Given the vast complexity of genomes, the variability of their expression, and their subtle interplay in environments that contain both wild and cultivated species, we must admit we cant possibly foresee all of the potential longterm negative consequences of transspecies gene splicing. Does Monsanto NOT agree with this?

Expert response from GMOAnswers Admin_1

Tuesday, 17/11/2015 12:05

You are correct. We can’t foresee the future, and the notion of introducing genes into species is unsettling for many people. Scientists on the whole need to do a better job explaining how genomes change naturally through processes like sun-induced mutation, jumping genes, breakage and repair, environmental signals, and horizontal gene transfers, to name only a few. In fact, many, if not all, organisms, including insects, plants and animals, have “acquired” genes from microorganisms and viruses. While this may sound scary, the plasticity of genomes explains why many scientists are comfortable applying the tools of genetic engineering in healthcare, food production and agriculture.  

The ability to study genomes in great detail has enabled the discovery that genes have been moving between species for millennia. Bananas, rice and tomatoes, contain the entire genetic sequence of viruses that attack them. Some beetles have incorporated genes from microorganisms to help them digest coffee berries. And yes, humans have received genes involved in blood grouping, lipid metabolism, immune responses, amino acid metabolism, protein modification and more. To learn more, see the article, Human genome includes ‘foreign’ genes not from our ancestors.

Back to your question…while we can’t foresee the potential long term negative consequences of horizontal gene transfers in nature or in agriculture, we know that they have occurred many times in the past and that such gene transfers can be beneficial. GM crops undergo extensive characterization, safety testing, and regulatory review prior to use. More information on the potential for transgenes to alter genome stability and the potential risks to food and feed safety associated with genome instability is available here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for approval is no unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A key aspect of the EPA assessment is the interaction of the GM crop with its environment. This includes potential impacts on microorganisms, invertebrates, and higher organisms. In practice, once a GM crop has been approved for use, public sector researchers continue to study the potential for unintended consequences as the scale of use increases, as well as to characterize the net benefits for humans, animals, and the environment. A meta-analysis of 147 studies reported that global use of GM crop technologies have reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. Ultimately, any decision about whether to employ a new technology must weigh potential risks against potential benefits. In the case of GMOs, there are clear benefits to their use in many sectors – medicine, food processing, and agriculture – and no evidence of unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  

Expert response from GMOAnswers Admin_1

Tuesday, 17/11/2015 12:05

You are correct. We can’t foresee the future, and the notion of introducing genes into species is unsettling for many people. Scientists on the whole need to do a better job explaining how genomes change naturally through processes like sun-induced mutation, jumping genes, breakage and repair, environmental signals, and horizontal gene transfers, to name only a few. In fact, many, if not all, organisms, including insects, plants and animals, have “acquired” genes from microorganisms and viruses. While this may sound scary, the plasticity of genomes explains why many scientists are comfortable applying the tools of genetic engineering in healthcare, food production and agriculture.  

The ability to study genomes in great detail has enabled the discovery that genes have been moving between species for millennia. Bananas, rice and tomatoes, contain the entire genetic sequence of viruses that attack them. Some beetles have incorporated genes from microorganisms to help them digest coffee berries. And yes, humans have received genes involved in blood grouping, lipid metabolism, immune responses, amino acid metabolism, protein modification and more. To learn more, see the article, Human genome includes ‘foreign’ genes not from our ancestors.

Back to your question…while we can’t foresee the potential long term negative consequences of horizontal gene transfers in nature or in agriculture, we know that they have occurred many times in the past and that such gene transfers can be beneficial. GM crops undergo extensive characterization, safety testing, and regulatory review prior to use. More information on the potential for transgenes to alter genome stability and the potential risks to food and feed safety associated with genome instability is available here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for approval is no unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A key aspect of the EPA assessment is the interaction of the GM crop with its environment. This includes potential impacts on microorganisms, invertebrates, and higher organisms. In practice, once a GM crop has been approved for use, public sector researchers continue to study the potential for unintended consequences as the scale of use increases, as well as to characterize the net benefits for humans, animals, and the environment. A meta-analysis of 147 studies reported that global use of GM crop technologies have reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. Ultimately, any decision about whether to employ a new technology must weigh potential risks against potential benefits. In the case of GMOs, there are clear benefits to their use in many sectors – medicine, food processing, and agriculture – and no evidence of unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.