Author: GMO Pundit

Yet in the United States, the biofuel juggernaut continues. Legislation passed in 2005 mandated that the production of ethanol reach 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act upped this mandate to 15 billion gallons and also mandated 20.5 billion gallons by 2015 and 36 billion gallons by 2022. Much of the total ethanol mandate was to be satisfied by corn, the rest by new sources of ethanol, such as cellulose. As a result, the mandate for corn-based ethanol also increased, from 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 under the 2005 legislation to 13 billion gallons by 2012 under the 2007 legislation.

This, in turn, has driven up demand for corn to be used for ethanol production, which was roughly 200 million bushels per year until 2005 and rose to about 800 million bushels per year for 2005 through 2009…

In an analysis of the pressure that this new demand will put on food supplies and prices, one of us, Carlisle Ford Runge, along with colleagues at the University of Minnesota, the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the Mayo Clinic, traced the ultimate effects of high food prices to poor and malnourished children under the age of five. Using an econometric model developed at the International Food Policy Research Institute, the group determined that about 30 percent of the projected increases in global food prices over the next several decades can be attributed to increased biofuel production worldwide. Increased prices make it harder for poor households to feed themselves, leading to greater malnutrition, especially among children. Since about half of all infant deaths in poor countries are directly connected to malnourishment, any increase in malnourishment will sicken or kill millions of children over the next decade and a half.

From

Against the Grain.
Carlisle Ford Runge and Carlisle Piehl Runge
Foreign Affairs; Jan/Feb2010, Vol. 89 Issue 1, p8-14, 7p
Reprinted in The Australian Financial Review Friday 23 April 2010

Findings – Earth Day Challenge – 7 New Rules for the Environment – NYTimes.com

(For the context of the Starlink “split-approval” debacle , the mistake by the US EPA that is here being repeated by EU rgulators, see
3.5—Starlink corn was successfully recalled, caused no allergies).


Potato-Head Regulators

– HENRY MILLER, MD, Wall Street Journal, * OPINION EUROPE* APRIL 19, 2010, 5:27 P.M. ET

…The circumstances surrounding the European Union’s recent approval of cultivation of a genetically engineered potato—its first approval for any genetically engineered plant in 12 years—are reminiscent of Beckett and Ionesco: abstruse and bewildering.

…European officials approved the potato, called Amflora by its German creator BASF, only for commercial production of starch for industrial purposes, not for food use. The product is excellent but this “split approval” by regulators is a disaster waiting to happen.

… the split approval—which permits a product for animal feed or industrial uses but not human consumption—invites all sorts of mischief. Consider for instance the debacle surrounding a similar decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency more than a decade ago on a genetically engineered corn variety called StarLink, which contains a bacterial protein, Cry9C, toxic to certain insects.

Because of unresolved, dubious concerns about the possible allergenicity of the novel StarLink protein—which takes slightly longer than most proteins to be digested in a laboratory simulation of human digestion, a characteristic it has in common with many known allergens—the EPA approved the variety only for animal, but not human, consumption.

Following StarLink’s commercialization, an activist organization paid a laboratory to test a large selection of packaged food products made with corn (including corn chips, tortillas, and taco shells) and found the unintended presence of small amounts of the Cry9C protein in some of them. After sensational newspaper and television news reports announced that the unapproved protein—which the EPA regulated as a pesticide—was found in food products on grocery-store shelves, 28 people reported that they had experienced allergic-like reactions after eating food products that contained corn. (Perhaps these are some of the same people now claiming that their Toyotas experience “spontaneous acceleration.”)

However, an intensive investigation by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was not able to confirm a single allergic reaction: “Although the study participants may have experienced allergic reactions, based upon the results of this study alone, we cannot confirm that a reported illness was a food-associated allergic reaction.”

Despite the absence of evidence of harm of any kind to a single person, because there was no regulatory approval for StarLink in human food, a class-action lawsuit alleging that consumers ate food unfit for human consumption was successfully concluded with a settlement against Aventis, producer of the StarLink corn variety.

The EPA has since decided that it will never again approve a genetically engineered crop for split use. Any crop intended for feed or industrial uses that could conceivably find its way into the food supply has to meet standards for human food use in order to gain government approval.

