Application of Genetically modified (GMOs)  or Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops  used for Livestock Feeding for a better Nutrition

Genetically modified (GM) crops with higher yields and better quality are currently being used in the feeds of livestock and fishes. Despite the advantages, there are concerns about GM-feeds including their effect on animal health, performance and safety of the consumers of animal products like milk, meat, egg and fish. Studies are conducted to assess the feeding efficiency of GM-crops in livestock feeds. The safety aspects of these feeds are also examined in considerable number of experiments. Results from some of the feeding trials indicate that GM-crops are substantially equivalent in terms of composition, digestibility and feeding value. Transfer of transgenic DNA and protein from GM-crops to animal products is a critical safety concern that is also being examined. In the present article, efforts have been made to review different safety concerns of GM-feeds in livestock and fishes.

Agriculture and livestock being the main stay of developing countries, the demand for livestock products increases dramatically as population increases. Moreover, with increasing urbanization and rising income in many parts of the developing world, per capita consumption of meat, milk, and eggs is expected to rise by about 2%. Global demand for meat is also forecasted to increase by more than 55% of current consumption by 2020, with most of the increase occurring in developing countries. Huge proportions of crop harvest are used as animal feed. The compound feed of pigs, poultry, dairy cows and other livestock is prepared using a range of raw materials, including soya, maize, oilseed rape, cotton seed, canola and other grains. World’s 90% of soya produced is used in animal feed. Thus the demand for feed grain is expected to increase by 3% per year in developing countries and 0.5% in developed countries. On an average, less than 3 kg of feed grain are required to produce 1 kg of livestock meat and less than 1 kg of feed grain per kg of milk.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are the plants whose genomic DNA is modified using genetic engineering techniques^5,6. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in this species. The new traits may include resistance to certain pests, diseases or environmental conditions, or the production of a certain nutrient or pharmaceutical agent. Livestock have been fed with GM crops since these crops were introduced in 1996. GM crops have indirectly benefited the livestock sector as they have increased yield of feed ingredient and have better quality traits. These crops are principally used in livestock feed rations either as an energy and/or protein source. The conventional crops like rapseed and mustard oil cake can be readily used as a protein supplement for ruminants but presence of glucosinolate may lead to pungent smell and bitter taste of the feeds after producing substances on hydrolysis by endogenous enzymes^7,8. Thus considering the quality concern of the feed as well as other aspects like pest control, disease as well as herbicide resistant, GM crops for feeding trails have upper hand.

In spite of these apparent advantages of GM crops on animal production, there are real concerns expressed by the consumers of animal origin food. Since supermarkets make every effort to remove GM ingredients from human food but GM crops and grains are continuously being fed to farm animal at large scale. GM products especially those fed to animals, such as, pig, cattle and poultry have been targeted by anti-GM campaigners. There are considerable number of studies examining the effect of these GM crops fed to animals on animals themselves and also on the human health via animal products, such as, meat, milk and eggs.

Environmental protection agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, reviews observed no risk to mammals when fed with approved GM crops. But there are other safety issues including high anti-nutritional factors, adverse effect on animal health and broader environmental concerns for growing GM crops like imbalanced biodiversity, cross pollination of GM and native crops. The studies should bring consensus among the scientific community and general public regarding relative benefits and adverse effects of animal products obtained by feeding GM crops.

 

Global Scenario of GM Crops Used for Feeding Livestock

The total global area sown with GM crops in 2010 was estimated as 148 million hectares in 29 countries (up from 134 million hectares in 25 countries in 2009). This was the 15^th consecutive year of increase in the area devoted to GM crops, with much of the increase being in developing countries. These were responsible for 48% of the world’s GM crop production.   It   is   estimated   that   90%   of   the15.4 million farmers grow GM crops are located in developing countries, such as, China, India, the Philippines and South Africa, and that most of these farmers are producing on a smaller scale than their industrial-scale equivalents in USA. USA is the largest producer of GM commodity crops. In 2010, it grew 66.8 million hectares, followed by Brazil in second place with 25.4 million hectares and Argentina in third place with 22.9 million hectares. The other top 10 GM commodity crop producing countries, each with more than 1 million hectares in production, are (in order) India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa and Uruguay. The leading GM crop in the America is soybean, which (by volume) accounts for more than ½ of all the GM crops grown worldwide. GM maize is the second most common crop, accounting for ⅓ of global GM production, again mostly from the America. Canada is the leading producer of GM oilseed rape. Brazil, India and China account for the bulk of GM cotton production (http://www.food.gov.uk/businessindustry/farmingfood/animalfeed/animalfeedlegislation/). Although numerical estimates for 2010 are not available, estimates for previous years have indicated that GM varieties now constitute a high proportion of crops grown in countries that are net exporters to the world market. For example, it was reported in 2009 that, in USA, GM accounted for 85% of maize plantings, 88% of cotton plantings, 91% of soybean plantings and 95% of sugar beet plantings. In Argentina, in the same year, GM varieties accounted for almost all of the soya plantings and 65% of maize plantings; in Canada, GM varieties formed 93% of the oilseed rape crop; and GM cotton accounted for 40% of Brazil’s cotton production, 87% of Indian cotton output and 68% of Chinese cotton (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data- products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in- the-us.aspx).

