In Light of Big Mistakes Made by Developers of “Poster Child” GMO Products like Hornless Cattle and Golden Rice, FDA is Justified in Requiring Regulation

Earlier this month, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its analysis of what has been touted as the “Poster Child” of gene-edited animals: cattle genetically engineered (GE) to prevent them from developing horns. As mentioned in an FDA press announcement released the same day as the article, FDA scientists detected “previously unreported, unintended alterations in [the] genome-edited bulls.” Steven M. Solomon, DVM, MPH, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, went on to say that while “existence of [the] unintended alteration does not necessarily mean that the genome edit is unsafe to animals or consumers, it does show that both scientists and regulators need to be alert to the potential for such unintended alterations to take place.”

But both scientists and regulators should be well aware by now that unintended alterations can take place when using lab-based biotechnological processes to insert genes into, or otherwise alter existing genes in, living organisms. For decades scientists have known that these biotech processes can cause unintended insertional mutations in recipient organisms, unintended scrambling of recipient DNA at insertion sites, unintended rearrangements of and mutations in the inserted DNA itself, and even (in one case at least, NK603 maize) creation of an unintended combination of inserted and recipient DNA that is transcribed into a chimeric mRNA.

Granted, because the gene-editing processes are newer, we know less about unintended consequences that are specifically associated with these techniques. But even for gene-editing processes we’ve already known for years that unintended “off-target effects” can accompany use of these techniques as well.

The Nature of the Hornless Cow Mistake

This case of the GE hornless cattle illustrates a situation worse than simply not being “alert to the potential” for the gene-editing process to result in unintended consequences, however. The developers of these GE cattle had proclaimed that only the DNA sequences they intended to insert—DNA isolated from cattle—had in fact been inserted into their GE product; they claimed that their GE cattle were therefore “100% cow” and contained no DNA from any other organism or source. And they used this claim to seek FDA’s permission to have humans consume their GE cattle.

But the developers of these GE cattle had never verified this claim of theirs that the genomes of their GE cattle were 100% cow. So in essence, their claim was only a hypothesis; they hypothesized that their gene-editing process had worked exactly as they had hoped it would and that, as a result, only the DNA they’d isolated from cattle and intended to insert into their GE cattle “products” had in fact been inserted.

Is that a big mistake?

Yes, I believe that is a big mistake for any scientist to make. And it’s an especially big mistake if one aims to demonstrate the “precision” of a new technology to a regulatory agency and thereby hopes to influence regulatory policy regarding that new technology. 

It’s a big mistake because, as every scientist knows (or should), a hypothesis is only the start of the scientific process of fact-finding. The next step is to gather and analyze data that will prove or disprove the hypothesis.

And the developers of these GE cattle actually had the necessary data in hand that would have disproved their “100% cow” hypothesis. They had the data in hand and yet they did not use it to verify (or not) their hypothesis; instead they went to FDA with only an untested hypothesis, asking the agency for permission to feed their incompletely analyzed experiment to humans.

Special Care Should be Taken in Developing “Poster Child” GE Products

I would have expected the developers of the GE hornless cattle to be especially careful in producing and analyzing what had been expected to be the world’s first commercially available gene-edited animal. And yet they didn’t even use data they had readily available to verify a claim they hoped would convince FDA that there is no need to regulate GE products like theirs.

Thankfully, FDA scientists used the DNA sequence data that the developers had in hand to test and ultimately disprove the “100% cow” hypothesis themselves.

Similarly, I would have expected the developers of Golden Rice to be especially careful in producing that “poster child” for GE products produced for humanitarian reasons. And yet, the developers of Golden Rice also failed to use DNA sequencing data they had in hand to avoid unintended mistakes attributable to the genetic engineering process itself. They failed to screen their potential GE products for those “events” in which insertional mutations had been created by the genetic engineering process; as a result of this mistake development of Golden Rice was delayed by at least half a decade.