The StarLink saga should provide a cautionary tale for BASF and its Amflora potato: Genetically engineered crops not approved for human consumption present the risk of legal liability even if no consumer has suffered any toxic, allergic, or other health-related harm. This should also concern EU regulators but likely will not: For decades, they have been largely brain-dead on issues concerning genetic engineering applied to agriculture.

The bottom line is that the StarLink contretemps resulted from a fault not with the product itself or the legal system that decides liability, but from flawed regulatory policy and an unwise series of decisions by EPA officials. Such problems are the inevitable result of a regulatory approach that treats genetically engineered products as though they pose some inherent, unique risks, although all the evidence is to the contrary. Some regulators, like some children, insist on making their own mistakes rather than learning from others’.

ABC News – Gene Wars

Is There a Difference between Organically and Conventionally Grown Food? A Systematic Review of the Health Benefits and Harms
  
Background: Global sales of organic 
food have surged in the past five years despite costing from 10-300% more than conventional food and without detailed evidence of its nutritional content or safety. Recent outbreaks of food-borne illness, some including organic produce, have raised questions about whether organic food is “healthier” than conventional food.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the published evidence in the medical and agricultural literature on the nutritional content and level of pesticide, heavy metal, mycotoxin, and bacterial contamination of organic and conventional foods and also searched for studies in humans consuming organic versus conventional diets. Searches were limited to English language articles from 1/1966- 08/2009 involving unprocessed, fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, meats and milk reporting outcomes of interest that compared organic with conventional foods or organic versus conventional food consumption. Summary risk difference of contamination and difference in mean nutrition or contamination levels were calculated using random effects models when possible.

Results/Conclusions: We identified more than 5,371 citations and included approximately 220 studies. Overall, sample sizes were small and study methods heterogeneous. The best evidence came from large governmental monitoring programs rather than small research studies. Organic produce had a significantly lower risk of contamination with pesticide residues, though this difference was of unclear clinical significance as the level of pesticide contamination in conventional and organic food was low, below maximum recommended levels. Organic produce did not appear to have superior safety or nutrition quality in any other outcome measured, including risk of bacterial, heavy metal, or mycotoxin contamination. Studies suggested that other factors, such as geography, seasonal weather, local ambient pollution, ripeness at time of harvest, and storage and other agricultural practices unrelated to organic label were better predictors of nutritional quality or contamination with harms. Evidence from human studies suggests that children who consume organic fruits and vegetables and adults who consume organic cereal may significantly reduce their pesticide exposure compared with groups consuming conventional diets, although the levels of pesticide exposures in both groups is within accepted safety standards. There is no evidence of any other benefits of consuming organic food based on human dietary studies. Finally, although rates of bacterial contamination did not differ significantly between organic and conventionally grown meats, eggs, and milk, the antibiotic resistance of bacteria cultured from conventional meats, eggs, and milk was significantly greater than for organic products.
  
CHP/PCOR Conference Room117 Encina Commons, Room 119
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

Research in Progress Seminar
Date and Time

April 21, 2010
1:30 PM – 3:00 PM  
Speakers
Crystal Smith-Spangler – Stanford University
Margaret L. Brandeau – Stanford University
Dena M. Bravata – Stanford University
Vandana Sundaram – Stanford University
Paul Eschbach – Research
Assistant Clay Bavinger – Stanford University

Peer-reviewed Surveys: Positive Impact of GM Crops

A summary of 49 peer-reviewed publicationsof farmer surveys shows that genetically modified crops have benefitted farmers especially in terms of increased yields. This was revealed in an article published in Nature Biotechnology on Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops by Janet Carpenter from Boylston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Evidence from the surveys explain the widespread popularity of the technology, says Carpenter.

The studies compared yields and other indicators of economic performance for adopters and non-adopters of currently commercialized GM crops. Farmers in developing countries are achieving greater yield increases than farmers in developed countries. The first wave of GM crops to be commercialized had traits that reduced or improved pest management thus yield increases were not necessarily due to yield potential but to better field management.

Carpenter said tha tinterest in the future will be the assessment of the impacts of stacked traits and farmers’ experiences with GM crop technologies such as those being developed in cassava, cowpea, and rice, as those reach the commercialization stage.