The principal GM crops modified for agronomic input traits are soybean (36.5 million ha), maize (12.4 million ha), cotton (6.8 million ha) and canola (3.0 million ha). With a few exceptions, these crops have been modified for herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. These crops are all used in livestock production rations as either energy and/or protein feed resources. They are included either in the form of whole crop (maize silage), from a specific component of the crop (maize grain) or as co-products, such as, oilseed meals. The largest use made of first- generation GM crops in livestock production is that of oilseed meals. For example, since it is estimated that over 150 million tonnes of soybean were produced in 2002 and that approx 50% of the global area was planted to GM soybean, then approx 35 million tonnes of GM soybean meal was used by the livestock industry. In addition, significant quantities of maize grain, canola and cottonseed meal and maize silage have been incorporated into livestock rations.

GM Crops as Feed Ingredients for Farm Animals

Livestock digest and absorb nutrients from GM crops in the same way as conventional feeds. The digestive process in all farm animals breaks down the nutritional components in feeds and uses these nutrients for the growth and development. Livestock producers in many parts of the world prefer corn grain and soybean meal for energy and/or protein source in both   monogastric    and    ruminant    diets.    About 90 million metric tons of GM corn grains are produced worldwide, of which 65 million metric tons of grains are used in livestock diets annually (~70%)¹⁰. In case of soybean, about 70 million metric tons of soybean meals derived from GM soybean are fed to livestock per annum. Most crops developed through biotechnology that are on the market today provide farmers with increased convenience and product quality while requiring fewer chemical inputs. According to the USDA, livestock require approx 70 per cent of the soybean and consume 80 per cent of the corn grain and silage grown in the USA making the livestock industry a major user of biotech crops (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops). Plant breeders are concentrating on enhancing grains or protein sources to produce feedstuff that will improve feed utilization, performance, product quality and health of livestock, while reducing production costs and environmental impacts. It is likely that biotech crops of the future will play an important role in this arena.

Risks and Concerns of GM Crops

Many public organizations, environmental activists, professionals and some governmental officials criticize the use of GM foods. GM foods are blamed for bringing only economic benefits without concerns for potential hazards emanating from them. Broadly the concerns against GM foods fall into three categories: Health risks, environmental hazards and economic concerns.

Human and Animal Health Risks

Unexpected mutations can increase the toxicity level in the GM crops¹² and genetic modification may provoke allergic reactions to the GM feeds. Introduction of genes into the crops from known allergenic plant is always avoided for the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions. One such case of allergenicity was assessed in GM soybean, which has come from Brazilian nut¹³. Extensive testing of GM crops is essential to avoid potential food allergy cases in animals and human beings. Inserting a foreign gene can also be a source of unwanted negative effect on animal health. The study conducted in rats fed with GM potato showed harmful effects on their intestine compared to the conventional potato fed rats. But the GM potato used in this study was not intended for human or animal consumption as the gene (snow drop lectin) introduced in the experiment was known to be toxic for mammals. A 90 days safety study for GM rice conducted in rats found no significant adverse effects on their health. However, there is a growing debate over the adverse effects of GM food on health with controversial interpretation of biological data and divergent opinions. The recent among them is the raging controversy associated with the Bt brinjal in India (http://www. sciencebeing. com/2013/02/bt-brinjal-and-its-controversy-in-india/). Although it has beneficial impact on small farmers because of its insect resistant potentiality, high yielding power, cost-effectiveness and most importantly the minimal environmental impact, but there are also many disadvantages associated with the production and use of Bt brinjal, such as, it’s possible adverse impact on human health as well as biosafety, livelihood and biodiversity. This clearly shows the need of sound experimental set up, followed by valid data collection and interpretation.

