GMO Biosafety

In March 2008, the six world leading agro-biotechnology companies, presented a private, international instrument for liability and redress to cover the environmental damage caused by genetically modified organisms.
The proposal was rejected by governments, who instead adopted a binding supplementary liability and redress protocol to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, with no content transfer from the business initiative. Elaborating on this case study, it is explained how powerful business proposals can turn into a policy failure. Business conflicts are identified as one major explanatory factor. The fragmentation of business interests and the lack of business support for the six major firms’ initiative have discredited the role of corporations as regulatory leaders. Business unity is found to be a decisive, necessary condition for the endorsement of corporate proposals by policymakers.

The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models, and parameters. The most common result is that GM and conventional sources induce similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. Diversity among the methods and results of the risk assessments reflects the complexity of the subject. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.

Context: The Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology (INOR) is the leading institution for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of cancer in Cuba. The main methods used in cancer treatment are surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The last one involves the handling of hazardous substances, such as cytostatics, which implies a health risk to persons occupationally exposed to it. There are two sites where a considerable among of cytostatic is handled (Ambulatory Chemotherapy Room (ACR) and the Central Unit of Cytostatic Mixture Preparation (CUCM)). Genotoxicity biomarkers of exposure and effects have been widely used to detect occupational environment hazards.

Aims: To evaluate genotoxicity biomarkers indicative of exposure and effects to cytostatics.

Methods: In this study were tested samples taken from the surfaces of biological safety cabinets located in the Central Unit of Cytostatic Mixture using SOS – Chromotest. We also evaluated samples of oral mucosa exfoliated cells from exposed and control subjects, by micronucleus test.

Results: All subjects were exposed and subjects who administered the mixes in the institution had an increased of DNA damage in comparison with the pharmaceutical staff that prepared it and wear the primary protection barriers properly.

Conclusions: These results underline the efficiency of genotoxicological biomarkers in detecting the exposure levels and the deleterious effect of cytostatics on occupationally exposed personal.

Farmers, activists, and the general public have all expressed strong opposition to the draft notification published by the FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) on November 27th of last year, questioning the future of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India.  Despite the fact that GM crops to be grown in India have received environmental clearance from the country's regulatory authority, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), according to a report published by the Agriculture's Global Agricultural Information Network. So, why India is still undecided on whether or not to allow GM crops to be grown in the country today?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have failed on many levels including: social, political, legal, economic, agronomic and ecologic. After three decades of promotion, promises and contention, 3.8% of global agriculture is GMO agriculture. Only 24 countries grow GMOs commercially. Four countries of North and South America (USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina) account for 85% of the global GMO hectares. Four crops (soy, corn, cotton and canola) account for 99% of GM hectares. Despite the veneer of social validity that regulators cast, the GMO sector has failed to gain a social licence. Where GM labelling is required, food manufacturers avoid GM ingredients. GMOs have failed to gain price parity with their non-GM counterparts, and they attract price penalties. Segregation of GMOs and non-GMOs has failed (with a tolerance of 0.9% GM contamination in so-called non-GM canola). GM has failed the coexistence test with GMO growers contaminating neighbouring farms. GMOs are a biosecurity fail, with test plots of GM canola planted in the late 1990s still monitored two decades later for rogue canola plants. Most GMO crops are glyphosate dependent. Glyphosate is globally subject to massive litigation claims and awards, and is implicated in the causation of multiple cancers. Mechanisms for compensating farms contaminated by GMOs are lacking, and the GMO industry has taken no responsibility for contaminations. GMOs are a threat to the organic sector and the maintenance of certification and price premiums. Most countries (88%) do not grow GMO crops. This paper considers the global experience of GMOs and the Australian experience as a microcosm of the global experience and as a case study.