Subscribers can access the article at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n4/index.html
Email the author at janet.e.carpenter–at–gmail.com

Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know

– New book by Robert Paarlberg (Paperback), Oxford University Press,
USA (April 7, 2010) p 240. ISBN-13: 978-0195389593. Amazon price
$11.53; Kindle Edition $9.99

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Politics-What-Everyone-Needs/dp/019538959X

The politics of food is changing fast. In rich countries, obesity is
now a more serious problem than hunger. Consumers once satisfied with
cheap and convenient food now want food that is also safe,
nutritious, fresh, and grown by local farmers using fewer chemicals.
Heavily subsidized and under-regulated commercial farmers are facing
stronger push-back from environmentalists and consumer activists, and
food companies are under the microscope. Meanwhile in developing
countries, agricultural success in Asia has spurred income growth and
dietary enrichment, but agricultural failure in Africa has left one
third of all citizens undernourished. The international markets that
link these diverse regions together are subject to sudden disruption,
as noted when an unexpected spike in international food prices in
2008 caused street riots in a dozen or more countries.

In an easy-to-navigate, question-and-answer format, Food Politics
carefully examines and explains the most important issues on today’s
global food landscape, including the food crisis of 2008, famines,
the politics of chronic hunger, the Malthusian race between food
production and population growth, international food aid,
controversies surrounding “green revolution” farming, the politics of
obesity, farm subsidies and trade, agriculture and the environment,
agribusiness, supermarkets, food safety, fast food, slow food,
organic food, local food, and genetically engineered food.

Politics in each of these areas has become polarized over the past
decade by conflicting claims and accusations from advocates on all
sides. Paarlberg’s book maps this contested terrain through the eyes
of an independent scholar not afraid to unmask myths and name names.
More than a few of today’s fashionable beliefs about farming and food
are brought down a notch under this critical scrutiny. For those
ready to have their thinking about food politics informed and also
challenged, this is the book to read.

‘Political scientist Paarlberg calls on years of food-policy work and
casts his net far and wide in highly opinionated discussions of food
shortages and safety, organics, and obesity. He believes that the
unsuccessful farm bill labors under the weight of Congressional and
lobbyist interests who care only about profits, not good policy,
while the “green revolution” is largely perpetrated by zealots more
focused on idealism than science.

Factory farming is essential, Paarlberg argues, and, by the way,
international food aid is manipulated by everyone from the Department
of Defense to the shipping lobby. The facts and figures he provides
are dizzying, and the quick shifts in subject matter will likely
leave readers wishing Paarlberg had chosen to focus his attention on
a facet or two of this enormous subject. Ultimately Food Politics is
best used as source book for those uncertain where to begin but
desiring something more substantial than bland green guides. Consider
it a cram course in how the world eats, and then use this knowledge
to support further inquiry. –Colleen Mondor’

Crop Biodiversity Going Up, Not Down

– Albert Sikkema, Wageningen UR, April 15 2010,

The decrease in biodiversity in the natural environment must lead to a decrease in the genetic variety of breeds among plant breeding companies. That would seem logical, wouldn’t it? But it isn’t the case. The genetic diversity in new breeds at plant breeding firms has increased slightly over the past few decades, after a fall in the nineteen sixties.

This is reported by researchers at the Dutch Centre for Genetic Resources (CGN) in the April edition of Theoretical and Applied Genetics. Mark van de Wouw of the CGN evaluated 44 publications in which the genetic diversity of crop varieties was studied with the help of genetic marker technology. ‘If there are twenty varieties of a genetic marker instead of two, then of course there is a greater diversity. But if the overwhelming majority of the cultivars all have the same marker, it means the diversity is low. We analysed a number of studies this way in a meta-analysis.’

Amazed
Van de Wouw was amazed to find that the genetic variety in the crops has increased over the past forty years, after a drop of six percent in the nineteen sixties. ‘Many biologists believe that genetic erosion is getting steadily worse, and that genetic variety in crops is decreasing with it. Only that idea has never been verified.’
Van de Wouw has two explanations for the way the genetic variety of the cultivars has held up. New techniques make it easier for plant breeders to introduce genes from other varieties into their species. And secondly, since many gene banks were set up in the nineteen sixties, more genetic material has become available to the plant breeding sector.

