1 / 22

Safety and Regulation of GMO Foods

Safety and Regulation of GMO Foods. Jenna Swint , Sherry Miller-Johnson, Ida Doutt HN 2450 November 12, 2012. Genetic Modification. Genetic modifications have existed for as long as humans have cultivated plants.

adanna
Download Presentation

Safety and Regulation of GMO Foods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Safety and Regulation of GMO Foods Jenna Swint, Sherry Miller-Johnson, Ida Doutt HN 2450 November 12, 2012

  2. Genetic Modification • Genetic modifications have existed for as long as humans have cultivated plants. • Traditionally, cross-breeding plants genetically modified them to create greater yields and higher quality. • Bioengineering speeds this process by taking genes for traits in one organism and inserting them into another organism lacking these genes. • Genetic modifications using bioengineering has two purposes. • To improve or correct genetic defects, or • Genetically modify organisms.

  3. Biofortification “Theprocess of breeding staple crops to have higher levels of essentialnutrients,either through selective breeding or genetic modification.

  4. Purpose of GMOs • Food security in developing countries. • Creation of superior plants resistant to pests and disease; thus, reduction of the use of pesticides and their harmful environmental effects. • Reduction of costs to farmers and customers. • Increase in the nutrient and vitamin content of foods. • Alleviation of nutrient deficiencies around the world.

  5. Fortified vs. Enriched Fortification: A strengthening or improvement, as by addition of or intensification with another ingredient to increase nutritional value. Enrichment: The replacement of lost nutrients during the refining process, making foods finer in quality by supplying desirable elements or ingredients.

  6. Physiological Roles of Essential Micronutrients Targeted in GMO Foods • Zinc: Protein synthesis, DNA replication and metabolism. • Iron: Oxygen transport, regulation of cell growth and differentiation. • Beta-carotene: Precursor to vitamin A. • Folic Acid & Vitamin B12: Reduce the risk of neural tube defects. • More recent target of biofortification.

  7. Potential Hazards of Biofortification • Sources: • Parent host (traditionally bred crops), gene donor, transformed crop • Types: • Gene transfer to bacteria or mammalian cells • Nutritional changes or anti-nutrient effects • Toxicity including allergenicity • Potential Targets: • Farmers • Processors • Consumers • Animals

  8. Safety of GMO Foods • The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)has the ultimate responsibility to evaluate GM foods and deem them safe for human consumption or not. • The FDA is responsible for regulating labeling practices as well. • The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluates the safety of growing GMOs. • The Environmental Protection Agency evaluates the environmental safety of GMOs.

  9. GMO Regulation: United States • Current FDA policy: GM food is ‘substantially equivalent’ to non GMO food. No labeling or safety testing required. • Conflict of interest? Michael R. Taylor, former VP of Policy at Monsanto, has been the Deputy Commissioner of Foods (FDA) since 2010. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm • Why loosen current regulations? During 2011, deregulation of sugar beet and alfalfa crops occurred in the USwith no investigation into the potential dangers of either crop.

  10. GMO Labeling: California’s Prop 37 Proposed the labeling of GM ingredients in food products sold in supermarkets.

  11. Significance of Prop 37 • Rejected by voters (53% against, 47% in support). • Corporate campaigning: • $45 million spent to fight the GMO labeling initiative versus $8 million spent to support the campaign. • ‘No’: Monsanto ($7.1 m), Dupont de Nemours ($4.9 m), PepsiCo ($2.14 m), Kraft ($1.6 m) • ‘Yes’: Organic Consumers Fund ($1.034 m), Co-founder of Seed Saver Exchange ($1 m), Nature’s Path Foods, Inc. ($1.15 m) (Breakdown of money spent)

  12. Mandatory Labeling Arguments Pro-labeling: • Consumers have the right to know what’s in their food, especially foods with health and environmental concerns involved. Anti-labeling: • No significant difference between conventional foods versus GM foods. • Costly to consumers and companies for mandatory testing and labeling of products. • ‘100% Organic’ offers consumers the option of purchasing non-GM foods.