The production in genetically modified plants of recombinant proteins for pharmaceutical or industrial use, also referred to as "plant molecular farming", deserves increasing interest due to its potential advantages. However, this type of application of genetic engineering also raises some biosafety concerns, in particular regarding aspects such as transgene spread in the environment or accidental contamination of the food and feed chains. This review presents the current state of the art of this sector, discusses some relevant regulatory issues and outlines important scientific aspects that should be considered during the safety assessment of genetically modified plants grown for this purpose. In particular, it addresses general strategies as well as specific potential containment measures that could be applied to limit the potential environmental and human health impacts linked to plant molecular farming.

Monsanto, the biotech/chemical industry and regulatory agencies worldwide claim that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water within the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) are perfectly safe for human consumption. Both the industry and regulatory agencies parrot, believe and argue that "the dose makes the poison."

However, both glyphosate, Roundup and each one of its so-called “inert” and "secret" co-formulants have alarmingly been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which are extremely toxic to human health at low/minute doses. Often, endocrine disruptive effects are seen at lower doses but not at higher doses. The studies conducted by industry for regulatory purposes use relatively high doses and are not able to detect these effects. Endocrine disruption in humans is thought to contribute to some cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems such as infertility, and developmental problems in fetuses, babies, and children.

Moreover, regulatory agencies only review the toxicity of the Active Principle alone (i.e. glyphosate) and not the whole product formulation (i.e Roundup), which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants. However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed and published study has alarmingly found Monsanto's Roundup and other GBH formulations to be 125-1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle i.e. glyphosate.

Furthermore, regulatory agencies worldwide determine and set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of glyphosate/Roundup based solely on the Active Principle alone (AP) i.e. glyphosate and not on the complete product formulation i.e. Roundup. However, the actual product that is approved by regulatory agencies and copiously sprayed on our food crops, soil, water, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP) but the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup). This constitutes a flagrant flaw in the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and a serious health risk to public health

In this short analysis I go over some of the pros and cons of growing GM crops and give my take on whether or not we should grow them or not. In the end, I try to be a voice of reason in the face of a fierce battle pitted between the two sides.

Since the Neolithic period and the rise of agriculture along
Mesopotamia’s “Fertile Crescent,” greater societies have formed thus
requiring laws and governance to ensure their continued preservation.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi is one such example of how
agricultural technologies directly created new social and
institutional structures in codifying slavery into law, or how
mercantile transactions are to be conducted. Similarly, GMOs are the
result of modern agricultural technologies that are altering laws and
society as a result of their implementation. This transformation
informs the central inquiries of my research question: Why are GMOs
necessary, and what influences do they have on the project of human
rights? As our age is defined by the products of bioluminescent – or
glow-in-the-dark – cats and goats that can excrete spider silk
proteins from their mammary glands, these questions become essential.
I conclude that the technology does not, at least conceptually,
conflict with or undermine human rights. Instrumental reason has firm
limitations in biological applications as well as conflict with its
inherent anarchical nature. We are now compelled to question the
utility of genetic engineering and if it merely places humanity into
another precarious “arms race” with weeds and pests, in addition to
the pressure of maintaining current dependencies of petrochemicals,
fertilizers, and continued observations of ecological homeostasis.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been contentious for more than three decades. Only 24 countries grow GMOs commercially. Four countries (USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina) account for 85% of the global GMO hectares. Four crops (soy, corn, cotton and canola) account for 99% of GM hectares. Despite the veneer of social validity that regulators cast, the GMO sector has failed to gain a social licence. Where GM labelling is required, food manufacturers avoid GM ingredients. GMOs have failed to gain price parity with their non-GM counterparts, and they attract price penalties. Segregation of GMOs and non-GMOs has failed (with a tolerance of 0.9% GM contamination in so-called non-GM canola). GM has failed the coexistence test with a GMO growers contaminating neighbouring farms. GMOs are a biosecurity fail, with test plots of GM canola planted in the late 1990s still monitored two decades later for rogue canola plants. Most GMO crops are glyphosate dependent. Glyphosate is globally subject to massive litigation claims and awards, and is implicated in the causation of multiple cancers. Mechanisms for compensating farms contaminated by GMOs are lacking. The GMO industry has taken no responsibility for contaminations. GMOs are a threat to the organic sector and the maintenance of certification and price premiums. Most countries (88%) do not grow GMO crops. This paper considers the global experience of GMOs and the Australian experience as a microcosm of the global experience and as a case study.