Systematic review finds no difference in nutritional value of organic vs. conventional foods (EUFIC)

Fear of science will kill us – CNN.com

Is the Suspension of MON810 Maize Cultivation by Some European Countries Scientifically Justified?
Agnes E. Ricroch, Jean Baptiste Berge and Marcel Kuntz
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2010/Apr/Suspension-of-MON810-Maize-Cultivation.pdf

MON810 is a transgenic trait introgressed into a number of maize varieties, consisting of a Bacillus thuringiensis-derived gene (Bt), or more precisely, a truncated cry1Ab gene encoding an insecticidal protein for control of some lepidopteran pest insects such as Ostrinia nubilalis, the European maize borer. We examined the justifications invoked by the German government in April 2009, and the previous year by the French government, to suspend the cultivation of these genetically modified maize varieties.

The circumstances surrounding the French Government?s decision and two  meta-analyses by J.B. Bergé and A. Ricroch of the “scientific”  arguments commissioned by the French Government can be found at:
 http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-germany-france-45973948.html

Conclusions:
Neither government has provided scientific data justifying its ban. Both governments have deliberately commissioned biased reports, with  an incomplete set of scientific references and presenting false
conclusions on an environmental impact of MON810 to satisfy a political agenda.

Report Finds GE Crops Benefit Farmers, But Management Needed to Maintain Effectiveness

Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops : Nature Biotechnology

The science magazine Nature has just published a pair of articles showing how gut bacteria evolve in response to diet differences by taking up new genes from distant relatives. The articles feature the recent discoveries by Jan-Hendrik Hehemann and colleagues that normal gut bacteria can gain the abilty to digest brown seaweed gums if they are fed sushi wrapped in dried brown seaweed for a long time, presumably over centuries of time. This all happens  in the digestive canals of Japanese who have been supping on sushi for centuries.

The genes that give the gut bacteria gum digestion capabilities come originally from marine bacteria. No-one knows exactly when they moved, but it could have first been a thousand years or more ago, and it could have happened several times since then. The gum-dissolving genes are now also present in the non-marine bacterial flora living in Japanese people’s guts. The germ mating mechanisms that might make this happen are well understood by microbiologists — gut bacteria are well known to be able to mobilise and accept genes from different bacterial genera and even from creatures other than bacteria.

None of this is surprising to microbiologists but it is new to food historians, and adds something special to the venerable and tasty history of sushi.

The novel gum dissolving genes cannot yet be detected in Western guts. But if sushi continues to be popular in America and Europe, sooner of later they will.

Genetic pot luck
Justin L. Sonnenburg
Without the trillions of microbes that inhabit our gut, we can’t fully benefit from the components of our diet. But cultural differences in diet may, in part, dictate what food our gut microbiota can digest
Nature Vol 464|8 April 2010, page 837


Transfer of carbohydrate-active enzymes from marine bacteria to Japanese gut microbiota
Jan-Hendrik Hehemann, Gae¨lle Correc, Tristan Barbeyron, William Helbert, Mirjam Czjzek
& Gurvan Michel
Nature Vol 464|8 April 2010| doi:10.1038/nature08937, page 908

EU intolerance of low-level presence of un-approved GMOs in commodity shipments is a serious economic dislocation, and portends increasing economic damage to the EU.

A workshop was recently held in Brussels to consider the issue.

GMO Asynchronous and Asymmetric approvals: bringing lasting solutions to identified problems
http://www.bruxelles.enea.it/Eventi/GMORES2010.html

18-19 March 2010, Brussels

The 18th and 19th March 2010, the workshop “GMO Asynchronous and Asymmetric approvals: bringing lasting solutions to identified problems” was organized by CEN (European Committee for Standardization) and ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development) in Brussels.

The workshop represented an important step towards the objective of bringing together all the stakeholders and increasing the efforts on the harmonization of technical methodologies and authorization procedures regulating GM crops in Europe….

The paper by E. Rodriguez-Cerezo, JRC-IPTS in particular, available as a pdf at the linked site, provides some eye-popping data on the issue.

Biofortified : What if Bt saved human lives?