Implications for Other GMO Products

Such big mistakes made during the development of these “poster children” GMOs make one wonder how carefully other, more run-of-the-mill GMOs have been developed over the last 25 years as well.

They also justify—in my mind at least—FDA’s intention to “carry out mandatory premarket review of all gene-edited livestock” and thereby regulate these GE products based on the fact that they were created using genetic engineering. (I also think FDA should require premarket review of all GE crops as well.) We know the genetic engineering process itself can result in certain types of unintended consequences; we also know that (at least some) developers of GMOs are not being sufficiently careful about analyzing their putative GE products to identify the known types of unintended alterations; therefore, FDA’s decision to require premarket review of all gene-edited livestock to ensure that developers are conducting careful, thorough analyses of their potential GE products prior to commercializing them is a logical and science-based conclusion for the agency to have reached.    

Nevertheless, the editorial staff at Nature Biotechnology published their own piece in the same February 7, 2020 issue of the journal as FDA’s analysis of the GE hornless cattle which encourages FDA to regulate gene-edited livestock based only on risks associated with the trait introduced into the GE animal (e.g. “hornlessness”) as opposed to regulation based on the process through which those traits were introduced.

The Nature Biotechnology editorial staff related some of the same old arguments I’ve heard for 25 years, like: the public doesn’t have a problem supporting GE drugs so why shouldn’t they support gene-edited animals as well? My response has been the same for 25 years: sick people are willing to take more risks to regain their health than healthy people are willing to take with the food they feed themselves and their families.

The editorial also brought up a new, but disingenuous, argument: “In over 30 years, there has yet to be a single compelling case where genetic engineering posed a safety problem in a food animal.” It’s disingenuous because…GE food animals have not been around for 30 years; in fact, as stated later in the Nature Biotechnology editorial, the “world’s first genetically engineered animal…still has not reached US consumers.”

The Bottom Line For Me Is: 

Scientists still have a lot to learn about unintended consequences associated with all methods currently used to genetically engineer organisms, especially newer methods like gene-editing;

(At least some) developers of GMOs aren’t being careful enough in checking their GE products for the unintended consequences of GE processes/methods that we already know about—even when those products serve as “poster children” for gene-edited animals or humanitarian uses for GE crops;   

Therefore, all organisms produced using these GE processes/methods should be regulated by federal agencies on a case-by-case basis to ensure that developers are being scientifically rigorous in their analyses of their products and that possible risks to the US food supply are identified prior to product commercialization.

And the FDA is on the correct course…at least for gene-edited animals…in spite of the Course correction published by the editorial staff at Nature Biotechnology.

Posted in Biotechnology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gene Editing’s Extra DNA Problem: Déjà Vu All Over Again

UC Davis researcher Alison Van Eenennaam described the experience of learning that the “poster animals for the gene-editing revolution” do not, after all, comprise the “same outcome [that] could be achieved by breeding in the farmyard,” like she and her collaborators at Recombinetics had been claiming for years, to Antonio Regalado of the MIT Technology Review by saying simply that “We were surprised, but when you get new information, you proceed ahead, that is what science does.”

My reaction back in the early 1990’s to hearing similar news about extra, unintended DNA being inserted into Flavr Savr™ tomatoes, the poster GMOs for the first generation of genetic engineering technology, was somewhat more intense. My boss at Calgene, Inc. at the time, Bill Hiatt, gave me the news as we were traveling on the subterranean moving walkway system that connects the United Airlines terminals at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. I stopped in my tracks (although I kept moving). It just couldn’t be true, I said to myself; the flashing lights and recurrent United theme song intensifying the surrealism I felt at that moment. (Thinking about it now still gives me a queasy stomach.) I remember asking myself whether genetically engineered (GE; my definition covers gene-editing as well) products were really ready to bring to market when we, evidently, still had a lot to learn about how the technology worked and what unintended changes it could produce.