Environmental Hazards

GM crops pose many environmental and biodiversity related concerns. The effect of GM crops on nontarget organisms (insects) is well documented. Bt insect toxin of GM crops can kill insects other than crop damaging pests. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants instead of corn, but the pollen from Bt corn blown by the wind onto milkweed plants kills the caterpillars. Such effect on other beneficial insects is detrimental to the biodiversity. There is also growing concern of faster induction of resistance to Bt in insects. In the view of the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, there is a concern that weeds can acquire herbicide resistance genes by cross pollination leading to a condition like superweeds. Herbicide resistant GM crops encourage farmers to use more herbicides resistance crops, bringing the problem of herbicide residues, altering the plant and wild life biodiversity and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations. GM crops detrimental effect on the environment and their assessment criteria are being increasingly studied¹⁹. Recently, for the first time, the presence of GM maize in Turkish food and feed products has been demonstrated qualitatively after screening the presence of CaMV  promoter, nos terminator and Bt11 maize

Economic Concerns

Companies always patent GM plants for economic returns. Corporates sell GM seeds at premium prices

One way to feed the world is to grow certain genetically modified (GM) foods. These foods are a safe, healthy way to combat hunger and keep groceries affordable.Common GM crops are pest-resistant corn and soybeans. Crops can also be engineered to be drought-tolerant or resistant to certain viruses. These changes help plants grow more efficiency in many environments. When a crop resists pests or disease, farmers can harvest more food. With a plentiful food supply, food prices will go down.GM technology also helps people grow more food locally. Many countries lack the infrastructure to get safe, nutritious food to the people who need it. Drought-resistant GM crops can thrive in normally hostile environments, and people can reduce food wastage by raising crops modified to resist pests.Scientists regularly test GM foods for safety. There have been over 200 studies comparing GM food and non-GM food in at least 15 animal species. Scientists have made no significant connections between GM foods on the market and any diseases or growth disorders.

Genetically modified crops, products derived from them and enzymes derived from genetically modified micro-organisms are widely used in animal feeds. The global animal feed market is estimated at some 600 million tonnes. Compound feeds are principally used for poultry, pigs and dairy cows and are formulated from a range of raw materials, including maize and other cereals and oilseeds such as soybeans and canola. It is currently estimated that 51 percent of the global area of soybeans, as well as 12 percent of canola and 9 percent of maize (used as whole maize and by-products such as maize gluten feed) is genetically modified (James, 2002a).

Safety assessments of novel livestock feeds in Canada, the United States and elsewhere look at the molecular, compositional, toxicological and nutritional characteristics of the novel feed compared with its conventional counterpart. Considerations include the effects on the animal eating the feed and on consumers eating the resulting animal product, worker safety and other environmental aspects of using the feed. In addition, comparisons of nutritional composition and wholesomeness between animal feeds containing transgenic versus conventional components have been the subject of many studies.

The major concerns associated with the use of GM products in animal feeds are whether modified DNA from the plant may be transferred into the food chain with harmful consequences and whether antibiotic-resistance marker genes used in the transformation process may be transferred to bacteria in the animal and hence potentially into human pathogenic bacteria. As the production process for the enzymes used in animal feeds takes place under controlled conditions in closed fermentation tank installations and eliminates the modified DNA from the final products, these products do not pose any risk to the animal or the environment. The enzyme phytase has particular benefits in feeding pigs and poultry, including a significant reduction in the amount of phosphorus released to the environment.

Researchers have examined the effects of feed processing on DNA to ascertain whether modified DNA remains intact and moves into the food chain. It has been found that DNA is not fragmented to any great extent in raw plant material and silage, but remains partially or fully intact. This means that, if GM crops are fed to animals, animals would be likely to be eating modified DNA. In order to consider whether modified DNA or derived proteins consumed by animals have the potential to affect animal health or to enter the food chain, it is necessary to consider the fate of these molecules within the animal. Digestion of nucleic acids (DNA and ribonucleic acid, RNA) occurs through the action of nucleases present in the mouth, the pancreas and intestinal secretions. In ruminants, additional microbial and physical degradation of feed occurs. Evidence suggests that more than 95 percent of DNA and RNA is completely broken down within the digestive system. In addition, research carried out on the digestion of transgenic proteins in in vitro culture has shown nearly complete digestion occurring within five minutes in the presence of the enzyme pepsin.

