Promising GMO corn stalled for lack of funding

University of Arizona researchers developed a Trojan horse to prevent aflatoxin formation in corn, but they haven’t gotten funding to take it to the next development stage partly because it involves genetic engineering.

In the U.S., aflatoxin-free corn would a boon for both grain growers and livestock feeders. Contaminated corn shouldn’t be fed to dairy cows, beef cattle or swine. At high levels, aflatoxins can be fatal. At low levels, they can make animals sick and less productive.

In Africa, a never-aflatoxin corn would save lives. Tropical weather is ideal for mold growth and aflatoxin infections in corn. Many Africans eat the corn they grow. Aflatoxin compounds have been implicated in stunting children’s growth, increasing liver cancer and making people more susceptible to diseases such as HIV and malaria.

GM trait University of Arizona researchers have genetically modified corn so that the plant itself suppresses aflatoxin below detectable levels, even when it is infected with the Aspergillus fungus that normally produces aflatoxins.

Funding evaporates The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided the initial funds for the research, but turned down a proposal to fund Phase II even though the so-called Trojan horse technique was 100% effective, didn’t affect the corn plant in any other way, and made it impossible for the fungus to develop resistance to it. Two reviewers questioned whether the foundation wanted to get involved in GMO research, according to a report in Tuscon.com, the website published by the Arizona Daily Star.

Schmidt hopes to talk to other public and private groups and seed companies this winter about continuing the University of Arizona research. It’s critical that it not be abandoned.

“It’s very important trait. It could save lives and increase the supply of food,” she says.

Although genetic engineering is often touted as safe and precise, there is evidence that the genetic engineering process itself and the conversion of modified plant cells to plants for propagation generate genetic disruptions that lead to harmful toxic compounds that are passed on to the consumer.

In addition, there is evidence from animal studies that traces of the herbicide glyphosate disrupt hormone systems. The point of much genetic engineering of food plants is to add resistance to glyphosate so that it can be more generously used to suppress weeds.

The case against GMO foods also includes demonstration of scientific and regulatory misconduct intended to facilitate the introduction and use of GMO foods without full scientific scrutiny.

For an introduction to the anti-GMO side of the issue, I suggest ALTERED GENES, TWISTED TRUTH: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, by Steven M. Druker. There is a recent CSPAN video of Druker presenting his book that is worth a look.

The website of Druker's Alliance for Bio-Integrity includes some interesting source documents.

It can be tempting to reject all of this as simply Leftist ecopropaganda, but the case against GMO foods is well-enough supported that it merits consideration. It is time consuming and tedious though to make such an effort. Over the years, based on the evidence, my opinion has shifted from supportive to skeptical of GMO technology.

My guess is that within a generation, GMO technology will be of little use due to consumer resistance. In its place will be amplified use of traditional plant breeding methods and the use of robotic field farming to reduce pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use. High yield, pesticide and herbicide free indoor farming will also become common for produce, particularly in urban areas.

"There is evidence that the genetic engineering process itself and the conversion of modified plant cells to plants for propagation generate genetic disruptions that lead to harmful toxic compounds that are passed on to the consumer.

So what, exactly, are these harmful compounds?? I'm an analytical chemist by degree and 50-year career. If these compounds actually existed, they would be isolated and identified.

But no, this is EXACTLY the same argument that the same eco-nutcases used against the radiation sterilization of foods. They argued that the use of radiation instead of heat must generate "unique radiological products" (abbreviated URP's....how appropriate). NO such URP's have ever been identified. And they will never be, as both radiation AND heat sterilize work by the formation of free radicals.

"In addition, there is evidence from animal studies that traces of the herbicide glyphosate disrupt hormone systems.

Which says exactly nothing about GMOs one way or another.

"The point of much genetic engineering of food plants is to add resistance to glyphosate so that it can be more generously used to suppress weeds.

Garbage. That is ONE application of genetic engineering. Look up "golden rice". There are many, many more. None proven harmful.

What you have is ONE guy on a crusade against GMO foods. Where does the "Alliance for Bio-Integrity" get its funding?? Most such "Alliance" type sites at least give some indication, and eventually they all lead back to leftist propaganda.

Sorry....not convincing.

Take a look at the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) Statement of 21 October 2013 about GMO safety endorsed by more than 300 scientists and legal experts. It begins:

As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is “over”.

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.

Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.

The Statement then offered seven points:

1. There is no consensus on GM food safety

2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health

3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate

4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety

5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety

6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops

7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops

It concluded:

In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or inconclusive, confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.

Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader society. They should, however, be supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias.

Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a “scientific consensus” exists on GMO safety.

A later ENSSER statement on New Genetic Modification Techniques such as CRISPR cautioned that:

Off-target effects at a DNA, RNA or protein level can lead to unintended alterations in the biochemistry of the organism. This is the case even when no foreign DNA is present at the end of the NGMT manipulation. In the case of plant foods produced with these techniques, off-target effects can lead to unexpected toxins or allergens, or altered or compromised nutritional value. Even non-GMO plants are efficient at producing their own toxins – for example, to defend themselves against pests. The radical nature of the changes that can be introduced by NGMTs could result in unexpectedly high levels of such toxins or in the production of novel toxins. Ecological concerns have been raised regarding unintended effects of environmental release of NGMT products in the target and non-target wild organisms, crops and livestock, the difficulties in predicting those effects in the complexity of the natural ecological context, and corresponding uncertainties in risk assessment and risk management, and related ethical issues.

That statement finished by saying that:

In conclusion, from a strictly scientific and technical perspective, NGMTs are clearly genetic modification procedures that result in the production of GMOs. Such techniques give rise to predictable as well as inadvertently generated risks when used in a context of agriculture, conservation or ecological management. Therefore the products of NGMTs in these contexts (viruses, microbes, plants and animals) should be at least as stringently regulated as the organisms produced with the transgenic methods used in currently commercialized GMOs. This would bring the regulation of NGMT applications in agricultural and other contexts into line with their recognition in the sphere of medical research, where they are unquestionably considered as genetic modification. It would also be in accordance with the EU Precautionary Principle. Contrary to the repeated claims of commercial interests threatened by it, the Precautionary Principle does not require an impossible proof of safety prior to regulatory acceptance, but instead requires scientifically independent, searching and sustained examination of the questions of harm from such products, with the injunction to intervene even where scientific proof of harm is incomplete, if there are reasonable scientific grounds to suppose potential harm from the processes involved. First of all, this requires that the processes involved are themselves subject to regulatory appraisal and not only thc eir products. Secondly, when the evidence shows, as cited above, that these processes do not control unintended and unpredicted – and potentially harmful – consequences, as their proponents claim they do, then the case for their thorough and scientifically independent risk appraisal is beyond argument.

Both ENSSER statements reference credible scientific studies and seem far better reasoned and well-founded than the bland assurances of GMO enthusiasts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.