Like Van Eenennaam’s Recombinetics collaborators, we at Calgene had also initially informed US regulators at FDA and USDA that the changes we had engineered into our tomatoes were very precise, and that we knew exactly what DNA sequences we had inserted into them. And like Van Eenennaam and her animal scientist collaborators, we plant scientists only learned the truth about plasmid vector “backbone” DNA sequences getting unintentionally inserted into our GE products–in addition to the genes we intended to insert–through our interactions with scientists at FDA.

In our case, FDA had asked Calgene to provide experimental evidence to prove our claim that only our genes of interest would be inserted into our GE products, a claim which had been based on 10 years of published reports. It was the results of those experiments that Hiatt had conveyed to me at O’Hare airport. I, with a couple of Calgene colleagues, then published our findings in the Plant Cell in 1994. (Our paper might have been published in a more widely read, general science journal had it not been for the fact that one of its anonymous peer-reviewers seemed not to believe our results.)

In the case of Recombinetics’ GE cows, which had been engineered using one of the new gene-editing methods (TALENs) to prevent them from growing horns, FDA scientists were the ones who conducted the experiments that provided the incriminating evidence. FDA then informed Van Eenennaam and Recombinetics, as well as the Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (CTNBio) in Brazil. (CTNBio had been planning–in conjunction with Recombinetics–to create a herd of gene-edited, hornless dairy cows; FDA’s results put an end to those plans.) FDA scientists are now in the process of publishing their results; a preprint describing them was posted online on July 28, 2019.

Will Publishing “Contradictory Results” Help?

It’s important that scientists publish findings like these so that developers of other GE products are aware of them and can, as mentioned by FDA scientists Norris et al. in their paper describing this latest GE “surprise,” employ “screening methods suited to reliably detect the unintended integration of plasmids and multiple template copies.” Because only then, after developers identify engineered/edited organisms that contain DNA they did not intend to insert, can informed decisions be made about whether or how to commercialize those products; for example, in cases like Recombinetics’ cows, in which the unintended DNA contains genes that convey resistance to antibiotics like ampicillin and neomycin/kanamycin, I believe the decision should be to not commercialize.

But publishing is apparently not enough. Some 20 years after we at Calgene published our paper about the “extra DNA problem” associated with the Agrobacterium method of inserting genes into plants, a former Calgene colleague of mine informed me that the scientists at the ag biotech company she was then working for had not been checking their potential products for vector “backbone” DNA that could have been unintentionally inserted during the genetic engineering process…until she brought them up to speed on the issue.

Similarly, papers documenting “unwanted” insertion of plasmid/vector DNA sequences when using zinc-finger nucleases to modify genomic DNA targets in recipient cells had been in the scientific literature for half a decade by the time scientists at Recombinetics published their results on gene-edited cows (see references cited in Norris et al.). Yet those published papers describing unintended insertion of DNA, as well as our paper describing the phenomenon in plants, were apparently not read or otherwise taken into account by the authors of the Recombinetics paper.

The preprint posted by FDA scientists Norris et al. cites additional, more recently published papers that also document unintended integrations of foreign DNA, as well as scrambled DNA at target sites and off-target effects, in various GE organisms that have occurred via use of various gene-editing/engineering techniques, including the CRISPR/Cas9 system.

And so I ask again the question I asked myself in the tunnel between United terminals at O’Hare airport back in 1993: are we really ready to bring gene-edited/engineered products to market when, as described by Norris et al., “our understanding of the unintended alterations” produced via these technologies is still evolving?

Regulation of all GE products–including those that have been gene-edited–should be based on the fact that they were produced using lab-based techniques that we still don’t understand very well

Norris et al. make recommendations for technical ways genetic engineers might rectify what these authors refer to as a “blind spot” in GE product development that was highlighted by their discovery of unintended insertion of vector/plasmid DNA into Recombinetics’ cows.

But FDA should go further. I hope that Recombinetics’ blunder will also convince US regulators that the agricultural biotechnology industry–including developers using the new gene-editing techniques–requires more regulating, not less (as opposed to claims made previously by Recombinetics). Developers of GE products should be required to adequately screen their potential products for these newly discovered failures of precision in the processes of genetic engineering/gene-editing.