Of further concern is whether there can be transfer of antibiotic resistance from the marker genes used in the production of GM plants to micro-organisms in animals and thence to bacteria pathogenic to humans. A review commissioned by FAO has concluded that this is extremely unlikely to happen (Chambers and Heritage, 2004). Nevertheless, this paper concluded that markers which code for resistance to clinically significant antibiotics, critical for treating human infectious diseases, should not be used in the production of transgenic plants.

MacKenzie and McLean (2002) reviewed 15 feeding studies of dairy cattle, beef cattle, swine and chickens published between 1995 and 2001. The feeds studied were insect- and/or herbicide-resistant maize and soybeans. The animals were fed a transgenic or conventional product for time periods ranging from 35 days for poultry to two years for beef cattle. None of these studies found any adverse effects in the animals fed the transgenic products for any of the measured parameters, which included nutrient composition, body weight, feed intake, feed conversion, milk production, milk composition, rumen fermentation, growth performance or carcass characteristics. Two of the studies found slight improvements in feed conversion rates for the animals fed insect-resistant maize, possibly because of lower concentrations of aflatoxins, antinutrients that result from insect damage.

In summary, it may be concluded that the risks to human and animal health from the use of GM crops and enzymes derived from genetically modified micro-organisms as animal feed are negligible. Nevertheless, some countries do require labelling to indicate the presence of GM material in imports and products derived thereof.

Approximately 191.7 million hectares of genetically modified (GM) crops were grown worldwide in 2018. The main GM crops grown commercially are soybean (95.9 mha), maize (58.9 mha), cotton (24.9 mha), and canola (10.1 mha).

The introduction of GM crops has produced significant benefits to both farmers and consumers. GM crops have minimized the use of pesticides and provided higher crop yields; consumers benefited in the form of improved quality products (e.g., canola and soybean with modified oils). Currently, more than 340 GM crop events/lines have been approved for feed use.

GM crops have also benefited the livestock sector as they have increased yields of feed ingredient, have better quality traits, and are safer for livestock. As a source of livestock feed components, the relevant GM crops include corn, canola, cottonseed, soybean, and potato. These crops are principally used in livestock feed rations either as an energy and/or protein source.

In the United States, livestock have been fed genetically engineered crops since these crops were first introduced in 1996. In 2005, 87 percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 52 percent of the U.S. corn crop were grown from genetically engineered seed (see the USDA ERS Briefing Room website). Because the majority of corn (72 percent) and soybeans (60 percent) are used for livestock feed, it is clear that the livestock industry is a major user of genetically engineered crops.

Are genetically engineered feeds safe for livestock?

Over 100 digestion and feeding studies examining the effects of feeding genetically engineered crops to various food-producing animal species (e.g., beef cattle, swine, sheep, fish, lactating dairy cows, water buffalo and chickens) have been reported in the scientific literature (see the Federation of Animal Science Societies Communications website for a comprehensive listing by species and crop). Results have revealed no significant differences in the nutritional value of feedstuffs derived from commercially grown genetically engineered crops compared with their conventional counterparts, nor have any peer-reviewed studies documented alterations in feed intake, growth or other livestock production parameters as a result of including currently available genetically engineered feedstuffs in diets of animals (for a comprehensive review, see Flachowsky et al. 2005). The published literature also contains no indication of any disturbance to food animal health or the quality of resulting animal products as a result of long-term consumption of genetically engineered feeds. Current scientific evidence confirms the concept of “substantial equivalence” for currently available genetically engineered feedstuffs. “Substantial equivalence” is a comparative approach to the assessment of food safety that involves comparing the feed value and safety of genetically engineered crops with those in existing crops (usually the genetically unmodified parent line) that have known feed values and a history of safe use.

Does genetically engineered DNA or protein get into milk, meat or eggs?