Transgenic technology has the potential of medical therapy, but it raises questions about these issues:• creation of new life forms and crossing species boundaries• long-term effects on human health and the environment• blending of nonhuman animal and human DNA• unintended personal, social, and cultural consequences

Public opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains strong. By contrast, studies demon- strate again and again that GM crops make a valuable contribution to the development of a sustainable type of agriculture. The discrepancy between public opinion and the scientific evidence requires an explanation. We argue that intuitive expectations about the world render the human mind vulnerable to particular misrepresentations of GMOs. We explain how the involvement of particular intuitions accounts for the popularity, persistence, and typical features of GM opposition and tackle possible objections to our approach. To conclude, we discuss the implications for science education, science communica- tion, and the environmental movement.

The genetics revolution that will transform our healthcare, the way we make babies, the nature of the babies we make, and ultimately our evolution as a species has already begun. It will arrive far sooner than most of us think and will transform our lives and the world around us in ways we can hardly imagine - and we aren't ready. If you have a sense that the genetics revolution is important but recognize you need to know more about what’s happening, what’s at stake, what this means for you, and what you should be doing now to prepare.

Could this be the most important book of our generation?

The Organic Food Industry : How can we get to Increase Sales Profits and Reduce Cost of Organic Food

Abstract :The aims of the Business Research Project are related to the organic food industry and how can we get to increase organic food sales and reduce cost in today’s market. Today genetically modified food and the typical agriculture growth food that contains pesticides and herbicides is confronting the organic food business and at the same time is the leading cause of different diseases around the world. These main aspects that the organic food industry is facing is turning and giving positive feedback on the organic food sector by making people to purchase more organic groceries for being healthier and more environmental friendly.

The Business Research project objectives to be achieved are:

To develop different strategies that will helps to answer “ How can we get to increase organic food sales and reduce cost of organic food in today’s market’’.

To analyze Porters fives forces for getting to identify the attractiveness of the organic food industry in terms of 5 competitive forces.

To get to understand if the strategies that are going to be implemented after the Porters Five forces are profitable for a successful in the organic food business.

There is no satisfactory legal remedy for farmers whose farm has been contaminated by genetically modified (GM) material. This is a deficiency of Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 and it has not been remedied. In the Marsh v Baxter case (2010-2016) an organic farm in Western Australia (WA) was contaminated with GM canola from a neighbouring farm. The organic farm lost its certification (along with the price premium for organic produce). The organic farmer (Marsh) sued the GM farmer (Baxter) for the agreed damages of A$85,000. The case was lost in the WA Supreme Court, then in the Court of Appeal, and finally it was rejected by the High Court of Australia. The legal fees were in the order of A$2,000,000, which is quite disproportionate to the agreed loss. A Parliamentary Inquiry (2017-2019) in WA examined “Mechanisms for compensation for economic loss to farmers in Western Australia caused by contamination by genetically modified material”. There were 121 submissions to the Inquiry and 22 public hearings. Seven ‘mechanisms’ were considered: (i) Do nothing; (ii) a GM Levy; (iii) a GM Technology Licence Bond; (iv) Non-GM farmer Insurance; (v) GM farmer Insurance; (vi) a Compulsory Third Party (CTP) GM Scheme; and, (vii) the Government pays. After its deliberations, the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs did not recommend any change from the present unsatisfactory state of affairs where reliance on the common law offers no effective protection for non-GM farmers against contamination by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (as witnessed in the Marsh v Baxter case). The ‘Do nothing’ option, which was supported by Monsanto and pro-GM farmer groups, prevailed. This paper explores the context and content of the Parliamentary Inquiry, presents the six proposed proactive options for compensation (of which only four appeared in the Inquiry Report), and the twelve findings of the Inquiry. Ultimately the Committee was timid where it might have been bold. The Inquiry was a lost opportunity for righting a known wrong. The Inquiry outcome will ensure that GM-farming remains a very contentious issue in WA and continues to lack any semblance of a social licence. However, the WA Parliamentary Inquiry (in toto, viz. the submissions, the hearings, and the Report) provides a rich trove of views and material for legislators and regulators in other jurisdictions who face the exact same issue of GM contaminations.