For one thing, requiring that all GE products be regulated in this way will ensure that all developers of GE products become aware of this lack of precision in their methods.

For another, regulatory requirements for all GE products could save the ag biotech industry from itself since these kinds of mistakes reflect badly on the entire sector as noted in this August 26th Tweet by Chris Thompson @centrekicker82: “Between Theranos, and now this mess, the impending biotech revolution sure seems a bit… incompetent?”

Posted in Biotechnology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

U.S. Grain Industry Believes USDA APHIS’s “New Proposed Rule [for regulating GMOs] Is Fundamentally Flawed”

I’ve got to give credit to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for persistence. USDA APHIS has proposed new rules for regulating genetically engineered (GE) crop plants (AKA genetically modified organisms: GMOs) on three different occasions over the last decade: in October of 2008, January of 2017 and again a couple of months ago.

There is no doubt that USDA APHIS needs new regulations for GMOs. Rather than based on science or risk assessment, the current rules are based on whether a GMO was engineered using a vector, vector agent, or DNA from an organism on USDA’s plant pest list. Consequently, the rules don’t apply to all GMOs and GMOs that likely don’t pose a “plant pest” or “noxious weed” risk are being regulated while others that could pose such risks are not being regulated at all.

But despite the agency’s efforts to update its regulations, the 2008 and 2017 proposals were withdrawn and–based on public comments it received on its most recent proposal–I expect (or at least hope) that the newly proposed regulations will be withdrawn as well.

Most of the comments on the new regulations proposed in the June 6, 2019 Federal Register (I estimate greater than 90% of them) were from individual citizens who were understandably unhappy that APHIS was planning to let developers of new GMOs determine for themselves whether their products required regulatory review or not. But citizen consumers were not the only ones worried about foxes guarding the henhouse…a group of U.S. grain and oilseed organizations submitted a pretty harsh critique of the new proposed rules as well.

Leaders of the National Grain and Feed, Corn Refiners, National Oilseed Processors, North American Export Grain, and North American Millers’ associations all believe that “APHIS’s largely deregulatory approach” would not only “undermine consumer confidence in the U.S. regulatory system” but also “create further impediments” to their industry’s ability to market grains and oilseeds in global markets because it “directly contradicts the well-established international norms of case-by-case risk-assessment” and is thus “largely out of step with key international markets and governments.” They also noted (as an aside) the aviation industry’s current “significant turmoil and scrutiny over the safety certification process where the federal government leaned heavily on self-determination by an aircraft manufacturer.”

They additionally called out APHIS for exempting some engineered crops from the new regulations “because they could be produced through traditional plant breeding techniques and thus are unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk than traditionally bred crops, which APHIS has historically not regulated.” [Emphasis added by the grain industry leaders.]  This statement by APHIS, these industry leaders believe, provides “insufficient scientific justification for granting broad exemptions.” (As an aside, I note that assumptions about pilots being able to handle any failures or misfires associated with the new technology on board the Boeing 737 MAX, and about the technology’s failure being “unlikely to result in death or the loss of the plane” [my emphasis], contributed to the aviation industry’s current turmoil referred to above.)

The grain industry leaders also noted that “APHIS would be ill-advised to issue a final rule” until USDA had coordinated its efforts on “rules and guidance on genome editing and other forms of plant breeding innovation” with FDA and EPA. After all, the U.S. approach to regulating GMOs is supposed to comprise a “Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology;” therefore, these grain industry leaders recommend that the efforts of USDA APHIS, FDA and EPA “should all be compatible with each other and be coordinated through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.”