Genetically engineered crops are digested by animals in the same way as conventional crops. Numerous scientific studies have examined the digestive fate of genetically engineered DNA and protein introduced into genetically engineered feed (see the Federation of Animal Sciences Communications website for a comprehensive listing). Genetically engineered DNA, or the novel proteins encoded therein, have never been detected in the milk, meat or eggs derived from animals fed genetically engineered feedstuffs. Several studies have documented that small fragments of plant-derived, but not genetically engineered, DNA can pass into the tissues of animals that consume the plants (see, for example, Aumaitre et al. 2002). Multicopy plant-specific DNA sequences have been found in various tissues (e.g., muscle, spleen, liver and kidneys) of chicken, cattle and pigs. There has even been a report on the transient presence of rabbit DNA in blood samples derived from human volunteers after they ate a cooked rabbit meal (Forsman et al. 2003). The biological importance of these findings is unclear because the transient DNA fragments are generally too small to encode a protein, and it is unclear whether they possess any biological activity.

The presence of small DNA fragments derived from feed or food in animal tissues appears to be related, at least in part, to the amount of that DNA sequence in the diet. It has been estimated that when cows eat a feed ration containing 40 percent silage and 20 percent grain made from genetically engineered corn varieties, approximately 0.00042 percent of the animal’s total daily DNA intake would consist of genetically engineered DNA (Beever and Kemp 2000). The fact that so little of the DNA consumed is genetically engineered, combined with the very low levels of even highly abundant plant-derived DNA fragments that have been found in animal products, may explain why genetically engineered DNA has never been detected in milk, meat or eggs derived from animals fed genetically engineered feed. Given that this rare presence of plant-derived DNA fragments in animal tissues appears to be a natural process, irrespective of genetically engineered feed consumption, coupled with the fact that there is no reason to suspect that genetically engineered DNA will behave any differently than other sources of DNA, it would seem to be only a matter of time until more sensitive assay systems are able to detect fragments of DNA derived from genetically engineered feed in tissues of animals that consume the DNA. However, there is also no reason to suspect that the biological significance of these DNA fragments will be any different than that associated with the DNA fragments that are derived from non-genetically engineered dietary sources.

Are nutrients in the meat, milk or eggs different?

Nutrients in meat, milk and eggs from livestock fed genetically engineered feeds have been found to be the same as the nutrients from livestock fed conventional feeds. The metabolic processes involved in digestion, absorption and the use of feed proteins by livestock species make it very unlikely for a protein of any plant gene to be found intact in food of animal origin, and none have been detected. For this reason, products derived from animals that have been fed feedstuffs containing the current commercially approved genetically engineered crops do not require specific labeling in the United States. Labeling is required only when genetically engineered food products have a detectable difference in nutritional composition or safety when compared with comparable non-genetically engineered products. In addition, labeling that details the process(es) used to create compositionally equivalent foods is currently not required.

What if I choose not to eat products from animals given genetically engineered feed?

Consumers seeking to purchase products from animals that have not been fed genetically engineered feed can do so by purchasing organic livestock products. The USDA National Organic Program requires that livestock sold, labeled or represented as organic be fed organic feed sources only, unless organic feed sources are commercially unavailable. Even if organic livestock producers are statutorily permitted to use nonorganic feed sources for their livestock, the National Organic Program standards specifically prohibit the use of feed grains from genetically engineered sources.

PERSPECTIVE

Evidence to date strongly suggests that feeding livestock with genetically engineered crops is equivalent to feeding unmodified feed sources in terms of nutrient composition, digestibility and feeding value. Over one hundred scientific studies have found no difference in the productive performance or health of livestock that have been fed genetically engineered feedstuffs, and they found no presence of genetically engineered DNA or proteins in the milk, meat or eggs from animals that have eaten genetically engineered feed. Since it is not possible to distinguish any differences in the nutritional profile or components of animal products following inclusion of currently available genetically engineered feedstuffs in the animal diets, labeling of such animal products is not required in either the United States or Europe.

Future Demand for Livestock Products and Feed Grains

The demand for livestock products will increase dramatically as population increases. Moreover, with increasing urbanization and rising income in many parts of the developing world, per capita consumption of meat, milk, and eggs is expected to rise by about 2%.¹ Global demand for meat is also forecast to increase more than 55% of current consumption by 2020, with most of the increase occurring in developing countries.²  Thus the demand for feed grain will increase by 3% per year in developing countries and 0.5% in developed countries. On average, less than 3 kg of feed grain are required to produce a kilo of livestock meat and less than a kilo of feed grain per kg of milk.

Clearly, increased grain production for food and feed has to be generated from increased yield because there is limited opportunity to increase cultivated land area without adverse environmental impacts.

