Tech | January 17, 2012 | 16 comments

The next generation of GMOs could be especially dangerous

Image
JanforGore
Did a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of genetically modified foods? According to Ari Levaux at the Atlantic, the answer is a resounding yes.

The study in question, performed by researchers at China’s Nanjing University and published in the journal Cell Research, found that a form of genetic material — called microRNA — from conventional rice survived the human digestive process and proceeded to affect cholesterol function in humans.

Levaux argues that this new study “reveals a pathway by which genetically modified (GM) foods might influence human health” which should cause us to completely revisit the question of GM crops’ safety. And he’s right to be alarmed, just a little off on the reasoning.

Let’s take a closer look at how this study applies to current GM technology, shall we?

I would argue that several studies have already suggested that existing GM foods might present a health risk. For example, this study in The International Journal of Biological Sciences found evidence that Monsanto’s Bt corn causes organ damage in lab animals. Then there’s this one which showed that GM soybeans can alter mice on the cellular level — an indication that genetically modified material survives digestion and is active in animals that consume it.

Of course, advocates of genetically modified foods will observe that the phenomenon of genetic transfer through consumption applies to all plants and that GM foods are therefore “substantially equivalent” to non-GM foods. As Levaux explains at length, this concept of substantial equivalence has been used by the biotech industry as well as our government to push GM foods through safety testing with minimal scrutiny. What’s Monsanto’s defense of all this? On its website, the company claims:

There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods … DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard … So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks.

So the fact that the Chinese team found active genetic material going from plants to humans isn’t really new and doesn’t really change what we know about how existing genetically engineered crops might affect us.

But what is new — and what Levaux missed — is that the Chinese study happens to involve exactly the kind of genetic matrieral — microRNA — that biotech companies hope to use in their next generation of genetically modified foods.

Today’s GMOs are almost entirely based on adding new genes to crops like corn, soy, and cotton in order to alter the way the plants function. And even then new functions are mostly limited to making plants either able to tolerate herbicides or to produce their own. But if biotechnology companies are successful in their efforts, there may soon be genetically modified foods that use microRNA — simply put, snippets of RNA whose potency were only discovered around a decade ago — to target, and block the function of specific genes in pests.

Thus the news that plant microRNA can survive digestion and affect human systems brings into question the wisdom of pursuing this kind of technology in food.

As explained to me by Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists and expert in genetically modified foods, microRNA technology is an area that biotech companies are actively pursuing. Monsanto itself has a whole web page devoted to the technology, which they call RNA interference.

Gurian-Sherman notes that the Chinese study — though requiring confirmation and follow-up research — raises “an initial red flag.” It calls into question “any general statement that [microRNA] technology would be inherently safe,” he adds.

He observes that humans and insects share a surprising amount of DNA material — evolution favors reusing and recycling genes even among creatures as different as insects and humans. If this research bears out, then it’s entirely possible that microRNA meant to target a specific insect gene will also have an effect — possibly unpredictable — in humans. This is especially true because, for technology like this to work as a pesticide, the microRNA must be present in high levels in the plant, which makes it even more likely the genetic material will make it all the way into the human gut.

snip

UPDATE: Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union wrote to me after this post was published with an important point about the significance of the Chinese study. While he agreed that the main implications relate to the possible risk from microRNA-based GM foods, he also felt that this study did make a new and somewhat startling finding regarding how plant genetic material affects humans. As he put it, the study “showed that the miRNA not only survived digestion [in humans] but also was taken up and moved to other parts of the body where a specific impact was noted. The studies you cited — from Seralini’s lab and Malatesta’s lab — only show that GE crops can have an adverse effect on animals.”

more at the link
  1. groups:
    Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Earth and Science,   10 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Health Food Nature 28 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

16 comments // The next generation of GMOs could be especially dangerous

  • JanforGore
  • circlesquared
    • +1
      circlesquared  
    • Our need to control the uncontrollable is unsustainable and a waste of resources...time to wake up. This is our world and experience and it's time to take back our direction.

    • 4 months ago
  • freehit
    • +1
      freehit  
    • The concept of substantial equivalence was used to avoid testing but to get their sh*t patented, it sudenly became completely new and different from anything else and not equivelent to anything. Amazing how it can be both when it suits them and we can thank king George Bush the 1st for that.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ambill94
    • +1
      Ambill94  
    • How fucking depressing...and no agency nor Congress is stepping up to intervene in what is apparently a GMO free for all with total reckless abandon regarding public health...not even the Surgeon General??? Are we that far down the path of tyranny???

    • 4 months ago
  • Dagum
    • +1
      Dagum  
    • Monsanto's official response is absurd. It begs the question, are the negative effects of GMOs on humans just some unforeseeable and unfortunate side effect or is it an intentional outcome?

      Obviously, DNA is the building block of all life. When you eat a normal strawberry you consume the DNA of the strawberry, which humans have evolved to safely digest over a million year process. When you eat a Monsanto berry you could theoretically be consuming the additional DNA of Wasp, a poisonous sea slug, or whatever other DNA they managed to add in that is not native to the organism. You just have to take Monsanto's word that they are only introducing proteins to the organism from a list that someone somewhere classified as safe.