In summary, the leaders of these U.S. grain associations “believe that APHIS’s new proposed rule is fundamentally flawed.” Two years ago they “jointly urged APHIS to go back to the drawing board in response to its 2017 proposed rule to modernize its biotechnology regulations….” Now they “strongly urge APHIS to amend” its newly proposed rule to “require all technology providers to notify the agency in advance before introducing gene-edited or other plant breeding innovation traits for commercialization–even those within APHIS’s expressly exempted categories–so that the agency can issue an official letter for all traits attesting that they do not present a plant pest risk.” [Emphases added by the grain industry leaders.]

I agree whole-heartedly with these agricultural industry leaders. It’s time for USDA APHIS (together with FDA and EPA) to go back to the drawing board and try again to craft effective regulations for GMOs.

Let’s hope APHIS has the persistence to get these regs right on the fourth try.


Posted in Biotechnology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Disappointment in the First 25 Years of GMO Foods

The world’s first, commercially available GMO (genetically modified organism) created for human or animal food was first sold in U.S. grocery stores twenty-five years ago today.

I can still remember the excitement my colleagues and I at Calgene, Inc. felt as we ushered into the marketplace that first genetically engineered (GE) whole food (AKA GMO) available to consumers. We told each other it was something we’d tell our grandchildren about.

Granted, I’d gone into the agbiotech industry with hopes of helping solve the world’s problems by contributing to projects like engineering maize (corn) to fix its own nitrogen, and the Flavr SavrTM tomato had not been created with that lofty ideal in mind. Instead, these tomatoes had been genetically engineered so that they softened more slowly, an attempt to allow them to remain on the vine longer, to let them develop their true tomato flavor as they would in one’s own garden, yet remain firm enough to truck them, en masse, to market.

Still, I rationalized back then, this tomato would open the door for the technology that produced it, allowing others to solve more important agricultural problems. And so at Calgene, in May of 1994, we celebrated what we considered to be a huge, important milestone in agricultural history.

Now, 25 years later, I certainly don’t feel the same excitement or satisfaction about that achievement.

In fact, my principal emotion now is one of disappointment. Profound disappointment.

Not only are we still not able to engineer corn or any other non-leguminous crop plant to fix its own nitrogen (which could reduce use of nitrogen fertilizers which would, in turn, benefit smallholder farmers and reduce the fertilizer run-off into rivers that creates “dead zones” in the world’s oceans), but the agbiotech industry hasn’t produced much of anything else that might help solve significant agricultural problems either.

GE Golden Rice still isn’t available, for example, due to both project-specific technical difficulties and agbiotechnology-induced mutations in potential products. And even when it finally becomes available to those it was designed to help, it will remain to be determined how effective it may be at reducing vitamin A deficiency. (An initial study with children in China was retracted due to inappropriate collection of participant consent information, among other issues.)

The introduction into Burkina Faso of cotton varieties genetically engineered to produce their own insecticide turned into another disappointment recently. Instead of overall farmer savings associated with reducing the number of pesticide applications yet protecting the crop and thereby increasing yields, the poor quality of the cotton fiber from those GE varieties has contributed to economic problems for the smallholder farmers there. (A Google search today indicates that perhaps the GE cotton situation in Burkina Faso may be improving; I hope so.)

And the Republic of South Africa apparently refused to approve a GE “drought-tolerant” (DT) maize/corn for production and sales in that country recently. The government’s regulatory authorities indicated that the available data didn’t demonstrate that DT GE corn was significantly different from conventional, non-DT varieties in terms of drought-tolerance…and they weren’t pleased with the DT GE crop’s grain yield either.

Overall, most of the GE crops grown around the world today have been engineered to produce their own pesticide (usually in every part of the plant—including the edible parts), or to be tolerant of herbicides (predominantly glyphosate, which was classified an animal carcinogen and a probable human carcinogen in March 2015), or both. Perhaps as a consequence, most of the GE crops grown anywhere on our planet today are fed to animals.

Anywhere, that is, except in the United States. Here it has been estimated that 70 to 80% of processed foods in grocery stores contain GE ingredients, and some varieties of sweet corn and crookneck squash are GE as well.

Why this difference between the U.S. and other countries? As opposed to more than 60 other countries throughout the world, the U.S. has not—for the past 25 years since GE food products first entered the marketplace—required GE foods or ingredients to be labelled as such (although producers will have to comply with a recently enacted federal labelling statute in the near future). The likely difference, therefore, is that Americans simply haven’t been given a choice in the matter.

As a scientist, I’m sorely disappointed that this powerful technology hasn’t been used more carefully and judiciously and to better the human condition, instead of for purposes like selling herbicides/poisons and supporting unsustainable industrial agricultural systems.

As a U.S. citizen, I’m sorely disappointed that—after the initial introduction of Calgene’s GE tomato—the biotech industry chose to deny the American people their right to know what is in their food.

And as a citizen of Planet Earth, I am appalled at the tactics, both alleged and exposed (see here and here), that have been used by Monsanto, until recently the largest producer of GE crop products in the world, to promote (what I consider) disappointing products.

Nowadays, I wonder what I’d tell my grandchildren about bringing the first GE whole food to market. I guess I’d tell them that Calgene was commendably transparent during the process, that we told the FDA and USDA about the technology’s positives as well as its negatives. And that we labelled our GE tomatoes—at least initially.

But then I’d have to admit to them that Calgene failed as a company. Monsanto purchased it and, soon thereafter, the world’s first GE whole food was eliminated from Monsanto’s Roundup Ready-prevalent product line.

Perhaps I’ll go on to tell my (currently hypothetical) grandkids that I made an effort, at least virtually with this blog, to fill in some of the gaps in transparency about agricultural genetic engineering and its products —the things not expressed by the agbiotech industry and academic scientists who support it—for consumers shopping for food for themselves and their families.

In any case, whatever I tell them, the story won’t have the worldwide, problem-solving ending I was hoping for 25 years ago—unless things drastically change for the better in the near future.

Posted in Biotechnology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

UC Professors Weigh in on Glyphosate (AKA Roundup) and Carcinogenicity

Glyphosate, the “most widely used herbicide in the world,” is in the news a lot lately, largely because the first of thousands of lawsuits, filed by folks who used Monsanto’s Roundup (or other glyphosate-based herbicide products) for decades–who assumed it was as safe as the company claimed it was–and then developed cancer, are now coming to trial.

To those of you who might be interested in learning the lengths to which Monsanto apparently went in defending its glyphosate-based product(s), I highly recommend that you follow the Courthouse News Service articles on these trials.

The opening statement in the third case to go to trial, for example, by the attorney for a California couple who were both diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma within four years of one another after having sprayed Roundup on their residential properties for 35 years, could serve as the basis for a great movie plot (IMHO).

As described in Roundup Trial: Monsanto Used Fake Data to Win Over Regulators, Monsanto “seemingly planted one of its employees at a contract lab…in the 1970s to fake negative mouse carcinogenicity data for…glyphosate that were to be used to win regulatory approval for the weed killer in 1975; planned an attack to discredit the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency, anticipating the agency would classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 [which, nevertheless, the agency did]; and exploited ‘deep connections’ within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to classify glyphosate as non-carcinogenic.”

You may have heard some of these allegations before. Bloomberg reported on the Monsanto-EPA connection in “EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto ‘Kill’ Cancer Study” (published in March of 2017), for example.

But maybe not others, like the much older scandal at the now defunct contract lab. (This 1983 article in the Washington Post provides some general information regarding inadequate or falsified data on over 200 pesticides–including Roundup–tested by the specific contract lab mentioned in the current trial.)

Jurors serving on the current trial are also learning about a new study, published in Mutation Research in February 2019, that found “a compelling link between exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The first author of this new scientific paper, which comprises a meta-analysis of multiple previously published studies that were designed to determine whether glyphosate exposure increases cancer risk, is an adjunct professor of toxicology with the School of Public Health at the University of California (UC) in Berkeley named Luoping Zhang.