GMO Materials in GM Feed Ingredients

Transgenic crops currently approved for use as animal feed are modified for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, modified oil content, and virus resistance. Many of the proteins expressed in GM crops have a history of safe usage and/or are similar to naturally occurring proteins. For example, insect resistant transgenic crops express proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a common soil-borne bacterium that has been commercially used worldwide as a microbial insecticide by organic farmers. Expressed proteins (CP4 EPSPS) in glyphosate herbicide tolerant GM crops are similar to endogenous EPSPS already present in foods.

Current Use of GM Feed Ingredients in Livestock Diets

Feed grain usage as a percentage of total crop production ranges from 18% for wheat, 52% for sorghum, 70% for corn, 75% for oats, to more than 90% of oil seed meals.⁴ Livestock producers in many parts of the world prefer corn grain and soybean meal for energy and/or protein source in both monogastric and ruminant diets.

About 90 million metric tons of GM corn grains are produced worldwide. Given that 70% of total corn grain production are used for livestock feed, then at least 65 million metric tons of GM corn grains are used in livestock diets annually. In the case of soybean, about 70 million metric tons of soybean meal derived from GM soybean are fed to livestock per annum.

GM Crops Used for Livestock Feed

 

Feed Crop	Improved Traits	No. of Approved GM Events
Alfalfa	herbicide tolerance, modified product quality	5
Apple	non-browning	3
Argentine Canola	herbicide tolerance, modified product quality, pollination control system	37
Bean	viral disease resistance	1
Chicory	herbicide tolerance, pollination control system	3
Cotton	insect resistance, herbicide tolerance	57
Cowpea	insect resistance	1
Creeping Bentgrass	herbicide tolerance	1
Eucalyptus	volumetric wood increase	1
Flax	herbicide tolerance	1
Maize/corn	modified product quality, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, pollination control system, abiotic stress tolerance	140
Papaya	disease resistance	2
Plum	disease resistance	1
Polish canola	herbicide tolerance	4
Potato	insect resistance, disease resistance, herbicide tolerance, modified product quality	41
Rice	insect resistance, herbicide tolerance	6
Safflower	modified oil/fatty acid , Antibiotic resistance	2
Soybean	modified product quality, herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, altered growth/yield	35
Squash	disease resistance	2
Sugar beet	herbicide tolerance	3
Sugarcane	insect resistance	4
Tobacco	herbicide tolerance	1
Tomato	modified product quality, disease resistance, insect resistance	11
Wheat	herbicide tolerance	1

Source: ISAAA GM Approval Database, https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase.

Safety Assessment of GM Products

Extensive testing and a long approval process accompany every GM crop introduction. The approval process includes comprehensive analyses to ensure food, feed, and environmental safety before entering the marketplace. Generally, the first step in any safety assessment of GM-derived products is to determine if the product is substantially equivalent (except for defined differences) to conventional counterpart varieties. Further analysis then focuses on the evaluation of the defined differences. Specifically for evaluating food and feed safety, set of factors are used for assessing potential safety risks of the host plant, gene donor(s), and introduced protein(s).

Safety concerns on the use of GM crops as feed ingredients relate to the following questions:

1. Are GM crops safe as feeds for livestock?
2. Is animal performance affected by GM crops?
3. Could transgenic materials be transferred to and accumulate in milk, meat, and eggs?

Nicolia et al. (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 1,783 scientific studies on safety of GM crops published from 2002 to 2012. Three hundred twelve (312) of the papers were focused on GE food/feed consumption. The main concerns about GE food/feed consumption were as follows: safety of the inserted genes, safety of proteins encoded by the transgenes and safety of the intended and unintended change of crop composition. Here are some key points in the study:

1. Transgenic DNA is enormously diluted by the total amount of ingested DNA (from 0.00006% to 0.00009%) and is digested like any other DNA. Furthermore, processing usually lead to DNA degradation.
2. No study have shown that DNA absorbed in the digestive tract can be transferred into the cells of the host organism.
3. RNA has the same history of safe use as DNA, since it is a normal component of the diet.
4. The proteins are degraded during digestion, leading to loss of activity.
5. Evaluation of GE crops includes determination of substantial equivalence wherein the GE crop must be as safe as their conventional counterparts.

Based on the findings, there were no significant hazards directly linked with the use of GE crops.