According to an opinion article by three authors from the University of Glasgow published in Nature (Vol 474; page 673), ‘sceptics and deniers of agiotech importance for solving the food crisis should not be confused’. The trouble is, the distinction is not an absolute, objective one; one man’s rational scepticism is another’s rampant denialism. The authors of this particular article (Jeremy Kamp, Richard Molne and Dave S Ray) nail their colours firmly to the mast in their opening paragraph:

‘Agbiotech-denial could have disastrous consequences, if it delays global action to solve the food crisis . Denial-ism is gaining popularity because people have difficulty differentiating deniers’ twisted arguments from the legitimate concerns of genuine sceptics. We must stop deniers presenting themselves as the rightful regulators of scientific debate.’

Well, getting back to the real-world from the fantasy realm,  the commentary the Pundit is really highlighting was not explicitly about agbiotechnology. The passage given above is a re-configured section from the following passage (“How to tell sceptics from deniers”) that was originally about the climate change debate.

The re-write was taken by the Pundit using artistic license to highlight the way in which environmental activists often choose different standards of debate according to whatever rhetoric suits their political convictions.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

In fact, Pundit ascribes to open-minded scepticism, and sees dogmatic denial as pointless and unintelligent, whatever the issue.

(Mis-)Quoted passage:

How to tell sceptics from deniers
Scientists should, by nature, be sceptics. They should take nothing for granted and form judgements only on the basis of evidence. And they should be prepared to change their minds if different evidence conflicts with their opinion. But there is a big difference between what is desirable and what happens in practice. The debate continues to rage about what does and does not constitute true scientific scepticism, and the main focus of this debate is, hardly surprisingly, climate change.

According to an opinion article by three authors from the University of Edinburgh published in Nature (Vol 464; page 673), ‘sceptics and deniers of climate change should not be confused’. The trouble is, the distinction is not an absolute, objective one; one man’s rational scepticism is another’s rampant denialism. The authors of this particular article (Jeremy Kemp, Richard Milne and Dave S Reay) nail their colours firmly to the mast in their opening paragraph:

‘Climate-change denial could have disastrous consequences, if it delays global action to cut carbon emissions. Denialism is gaining popularity because people have difficulty differentiating deniers’ twisted arguments from the legitimate concerns of genuine sceptics. We must stop deniers presenting themselves as the rightful regulators of scientific debate.’

What, we might ask, constitutes a ‘twisted argument’? In the authors’ words: ‘Deniers use strategies that invoke conspiracies, quote fake experts, denigrate genuine experts, deploy evidence selectively and create impossible expectations of what research can deliver. . . By contrast, scepticism starts with an open mind, weighs evidence objectively and demands convincing evidence before accepting any claim.’

Put like that, who could disagree? But implicit in this article is the understanding that the evidence is compelling enough to attempt to rejig the global economy and remove the human influence on natural systems as far as possible. Scepticism is acceptable as long as it relates to details, but anything which might lead to doubt about the central tenets of belief is beyond the pale and must be suppressed.

In this highly polarised debate, both extremes have been guilty of the sins of supposed deniers. Conspiracy theories? On one hand, the ‘denial industry’ is said to be funded by Big Oil, with no credence given to the reality that there are plenty of independent (and unpaid) thinkers who question the orthodoxy, on the other, the ‘climate change industry’ is the purview of a clique of politically motivated activist scientists, despite the evidence that large numbers of perfectly rational academic scientists also subscribe to the broad picture of AGW. Deploy evidence selectively? Is pointing out the poor correlation between temperature of the upper troposphere with the predictions of the GHG hypothesis worse than seizing on any evidence of warming and using it to repeat the message that only humans can be to blame?

Far healthier would be a proper dialogue between those with legitimate, evidence-based criticisms of mainstream science (and, despite the attempts at marginalisation, there are plenty of them) and those who are persuaded by the evidence for AGW but who are prepared to be open-minded. Unfortunately, the media headlines have tended to be captured by those who shout the loudest and this can only increase the polarisation.