Dr. Zhang, along with two of her co-authors on the Mutation Research paper, had been members of EPA’s 2016 scientific advisory panel on glyphosate. But “Zhang was ‘so outraged’ by the EPA’s failure to follow its own herbicide-assessment guidelines” that she resigned from the advisory panel to carry out the meta-analysis herself. The resulting study is focused on the evidence pertaining to groups of people most highly exposed to glyphosate, and also takes into account the most recent publication on the Agricultural Health Study, a large and long-term study of the effects of pesticides on U.S. farmers that was initiated in 1993. One of Monsanto’s complaints about the WHO’s 2015 determination that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen had been that the agency hadn’t taken the most recent results from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) into consideration. (WHO hadn’t taken them into consideration because those results hadn’t been published yet.) But after considering all the available published data–including the latest data from the AHS–Zhang et al.‘s results still indicated that high exposure to glyphosate increased a person’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Another UC Berkeley professor, Elena Conis of the Graduate School of Journalism and Center for Science, Technology, Medicine and Society, recently wrote an overview of the history of how pesticides have been regulated in the U.S. that sheds some light on how we got to this point where pesticides “are innocent and on the market until…enough independent science has produced evidence of harm….” In her Perspective piece in the Washington Post, Dr. Conis mentions that the EPA classified glyphosate as a carcinogen in 1985 but “reversed course after six years of correspondence with Monsanto executives;” that since then Monsanto has asked EPA to base its decisions on Monsanto-commissioned science; and that “[i]n one instance, the EPA ceded to industry requests to remove a certain scientist from a glyphosate safety review panel.”

On the other hand, I, for one, am grateful to Dr. Zhang for removing herself from the 2016 glyphosate review panel so that she could conduct the kind of independent science that is so desperately needed to protect humans from capitalists who put their bottom lines ahead of our collective health. U.S. regulatory agencies need to correspond more with scientists who are not working for, or otherwise aligned with, the companies which make money by developing poisons (which is what pesticides were called until after WWII) to spray on our food crops.

In the meantime, while the safety of glyphosate is being debated in the courts, there are steps you can take to limit your exposure to it from the food you eat.

Traditional crops die if glyphosate is applied to them, but crops genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate glyphosate do not. So avoiding GE fruits, vegetables and grains (AKA GMOs) should reduce your intake of glyphosate.

However, some non-GMO crops, like wheat and oats, are now sprayed with glyphosate just prior to harvest to speed up their desiccation–and the regulatory agencies have responded to this new farming practice by increasing the legally permissible levels of glyphosate residues on those crops (see Zhang et al. and references therein for more information on exposure to glyphosate). Consequently, the best way to avoid glyphosate in these crops is to buy products from crops that have been organically grown; glyphosate use is not allowed in organic farming per the current USDA organic standards.



Posted in Biotechnology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Modified” the Film: Upcoming Screenings

A new film dubbed “A Food Lover’s Journey Into GMOs” was released recently and I highly recommend it…both as an interesting, beautiful and poignant story of its own and also as a means toward filling in gaps in the GMO story as told, for example, in the film Food Evolution (which has been called propaganda by many).

It’s called Modified. Thus far, it’s received 13 film festival awards (including four Audience Choice awards) and well known chef Jacques Pépin calls it “a very personal, tender, touching tribute and a well-researched, enlightening and powerful documentary.”

Canadian Aube Giroux, who wrote, directed, edited and produced Modified, tells me that “audiences respond very strongly and favourably to the film.” I can see why. As described on its website, Modified intimately portrays a “mother-daughter quest for answers” about GMOs, interweaving a “visual celebration of food”, cooking, gardening and family legacy with an investigation into the “extent to which the agribusiness industry controls our food policies.” Modified makes a “strong case for a more transparent and sustainable food system.”

Check out the 2019 schedule for screenings of Modified. It’s being shown in Nevada City on Feb. 24 at Nevada Theatre, for example. And it will be screened during the San Luis Obispo International Film Festival March 12-17 and during the Phoenix Film Festival April 4-14.