University of California scientist Alison Van Eenennaam reviewed the results of animal-feeding studies involving genetically engineered feeds.13 Based on the 15-year history of GE feed use, it was proven that there are no unique risks associated to GE feeds. Thus, whole food/feed animal feeding studies on GE crops should be done only for GE crops where the new trait results in a sensible food safety concern that remains unanswered following all other analyses.The expert also stressed that indiscriminately requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies is not scientifically justified and will have an inhibitory effect on the development and commercialization of potentially beneficial GE feed crops in the future. International GE regulations have focused on potential risks linked with GE technology. This leads to high regulatory compliance expense, slowing adoption of GE crops in developing countries. She recommended regulatory frameworks that would consider the benefits in addition to any unique risks associated with GE technology.

Feeding trials have been conducted to examine the safety and efficacy of GM feeds for farm livestocks.Based on these studies, there is no evidence of significantly altered nutritional composition, deleterious effects, or the occurrence of transgenic DNA or protein in animal products derived from animals fed with GM feed ingredients.

Animals perform in comparable manner when fed biotech feed ingredients as compared to conventional products. Feeding of GM crops has not shown any negative effects of feed intake, whole tract digestibility or animal productivity in studies with chickens, pigs, sheep, beef cattle, and dairy cows.

Scientific studies have also demonstrated that transgenic DNA and/or protein expressed in GM crops are not detectable in the raw food products derived from animals fed with transgenic crops.^7,8 Animal digestive systems rapidly degrade DNA and proteins. Moreover, studies have shown that ensiling and feed processing results in DNA fragmentation.

Based on the safety analyses required for GM crops, consumption of milk, meat, and eggs derived from farm animals fed with transgenic crops could be considered as safe as traditional counterparts.

Future GM Feed Crops

GM feed ingredients of the future will benefit livestock with improved feed qualities. Future GM feed crops will have enhanced nutritional characteristics.

Current research is aimed at manipulating levels of proteins, amino acids, oil, and carbohydrates in major feed crops. GM crops being developed with improved nutritional characteristics include higher concentration of methionine and increased protein digestibility of lupins, increased lysine content in canola and soybean, increased levels of free and protein-bound threonine in lucerne, and reduced phytate content in corn grain.Researchers are also looking for ways to improve digestibility of wheat, rye or barley. Many of these biotech crops are already under field evaluation.

The use of insect protected corn is already improving feed quality by decreasing mycotoxin contamination. The presence of mycotoxins in feed grains or ingredients makes them unfit for animal (or human) consumption and can cause serious health risk. GM crops expressing antigens from various microbes are also being developed. Edible vaccines delivered via feeds have the potential to control economically important diseases in livestock.

Conclusion

Extensive safety assessments conducted with plant biotech products provide equal or greater assurance of safety for food and feed use. There is a growing body of scientifically valid information that indicates safety of GM crops for feed use. The first generation of GM crops has directly benefited livestock production through safer and more abundant feed source. Future GM crops with enhanced output traits have the profound effect of improving animal productivity and performance. These innovations will contribute to helping feed the growing world population.

Potential advantages of GMO crops :

• increased attractiveness to consumers, for example, apples and potatoes that are less likely to bruise or turn brown
• enhanced flavor
• longer shelf life and therefore less waste
• greater resistance to viruses and other diseases, which could lead to less waste and increased food security
• greater tolerance to herbicides, making it easier for farmers to control weeds
• increased nutritional value, as in golden rice, which can boost the health of people with limited access to food
• greater resistance to insects, allowing farmers to reduceTrusted Source pesticide use
• ability to thrive in a harsh climate, such as drought or heat
• ability to grow in salty soil

Growing plants that are more resistant to diseases spread by insects or viruses will likely result in higher yields for farmers and a more attractive product.

All these factors contribute to lower costs for the consumer and can ensure that more people have access to quality food.