In the meantime, opinions such as that in the Nature article seem to be part of a counter-offensive by the global warming lobby. Having been unable to steamroller critics into submission, they now recognise that they have to engage to some degree. But this has largely (and unsurprisingly) taken the form of acknowledgement that minor mistakes have been made coupled with renewed assertions that the enhanced greenhouse effect has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be causing an upward trend in average global temperature. The article by Kemp et al seems to be an attempt at appearing sweetly reasonable – by distinguishing between sceptics (good) and ‘deniers’ (bad) – while actually implicitly branding anyone outside the mainstream as a ‘denier’. Perhaps we should be surprised that Nature should print something like this, at least without a counter-balancing viewpoint, but unfortunately the leading journals seem also to classify all who have rational doubts about AGW as ‘deniers’.

The warfare seems set to continue, but there seems to be no sign of public opinion firming in support of the IPCC view on climate change. Without that, it is going to be almost impossible for democratic governments to do anything very meaningful to cut carbon dioxide emissions apart from investing in nuclear power and R&D projects on a range of power-generation and energy-saving options. But that will not stop them continuing to levy new ‘green’ taxes while they can.

The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242

Austria Withdraws Study on the Long-Term Consequences of GM Maize
– GMO Compass, March 26, 2010

Austria has withdrawn a study on long-term feeding trials with mice that was published in November 2008. The study had caused quite a public stir since some of the mice that were fed with genetically modified maize gave birth to fewer offspring. The media and gene technology critics had interpreted the result as evidence of a reduced fertility caused by GM maize.

The Austrian government had already announced in a meeting of the ‘Standing Committee for the Food Chain and Animal Health’ at the EU commission in October 2009 that the scientists commissioned to do the study had not managed to present a ‘satisfactory statistical evaluation’ of the data. In addition, the Austrian Ministries that had commissioned the study no longer expected to receive such an evaluation.

Almost a year before, the committee had discussed the then newly published study and had come to the conclusion that the data did not allow any inferences to be drawn concerning the investigated GM maize – a cross between the maize lines NK603 and MON810. At that time, Austria had agreed to reappraise the statistical evaluation of the data.

The study, carried out by a working group of the University of Vienna under the leadership of Prof. Jürgen Zentek (now at the TU Berlin), was presented at a meeting in Vienna in November 2008. At the same time the first press releases appeared: “Consumption of GM maize reduces fertility” wrote Greenpeace and demanded that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should be closed because of incompetence and that all approved genetically modified plants should be removed from the market. The news service Glocialist going a step further wrote “GM maize causes impotence”. Austrian politicians of all parties regarded their ‘enormous concern’ about gene technology in agriculture as confirmed.

Zentek and his coworkers had fed their experimental mice a diet that comprised of one third GM maize from the NK603Å~MON810 cross. A control group had received conventional maize. In another experiment mice were fed over four generations with both diets. In the evaluation of the long-term study published at that time, the number of offspring in the third and fourth litters were less than for the control group fed with conventional feed. Although Zentek warned about hasty generalisations, since then the study has been consistently cited by gene technology critical groups as evidence for health risks through genetically modified food plants.

Subsequently, Austria introduced the study into the consultation at the EU level. It was, according to a government representative speaking to the Standing Committee on 16 December 2008, “Part of comprehensive efforts of the Austrian Government regarding the safety of GM plants”. After the discussion, it was observed in the protocol of the “Consensus between Member States” meeting that “the study did not answer the question of safety of the GM maize NK603Å~MON810. The Austrian authorities should consider whether they could provide EFSA and the Member States with the raw data.”

Previously both EFSA and some national authorities had examined the results of the feeding study and had come to the conclusion that no inferences could be drawn from the report since the data were incomplete and contradictory. In addition, important information necessary for a scientific evaluation of the study was missing.

Despite their acceptance at that time, the Austrian government was apparently not able to provide either these data or a statistically correct evaluation.
 