  13. Regulation Abroad • US first exported GM food to Europe in 1996. Britain followed with mandatory labeling in 1997. • Mandatory labeling: European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia • It’s an issue over consumer choice and consumer rights, not health.

  14. Products: • Agricultural and vegetable seeds  • Plant biotechnology traits  • Crop protection chemicals • Globally: • 21,035 employees  • 404 facilities in 66 countries • Controls ~90% of global seed genetics. http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/default.aspx

  15. Roundup® herbicide formulation • Monsanto discovered glyphosate: • Active ingredient in Roundup® formula. • Successful in killing weeds/roots. • Decreases space between crops and increases crop yield. • Requires only one spraying per crop. • Roundup represents 50% of Monsanto’s revenue. • Thus, GM seeds developed to withstand herbicide.

  16. GM Maize Study: “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” • Compared the health effects in three groups (rats): • GM maize cultivation with Roundup • GM maize cultivation without Roundup • Control group (Conventional maize without Roundup) • Study lasted two years (typical rat lifespan). • Rats in the first two groups were 2-3 times more likely to have enhanced tumor production compared to the control group. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxpH9wBt0fM

  17. Monsanto’s Response:Limitations of Study • It did not meet acceptable standards and findings are not supported by the data presented. • Breed of rats is known for developing tumors • Type of corn used was not specified • Research protocol does not meet OECD standards • Lifetime cancer studies previously done have shown glyphosate does not cause tumors or cancer in rodents. • Published epidemiology studies evaluating health effects reinforce the lack of evidence linking glyphosate to tumors or cancer.

  18. Conclusion More research is needed. Agricultural GMOs and corresponding pesticides must be evaluated carefully with long term studies to measure potential toxic effects.

  19. What’s your opinion? • Pew Initiative, 2001-2006 reviews. To educate consumers on GMO foods. • http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/hhs_biotech_0901.pdf • GM Approval Database. • http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp • Center for Food Safety. Overview of public policy and legal actions involving GM food. • http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/

  20. Works Cited • "About FDA." Meet Michael R. Taylor, J.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm>. • Cockburn, Andrew. "Assuring the Safety of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods: The Importance of an Holistic, Integrative Approach." Journal of Biotenchology 11th ser. 98.1 (2002): 79-106. Science Direct. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168165602000883>. • "France Orders Probe after Rat Study Links GM Corn, Cancer - FRANCE 24." FRANCE 24. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.france24.com/en/20120919-france-orders-probe-after-rat-study-links-gm-corn-cancer>. • "GM Approval Database." International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp>. • "Google Images." Google Images. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.google.com/imgres?q=biofortification>. • Gruissem, W. "Crop Biofortification-GMO or Non-GMO." Journal of Biotechnology 150 (2010): 116. Science Direct. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http:/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168165610006930>. • "Monsanto ~ Roundup Ready System." Monsanto ~ Roundup Ready System. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx>.

  21. Works Cited • Monsanto. "Monsanto Comments (Updated 11/1/2012) Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize." Monsanto Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <www.monsanto.com/.../seralini-sept-2012-monsanto-comments.pdf>. • Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566>. • N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx%20>. • "Obama and GMOs: Five Facts to Face." The Natural Independent. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.deathrattlesports.com/archives/9621/obama-and-gmos-five-facts-to-face/>. • "Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Finds Public Opinion About Genetically Modified Foods "Up For Grabs" - The Pew Charitable Trusts." Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Finds Public Opinion About Genetically Modified Foods "Up For Grabs" - The Pew Charitable Trusts. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=33482>. • "Policy Comments." The Center for Food Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/policy-comments/>.

  22. Works Cited • Seralini, Gilles-Eric, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, SteeveGress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, and Joel Spiroux De Vendomois. "Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize." Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012): 4221-231. SciVerse. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. • Vaughan, Adam. "Prop 37: Californian Voters Reject GM Food Labelling." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 07 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/07/prop-37-californian-gm-labelling%20>. • "Who We Are." Monsanto ~ Who We Are. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-history.aspx>. • "Who's Funding Prop 37, Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods? | Propositions | Elections 2012 | KCET." KCET. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-37-funding-genetically-engineered-food.html>.

More Related