The advance of natural science in Western countries of the past 250 years can, to some extent, be traced to a positive attitude of the mainstream Judeo-Christian intellectual heritage to physical creation. Christian theologians and secular thinkers (including scientists), though, are divided as to how far science, or in this case the GMO research can go before humans start defying the Creator. Their bioethical reflection is being conditioned by their respective worldviews. Many Christian thinkers tend to view any genetic manipulation as an illegitimate tampering of the human “creative genius” in the marvelous and “essentially (genetically) complete” work of the Creator; most of the secular scientists, on the other hand, consider their Christian counterparts as “seriously uninformed” at best, or “superstitiously conservative” at worse, with no ability or desire to contribute to the progress of human society. Their respective prejudices are expressed in an atmosphere of suspicion and contempt for the other, thus confusing the minds of the general public. The differences in reasoning between the GMO scientists (among others) and Christian theologians, however, can become a creative tension that will enhance authentic search for meaning (i.e. sustainable ethical values and goals of human endeavor) and truth (including the economic and social prospects of the new discoveries) if the alienated camps learn to communicate and respect each other. Those Christian theologians, who properly understand the Christian theology of creation, might be able to perceive the field of genetics, including genetic engineering, as a legitimate expression of human intellectual capabilities and creative potential and as a specific realization of God’s invitation to partnership in His creative work within the creation continua. The latter can be maintained, however, only provided that the scientific research goes hand in hand with the research of the ethical implications of such endeavors in their complexity – including the sociological, environmental, economic, health, and other aspects. To ensure this, an open, honest, and competent public discussion of these issues is necessary.

"To a man with an empty stomach, food is God." -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) // As memorialized in the opening chapter of his book A Moveable Feast, the American writer Ernest Hemingway sets out on one of most renowned walks in literary history, a walk that takes him from his humble apartment in Paris to eventually write in a "good café on the Place St. Michel." // Nearly ninety years later, one can still, as Hemingway recalled, walk past the Lycée Henri-IV and the ancient church Saint-Étienne-du-Mont, into the Place du Panthéon…. Food: in Context is not, however, a book about gastronomy or the impacts of globalization on cuisine per se. It is, rather, a book dedicated to offering a first course in food-related science, politics, and issues. While food is art -- its history and expression both mirroring and articulating subtle cultural differences -- its provision in some areas devolves to more sharply drawn struggles with outcomes measured in health or sickness, life or death. (download to read more) ---- K. Lee Lerner & Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, Senior editors. Paris, France. December, 2010.

Ante el desarrollo de problemáticas que integran cuestiones de diversa
naturaleza: social, económica, ambiental y de seguridad, así como la
creciente complejidad que se observa en las demandas y necesidades,
el Estado se encuentra frente a la imperiosa tarea de promover el
cambio al interior de las organizaciones de gobierno. Con base en lo anterior, se expone la experiencia mexicana en la atención desde una perspectiva intersectorial/ intersecretarial de la política pública sobre la bioseguridad. Se revisan brevemente conceptos fundamentales
y se pone en evidencia la transformación del Estado para dar atención a las problemáticas sociales. Posteriormente se hace referencia al importante marco institucional que estructura las acciones en bioseguridad. A su vez, se presenta la estructura de gestión intersectorial de la política de bioseguridad en México, representada a través de la Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos
Genéticamente Modificados (CIBIOGEM). Finalmente, se plantean
una serie de reflexiones en torno a la naturaleza intersectorial de la
política pública de bioseguridad.*

*El trabajo fue presentado en Simposio Internacional de Administración Pública organizado por la Universidad Nacional de Rosario del cual se editó el libro titulado "Retos e innovaciones de la Administración Pública para el desarrollo democrático en el siglo XXI".