Further information:

EU Commission: Summary Record of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, Meeting held von 19 October 2009 (p. 4)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/regulatory/scfcah/modif_genet/sum_19102009_en.pdf
EU Commission: Summary Record of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, Meeting held on 16 December 2008 (p. 3)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/regulatory/scfcah/modif_genet/sum_16122008_en.pdf

Does GM maize cause impotence? EFSA experts voice doubts (GMO Safety)
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/671.docu.html

For readers of Italian — BBB BLOG

Readers may find it useful to check out a full list of anecdotes about GMOs by Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette author Jeffrey Smith, and try their antidotes:

• Section 1—Top 20 Urban Myths about GM Grops
  • 1.1—Pusztai’s Flawed Claims
  • 1.2—GM Tomatoes Proven Safe
  • 1.3—Bt Corn Statistics Don’t Lie
  • 1.4—These aren’t even GM Potatoes!
  • 1.5—Bt Cotton is Safer for workers than pesticides
  • 1.6—Bt Cotton is Safer for sheep than pesticides
  • 1.7—No evidence that pollen causes disease
  • 1.8—Mycotoxins cause reproductive failure
  • 1.9—A classic logical fallacy about Bt corn
  • 1.10—Rats fed Roundup Ready Soy – no effect on liver
  • 1.11— Rats fed Roundup Ready Soy —no effect on pancreas
  • 1.12— Rats fed Roundup Ready Soy —no effect on testicular cells
  • 1.13—Rabbits can eat Roundup Ready Soy too
  • 1.14—Ermakova’s findings defy logic
  • 1.15—Eating soybeans increases soybean-specific IgG antibodies
  • 1.16—Rats fed Roundup Ready Canola have healthy livers
  • 1.17—Fast growing birds can eat Liberty-Link Corn
  • 1.18—GM Peas Are discontinued
  • 1.19—Animals Graze Where There’s Feed
  • 1.20—High Doses of Tryptophan Cause EM

• Section 2—The Devil is in the DNA
  • 2.1—Any DNA Insertion can cause a mutation
  • 2.2—The use of tissue culture in plant breeding is not new
  • 2.3—GM Breeding is More Precise than other methods
  • 2.4—Promoters are precise tools
  • 2.5—Promoters can insert naturally into DNA
  • 2.6—Breeders produce genetically stable crops
  • 2.7—Mobile DNA drives evolution
  • 2.8—Food Contains Lots of Novel RNAs
  • 2.9—All Plant Breeding Causes DNA Scrambling
  • 2.10—Chemical Composition of crops is highly variable
  • 2.11—Biological variability is typical of crop varieties
• Section 3—Allergy Assessment Works As Planned
  • 3.1—GM soybeans are no more allergenic than conventional soybeans
  • 3.2—Today’s food allergy criteria are more accurate
  • 3.3—Bt crops are less likely to cause allergies or illness
  • 3.4—Whole Bt-producing bacteria are safe (that’s why organic growers use it!)
  • 3.5—Starlink corn was successfully recalled, caused no allergies
• Section 4—New proteins are carefully tested
  • 4.1—GM Proteins are tested
  • 4.2—Transgenes are safe, widespread in nature
  • 4.3—Genes rearrange naturally all the time with no ill effects
  • 4.4—Proteins are carefully characterized
  • 4.5—GM plants contain minute amounts of harmless new proteins
  • 4.6—Plant biology is better understood than Smith seems to think it is
• Section 5—DNA transfer is common and, widespread in nature
  • 5.1—DNA fragments in the gut are plentiful, but cause no problems
  • 5.2—GM does not affect gene movement into bacteria
  • 5.3—Transgenes are destroyed in the gut
  • 5.4—Transgenes are not incorporated into our bodies
  • 5.5—GM foods are irrelevant to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria
  • 5.6—The 35S promoter has been thoroughly researched
  • 5.7—Bt-genes don’t move from plants to bacteria
  • 5.8—DNA moves between microbes in the mouth and throat
  • 5.9—Plant genes don’t move to gut microbes
• Section 6—GM crops protects the food chain
  • 6.1—The safety of glufosinate herbicide tolerant crops
  • 6.2—New herbicide-tolerant crops help the environment, reduce agricultural impacts
  • 6.3—Many foods contain phytoestrogens
  • 6.4—GM crops have fewer toxins than non-GM crops
  • 6.5—Disease-resistant crops are safe for humans
• Section 7—GM food additives are known to be safe
  • 7.1—rBST-treated milk is the same as conventional milk
  • 7.2—rBST has nothing at all to do with twinning
  • 7.3—FDA-approved food additives are known to be safe
• Section 8—Better nutrition helps mothers and babies
  • 8.1—GM foods safe for mothers-to-be
  • 8.2—Mold-free food better for babies

From Academics Review