IMHO, Modified does a much better job of laying the groundwork for a more civil and productive societal debate about GMOs than efforts like Food Evolution. But view it for yourself and see if you agree.

Posted in Biotechnology | Leave a comment

New Salk Institute Study Reveals More Detailed Picture of “Scrambled Nature” of Gene Insertions in GMOs

Plant molecular biologists have known for decades that the techniques they use to genetically engineer plants are error prone and can result in GMOs with unintended:

  • mutations in host plant genes,
  • insertion of vector backbone DNA sequences,
  • small duplications or deletions of inserted or host DNA, and/or
  • large rearrangements of host plant chromosomes.

Other unintended changes are also possible; for example, Monsanto’s commercially available NK603 corn unintentionally produces a hybrid RNA molecule derived from sequences of the foreign DNA inserted into that product and sequences from the recipient corn variety’s DNA adjacent to the insertion site.

But, according to the new study published by Jupe et al., “detailed understanding of structure and epigenomic status of insertion events [had been] limited” by the technologies available to researchers; “plant scientists didn’t have the molecular tools” that could enable them to “see” the multiple effects that inserting pieces of foreign DNA into a host plant’s genome have had on those genetically engineered (GE) genomes in a single “picture” until recently.

For this new study, conducted under the supervision of Joseph R. Ecker, a highly respected academic plant molecular biologist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researchers used “state-of-the-art long-range sequencing technologies…to provide new insights into the structural impact of inserting foreign [DNA] fragments into plant genomes….”

These authors, primarily associated with the Salk Institute but including a scientist from the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and two others from the J. Craig Venter Institute, utilized the state-of-the-art techniques to elucidate unintended changes in the genomes and epigenomes of Arabidopsis thaliana plants that had been genetically engineered using the Agrobacterium-based method. [Arabidopsis is a model plant organism used by many academic researchers. The Agrobacterium-based method of genetic engineering involves the intended transfer of a specific piece of DNA (the transferred DNA or “T-DNA”); this method is good enough at mutating host plant genes that it was used by plant scientists in an effort to mutate every gene in the Arabidopsis genome. Many commercially available GMOs were created using the Agrobacterium-based method of genetic engineering.]

The new study revealed the “scrambled nature of T-DNA and vector backbone insertions and rearrangements in high detail” and “uncovered various effects of T-DNA insertions on the adjacent chromatin landscape.” Unintended “intra- and interchromosomal rearrangements” were discovered, for example, as well as unintended “alterations of chromatin and thus chromatin structure and functionality.” With “unprecedented detail” this study reveals “novel insights into the impact of these events on plant genome/epigenome integrity.”

The authors point out that this kind of “Knowledge of structure variations induced by transgene insertions…as well as evidence for epigenetic changes to the host genome is crucial from scientific as well as regulatory perspectives.”

I agree. We just don’t know enough about genomes and epigenomes, and how randomly inserting foreign pieces of DNA into them and scrambling them will affect them. Therefore, I think U.S. regulators should take a more precautionary approach to regulating GMOs, and require developers of GMOs to provide information about the integrity of the genomes and epigenomes of their products prior to commercializing them.

But the FDA has never required developers of GMOs to provide the kind of crucial information about structure variations induced in their products by transgene insertions that Jupe et al. addresses…even though older techniques for revealing most of them have been available for decades. And some who have provided information about the “scrambled” genomes in their GMOs to the FDA voluntarily–like Monsanto did for NK603–have gone ahead and commercialized those scrambled products anyway.

Jupe et al. conclude the Discussion of their results by stating that “Our findings pave the way for structural genomic studies of transgenic crop plants….”

Maybe. But will developers of GMO crops follow this newly paved path? Will FDA make them?

Or will GMOs with scrambled genomes and epigenomes continue to be commercialized?


Posted in Biotechnology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment