Monday, June 18, 2012

Research on Biotech Safety

 Criticism of Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified Foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada:

 No More Crying About Your Stats Class and Cry1Ab: An Application of the Coefficient of Variation 

Crticism of the ELISA Technique and Cry1Ab Detection

 

More on the Safety of Cry1Ab


References Related to Cry1Ab Protein Toxicity and Absorption



Biotech in General:

Stop worrying; start growing EMBO Open Risk research on GM crops is a dead parrot: it is time to start reaping the benefits of GM
Torbjörn Fagerström, Christina Dixelius, Ulf Magnusson & Jens F Sundström
Science & Society  EMBO reports (2012) 13, 493 - 497 doi:10.1038/embor.2012.59

Published online: 11 May 2012 http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v13/n6/full/embor201259a.html


"In a report from 2010, the EC summarized the results of 130 research projects involving more than 500 independent research groups and concluded that biotechnology is not per se riskier than conventional plant breeding technologies [2]. Further support for this position comes from the UK Farm-Scale Evaluation (FSE), which studied the potential impact of herbicide-tolerant crops on farmland biodiversity [7]. One insight from the study is that overall changes in agricultural management determine the impact of a crop on biodiversity, rather than the technology or breeding behind the crop itself [8]."


Drilling into the report we can get some of their specific findings related to the relative risks of traditional plant breeding techniques and natural mutations vs. modern molecular approaches:

Traditional vs. GMO Crop Safety:

"The safety of conventionally bred crops is based on a history of safe use. However some extremely rare cases have been reported where unintended effects (DNA rearrangements) have given rise to safety concerns. These were only identified once the crop was already on the market. 

NOTE: THE ABOVE RISKS WOULD APPLY TO  NATURAL, CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC , FOODS. THE RESEARCH FINDS THAT THESE REAL RISKS ARE MORE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED  IN GMO FOODS:

Characterisation of GM crops is a legal requirement, however. As a result GM crops are better characterised than ever before in the case of conventionally bred crops, including knowledge on the site and nature of the genetic modification."

and

"the extent of modification of the proteomic and transcriptomic profiles is always equal or more important in ‘classical mutants’ than in their GM counterparts. This result strongly suggests that the way modification has been produced may influence the transcription pattern, and that molecular biology techniques are producing less side-effects than classically used techniques"

SO NOT ONLY ARE GM CROPS MORE THOROUGHLY SCREENED, THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE TECHNIQUES USED ACTUALLY INTRODUCE LESS RISK THAN CONVENTIONAL, NATURAL, OR ORGANIC CROPS.

See also:

  Safety, safety, safety, and more GM food safety. The Food and Chemical Toxicology Septet. - via David Tribe

 

  Genetic Roulette- Academics Review

 

"Genetic Roulette is Jeffrey Smith’s second book in which he makes unsubstantiated claims against biotechnology. In it, he details 65 separate claims that the technology causes harm in a variety of ways. On these pages each of those claims – addressed in the same eight “sections” that correspond directly with the book – are stacked up against peer-reviewed science."

 

Biotechnology and Genetic Disruptions  - Academics Review 


78 Independent Studies of GMO Safety- via David Tribe

   

440  Studies of Biotech Safety - via David Tribe

 

Safety of rbST

 






Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods(link)
Results of a search of the PubMed database for publications on feeding studies for GM crops.
 
By Dr. Christopher Preston,
Senior Lecturer in Weed Management,
University of Adelaide;
christopher.preston@adelaide.edu.au



Conclusion:

"There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species. "

 






No comments: