative review on non-linear dose responses in hormonal systems, which the data implies is taking place in Prof Seralini's study, see Hormones and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Low Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses, Vandenberg et al 2012).


CRITICISM: The mechanism is unclear. Why should GM maize cause tumours? Why should Roundup have the same effect?

RESPONSE: These are very good questions that only future research will provide clear answers. However, Prof Seralini's team hypothesises that the reason why the GM maize alone [without Roundup added] is affecting the liver and mammary gland systems is due to the EPSPS GM gene. The function of this GM gene may be the reason why the authors found that the GM maize had significantly lower amounts (up to 50%) of substances (caffeic and ferulic acids), which have protective effects against cancer formation and even mammalian tumours. Moreover, these phenolic acids and in particular ferulic acid may modulate estrogen hormone function as does glyphosate in the Roundup.

Future research will ascertain whether these hypotheses are significant contributory factors or whether the cause lies elsewhere, such as disturbances arising from the mutagenic effects of the GM transformation process.


CRITICISM: The results are out of line with other long-term studies that have investigated the safety of GMOs fed to a range of animals including chickens, rats, mice, quail, monkeys and fish, said Agnes Ricroch, a geneticist at the University of Paris XI and Pennsylvania State University, who co-wrote a review of 24 such studies that was published this year.

RESPONSE: It is scientifically incorrect to compare this long-term study with this particular variety of GM maize to other investigations using different GM feeds and different animals. Different animals have different anatomies and biochemistry; different GM feeds will have different compositions. One needs to compare like with like.

The study by Prof Seralini is the first long term feeding trial with this particular variety of Roundup tolerant GM maize, fed at three different doses. The only previous investigation with NK603 GM maize is a 90 day feeding study conducted by industry as part of its application for approval within the EU. This involved only two doses and a much narrower range of analyses. However, upon close independent scrutiny even this short term feeding trial showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. The paper referred to [Ricroch] is a review of 24 GM feeding studies that are mostly short to medium term (90 days) and also measure a small range of organ and biochemical functions compared with Prof Seralini's work.

Some of the studies referred to in this [Ricroch] review do in fact show statistically significant signs of toxicity to liver, kidney and immune systems arising from the consumption of GM soy and maize. Nevertheless, the authors dismissed these as not biologically relevant, without further empirical investigation. Despite these early signs of toxicity, the authors of this review did not recommend extending these mostly short and medium-term studies to see what would happen. Prof Seralini's work has now filled in this gap with a two-year lifetime trial and has provided hard data which raises serious concerns.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 12:16 pm
@Glennn,
I’m out running errands but I don’t see these quotes attributed to any particular scientists
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 12:42 pm
@maporsche,
And then we have EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) who chimed in on the Séralini paper. About that, they said this:

Taking into consideration Member States’ assessments and the authors’ answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.

However:

In 2012 the European Court of
Auditors issued its report on the conflicts
of interest policies at four European agencies,
EFSA among them. The Court concluded
that, while EFSA's policies were
among the most advanced, none of the
agencies adequately managed conflicts of
interest.

EFSA experts involved in assessing the
risks of GM foods have attracted criticism
for their closeness to industry. In 2010,
12 out of 21 experts on the genetically modified
organism (GMO) Panel that issued a scientific
opinion that was key to the approval of a GM
potato had conflictsof interest as defined by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
 
The Séralini affair was the latest in a long
series of controversies over EFSA's closeness
to industry. An earlier dispute involved the
long-standing relationship of the chair of
EFSA's management board, Diána Bánáti,
with the industry-funded International Life
Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI is funded by the
same agribusiness, food and biotechnology
companies whose products EFSA assesses for safety.
 
EFSA was accused by scientific organisations
and individual scientists of applying
double standards to studies on GM foods.
They said that EFSA rejected Séralini's
findings yet accepted less rigorously
designed studies from industry as proof of
safety of GM foods.

Even the design of EFSA's GMO risk assessment
standards was influenced by an
ILSI task force headed by a Monsanto
employee. They are based on the concept
of comparative assessment, a rewording of
the controversial concept of substantial
equivalence. Substantial equivalence
assumes that GM crops are equivalent to
non-GM crops and do not require rigorous
safety assessment. Currently, in the EU,
substantial equivalence must be measured, but
the analysis is confined to known basic components
of the GM food such as protein and fats.
Unexpected changes such as novel toxins
or allergens are likely to be missed.
 
In 2012, EFSA's scientific committee published an
opinion recommending the of the threshold of
toxicological concern in the risk assessment of chemicals
in food. The opinion stated that an exposure level
of 0.15 μg per person per day is acceptable for genotoxic
substances (substances that damage DNA, possibly giving
rise to cancer and birth defects). EFS's opinion
contradicted its own previous opinion which stated that it is
current practice to assume that there is no safe level of
exposure for genotoxic substances. It also undermined the
pesticide Regulation, which forbids approval of genotoxins.

The impartiality of the 2012 opinion is
in doubt, since 10 of the 13 members of
the EFSA working group on the threshold
of toxicological concern had a publishing
history favouring its use or had previously
advocated its use. Eight had formal links
with ILSI.
___________________________________________________

Sometimes conspiracy theory is conspiracy fact, eh?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 12:49 pm
Yeah, everything I'm reading about this study suggests that it's statistically flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Maybe someone should recreate it in a scientifically valid way.


Pick one of the ones I posted and let's review them next!
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 12:52 pm
@maporsche,
Or let's look at real life people.

There have to be countries for example where GMO foods are not as prevalent as in the USA.

How do we compare?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 05:30:02