      But with the next generation of GMOs with microRNA being designed to target and block the function of specific genes and the phenomenon of genetic transfer through consumption, isn't it conceivable that as the science evolves you could tailor microRNA not only with the intent affecting the genetically modified organism but also with the intent of affecting the genes of the human consumer of the GMO?

    • 4 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • MotherForTruth
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • "There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops."

      This line to me is a confession.They either know it is dangerous down the line and or they just don't care.They know splicing genes from one species into another is risky and irresponsible.They know it may welll lead to health and environmental complications, genetic contamination and perhaps even worldwide famine if these traits fail or mutate due to their monoculture mania and certain environmental factors. Yet, they persist with the aid of the government of the U.S. and it's 1% backers. I really try not to get caught up in what others in their haste might call "conspiracy theories," but this has all the earmarks of an assault on the masses in order to gain control of their lives and livelihoods through their food. And you can be sure any candidate running for president in ths U.S. in this election now is just as beholding to Monsanto as any before.

    • 4 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-geneti...

      Article from the Atlantic.
      Excerpt:

      "In 1999, a group of scientists wrote a letter titled "Beyond Substantial Equivalence" to the prestigious journal Nature. In the letter, Erik Millstone et. al. called substantial equivalence "a pseudo-scientific concept" that is "inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests."

      To these charges, Monsanto responded: "The concept of substantial equivalence was elaborated by international scientific and regulatory experts convened by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1991, well before any biotechnology products were ready for market."

      This response is less a rebuttal than a testimonial to Monsanto's prowess at handling regulatory affairs. Of course the term was established before any products were ready for the market. Doing so was a prerequisite to the global commercialization of GM crops. It created a legal framework for selling GM foods anywhere in the world that substantial equivalence was accepted. By the time substantial equivalence was adopted, Monsanto had already developed numerous GM crops and was actively grooming them for market.

      The OECD's 34 member nations could be described as largely rich, white, developed, and sympathetic to big business. The group's current mission is to spread economic development to the rest of the world. And while the mission has yet to be accomplished, OECD has helped Monsanto spread substantial equivalence globally.

      Many GM fans will point out that if we do toxicity tests on GM foods, we should also have to do toxicity testing on every other kind of food in the world.

      But we've already done the testing on the existing plants. We tested them the hard way, by eating strange things and dying, or almost dying, over thousands of years. That's how we've figured out which plants are poisonous. And over the course of each of our lifetimes we've learned which foods we're allergic to.

      All of the non-GM breeds and hybrid species that we eat have been shaped by the genetic variability offered by parents whose genes were similar enough that they could mate, graft, or test tube baby their way to an offspring that resembled them.

      A tomato with fish genes? Not so much. That, to me, is a new plant and it should be tested. We shouldn't have to figure out if it's poisonous or allergenic the old fashioned way, especially in light of how new-fangled the science is.

      It's time to re-write the rules to acknowledge how much more complicated genetic systems are than the legal regulations -- and the corporations that have written them -- give credit.

      Monsanto isn't doing itself any PR favors by claiming "no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans." Admittedly, such testing can be difficult to construct -- who really wants to volunteer to eat a bunch of GM corn just to see what happens? At the same time, if companies like Monsanto want to use processes like RNA interference to make plants that can kill insects via genetic pathways that might resemble our own, some kind of testing has to happen.

      A good place to start would be the testing of introduced DNA for other effects -- miRNA-mediated or otherwise -- beyond the specific proteins they code for. But the status quo, according to Monsanto's website, is:

      There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods. DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.

      Given what we know, that stance is arrogant. Time will tell if it's reckless.

      There are computational methods of investigating whether unintended RNAs are likely to be knocking down any human genes. But thanks to this position, the best we can do is hope they're using them. Given it's opposition to the labeling of GM foods as well, it seems clear that Monsanto wants you to close your eyes, open your mouth, and swallow.

      It's time for Monsanto to acknowledge that there's more to DNA than the proteins it codes for -- even if it's for no other reason than the fact that RNA alone is a lot more complicated that Watson and Crick could ever have imagined."

    • 5 months ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • JanforGore
  • circlesquared
  • MotherForTruth
    • +2
      MotherForTruth  
    • Monsanto does not have any obstacles in their distractive plan. Who does Monsanto have on their payroll? Each American must voice their disapproval. We are all effected.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • MotherForTruth
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • I have to say it: It is frightening to me that Monsanto is being allowed to pursue this with their track record. This takes GMOs to a whole new and potentially dangerous level. Silencing genes without knowing the consequences and or effects on the crop, humans and the environment as a whole is reckless to the extreme. And the premise of "substantial equivalence" I am sure would be applied to this as well without proper testing. I am going to be researching this more and will continue to provide information on it whenever I find it.

    • 5 months ago
more from Tech:

top videos