Les maïs des indiens zapotèques des montagnes du Mexique sont « contaminés » par la présence de transgènes échappés des laboratoires biotechs nord-américains. Ce croisement inattendu est bien plus qu’une simple question environnementale ou sanitaire, c’est un véritable choc quant aux différentes façons de se représenter l’agriculture, l’alimentation, la propriété, la connaissance et même la vie. Les maïs transgéniques, produits phares des biotechnologies agricoles, représentent en effet une redéfinition radicale du vivant, à l’heure où émerge la notion trouble de biodiverité comme nouvelle façon de parler de la nature. Ils incarnent aussi le rêve hyper-moderne d’une alliance entre science et technologie, au service d’un marché tout puissant, quand la crise écologique globale met justement en évidence les limites du contrôle humain sur son environnement et la nécessité de repenser le lien entre nature et culture. Finalement, on peut même se demander si ce micro-drame qui se joue dans les montagnes mexicaines ne renvoie pas à des conflits beaucoup plus fondamentaux  autour de la redéfinition de notre époque moderne, bouleversée par le processus de globalisation.

Representantes de laboratorios biotecnológicos, asesores científicos gubernamentales y comunicadores protransgénicos insisten en defender la seguridad y efectividad de la tecnología transgénica, argumentando que tales dudas y preocupaciones carecen de fundamento científico. Y continúan desafiando a organizaciones orgánicas y ecologistas a que presenten pruebas concretas y razones valederas que justifiquen su oposición a este "revolucionario" desarrollo.
 
  Como respuesta a tales argumentos y desafíos, el MAPO presenta una extensa investigación respecto del peligro sin precedentes que implica la reprogramación genética masiva de nuestra comida. Esperamos que este trabajo realizado por el Dr. Jorge Kaczewer (médico, investigador y periodista argentino), fruto de la compilación, traducción y edición de información internacional proveniente de fuentes científicas, periodísticas e institucionales –tanto independientes como oficiales-, contribuya al necesario diálogo pacífico para un futuro uso seguro de la biotecnología.

Este artículo investiga iniciativas de defensa de la soberanía alimentaria, el territorio y la agrobiodiversidad en Colombia, a partir de la recuperación de semillas tradicionales como patrimonio colectivo de los pueblos y la lucha contra los transgénicos y las leyes de propiedad intelectual sobre material vegetal en el marco de los Tratados de Libre Comercio, en especial con Estados Unidos. En específico, me refiero a la Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia [RSL], una confluencia de organizaciones campesinas, indígenas y afrodescendientes así como algunas ONG y otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil nacionales e internacionales. Se discute cómo la recuperación y defensa de semillas tradicionales y libres de propiedad intelectual son formas de resistencia frente al proyecto neocolonial de la agricultura corporativa y la biotecnología que nos imponen el conocimiento occidental “experto”, la mercantilización de la vida, las lógicas de acumulación de capital, y la destrucción de la economía campesina.

Most (85%) of the global genetically modified organism (GMO) agriculture is accounted for by just four countries in North and South America. The ‘big four’ of the GM world are USA  (with 40% of the global GMO hectares), followed by Brazil (26%), Argentina (12%), and Canada (7%). The world total of GMO agriculture is 189.8 million hectares from a total of 24 countries. The number of countries planting GMOs peaked in 2010, at 29 countries, and has been progressively declining year by year since then. Most countries (88%) have no GMO hectares. Australia is just a vestigial presence on the map of World GMO Agriculture. Of the global total hectares of GMO agriculture, Australia accounts for 774,000 hectares, comprising 492,000 ha of GM canola and 282,000 ha of GM cotton. Australia’s share of global GMO hectares is 0.4%, and is declining. Australia’s GMO agriculture accounts for 0.2% of Australia’s total agriculture hectares. The map of World GMO Agriculture is dominated by North and South America. Asia has a modest presence, led by India (cotton), Pakistan (cotton) and China (cotton, papaya). Africa has a diminutive presence led by South Africa (corn, soy, cotton). Just four GMO crops account for almost all (more than 99%) of GMO agriculture hectares. The ‘big four’ of GM crops are: GM soy (50%), GM corn (31%, GM cotton (13%), and GM canola (5%). Most of the world’s GMOs are herbicide tolerant (e.g. to glyphosate). USA leads the world with 12 GMO crops, Canada follows with six GM crops. Other countries have just three GM crops (n=5 countries), or two (n=5), or just one (n=12). Russia is a GMO-free country and has ambitions to be a lead exporter of organic produce and to reap the organic premium.

GMO moratoria are in place in Australia, in some states and not in others. Is co-existence possible between organic farming and GMO farming? And if so, under what circumstances? Australia has more certified organic land than any other country, with a reported 12.0 million hectares of certified organic land compared to the world total of 37.5 million hectares. In a recent court case, an organic farmer lost his organic certification because of GMO contamination. A total of 325 hectares of his 478 hectare farm were contaminated with GM canola blown from a neighbouring property, and this resulted in the decertification of most of the farm. The organic farmer sued his neighbour, a GMO farmer, on the basis of nuisance or negligence, he sought damages for loss of income, and he sought an injunction to rein in his neighbour‟s future GMO farming practices. The case ran before the Supreme Court of Western Australia over three weeks and it generated more than 1000 pages of transcript. The case was dismissed in its entirety, in a 150 page judgment, and is now subject to an appeal. This paper examines the judgment, in the light of the trial transcript of this landmark case, with the view to determining the implications for the future of organic farming and GMO farming, and in particular to ascertain what lessons can be learned from this litigation.

The land area devoted to the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants has increased in recent years: in 2012 such plants were grown on over 170 million hectares globally, in 28 different countries, and are at present used by 17.3 million farmers worldwide. The majority of GM plants are used as feed material for food-producing farm animals. Despite the facts that GM plants have been used as feed for years and a number of feeding studies have proved their safety for animals, they still give rise to emotional public discussion. This paper reviews and discusses the results of recent experiments on the effects of feeds derived from genetically modified plants (GM feeds) on the physiological and metabolic indices of livestock, poultry and fish. The number of peer-reviewed papers on studies evaluating the influence of feeding food-producing animals with genetically modified materials is high. Most of these studies were carried out with GM plants with improved agronomic traits, i.e. herbicide-tolerant crops and crops protected against common pests; however, in some experiments, GM crops with enhanced nutritional properties were assessed. In the relevant part of these studies, not only production parameters but also different indices of the metabolic status of animals were analysed, and only a few minor differences with no biological relevance were found in livestock or poultry experiments. A greater number of minor effects on selected metabolic parameters were detected in fish studies; however, the causes of these differences were unclear and it is difficult to determine whether they were due to the genetic modification of the GM feed materials used. Since the results presented in the vast majority of experiments did not indicate any negative effects of GM materials, it can be concluded that commercialised transgenic crops can be safely fed to target food-producing animals without affecting metabolic indices or the quality of such products as meat, milk and eggs.

The political economy of agricultural biotechnology is addressed in this review through three puzzles. First, why were new crop technologies of the Green Revolution readily accepted, versus today's considerable blockage of genetically engineered crops? Second, why has genetic engineering in medicine and pharmaceuticals been normalized, whereas recombinant DNA technology in agriculture is highly restricted? Finally, why is there greater political acceptance of agricultural biotechnology in some countries versus others, for some crops versus others, and for some crop traits versus oth-ers? Explanation requires an extended theoretical framework of regulation that goes beyond a vector sum of weighted material interests. Consideration must also be given to the social construction of risk, political structure, and social psychology. A full political economy of agricultural biotechnology must consider not only costs and benefits to multiple actors in different societies within the classic interest-group and regulator model but also the transnational diffusion of ideologies, with attendant costs to poorer farmers and countries.