Safety Assessment of GM Feeds of Livestock

Extensive testing and a long approval process accompany with the every introduction of GM crop. The approval process includes comprehensive analyses to ensure food, feed, and environmental safety before a GM crop enters into the market place. The livestock feed of GM origin always assessed for its nutritional composition and digestibility by comparing it with the conventional crop. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) formulated the concept of a substantial equivalence as a starting point for the safety assessment of GM crops. The concept is based on comparison of GM crop with the nearest non-GM crop, which has the long history of safe consumption. The only difference between them is the composition with respect to the presence or absence of target protein in GM crop, giving it a desired trait. Agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis of key nutritional components is the basis for establishing substantial equivalence. This comparison is not a safety assessment per se but helps to identify similarities and differences between conventional and GM crops. Other critical safety assessment tests include examination of properties of protein produced by the introduced gene in the GM crop, especially its possible toxicity and allergenicity in animals when used as feed . The studies are also necessary to examine the effect of feeding GM crops on animals themselves and also the effect of these crops on animal products, such as, meat, milk and eggs. The foreign DNA in transgenic crop is being viewed as one of critical component. Studies were conducted to detect the presence of recombinant DNA of the GM crops in the animal tissues and products derived from the animals,, such as, milk, meat and egg. According to Faust and Flachowsky and Aulrich, transgenic DNA had not been found in milk, meat or eggs derived from animals receiving GM feed ingredients in their diets. Similarly no GM DNA could be detected in any of the milk samples where the detection limit for the test was established at 7.5 mg/L of milk. When DNA was extracted from the diet, the yield obtained was equivalent to 0.16 g/20 kg DM, which was the average daily feed intake/cow/day. And even if fragments of transgenic DNA have been detected in the study, it should be noted here that the World Health Organization has reached to the conclusion that there is no inherent risk in consuming DNA, including that from GM crops. The basis of the conclusion has been the fact that mammals have always consumed significant quantities of DNA from a wide variety of sources, including plants, animals, bacteria, parasites and viruses. This is also not considered as a safety issue by regulatory agencies in US, Canada, Japan or the EU. Scientific studies have also demonstrated that transgenic DNA and/or protein expressed in GM crops are not detectable in the raw food products derived from animals fed with transgenic crops. Animal digestive system rapidly degrades DNA and proteins. Moreover, studies have shown that ensiling and feed processing resulted in DNA fragmentation. Based on the safety analyses required for GM crops, consumption of milk, meat, and eggs derived from farm animals fed with transgenic crops could be considered as safe as traditional counterparts. Numerous scientific studies evaluating animal performance on GM feed have also been performed on beef cattle, swine, sheep, fish, lactating dairy cows, and chickens

Feeding GM Crops in Large Animal

GM crops are being increasingly utilized to feed cattle and buffaloes. Several studies were carried out to evaluate these GM crops on performance of dairy and beef cattle including their safety aspects. According to Singhal et al, no statistically significant variations in terms of fat, protein, lactose, SNF and total solids content existed in milk composition of dairy cows receiving GM and non- GM feeds. Further, Bt protein (Cry1Ac) was not detected in the milk samples, collected at various intervals, after incorporation of Bt cotton seed in the ration of cows^. Similar results were reported while feeding Bt cottonseed, BG-II cottonseed and Bt corn silage. These results suggest that the Cry1Ac protein consumed by cows through Bt cotton seed either got degraded in the rumen or not absorbed across the intestinal mucosa into the blood circulation. Similarly, Lutz et al used ELISA and immunoblotting methods to prove that Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize were degraded in the digestive tract. Bohme et al reported that feeding ruminants as well as pigs with transgenic maize and sugar beet, where glufosinate-tolerant (Pat) gene is inserted, did not show any influence on the feeding value. Similarly, Donkin et al reported that

feeding of lactating dairy cows with European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) infestation resistance Roundup Ready (RR) corn (Bt-MON810) did not interfere with dry matter (DM) intake, milk production and composition. Grant et al⁴² and Chowdhury et al demonstrated that GM-corn line resistant to root worm and glyphosite had no significant affect on DM intake (DMI), crude protein (CP), acid and neutral detergent fiber, and non-fiber carbohydrates for lactating dairy cows. It has been noticed that feeding of bovine with transgenic Bt-176 maize had no significant influence on the composition of the ruminal microbial population. It has also been demonstrated that Bollgard-II cotton seed (producing the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2) was compositionally and nutritionally equivalent to conventional cotton varieties for food and feed in ruminants. Phipps et al showed that feeding of cows with herbicide- tolerant corn silage did not affect milk yield, milk composition, dry matter (DM) intake. Further, Russell et al reported that feeding of beef cattle with Bt-corn hybrids (Pioneer 34RO7, Novartis NX6236 and Novartis N64-Z4) did not have any effect on beef yields. Several feeding trials have been conducted to examine the safety and efficacy of GM feeds in ruminants (Table 1). Most of these studies have shown no significant difference in terms of digestibility, milk production, milk composition and feed efficiency between those fed either GM or non-GM crops. Thus, these studies support the view that GM feed ingredients are nutritionally equivalent to their isogenic non-GM counterparts.

Feeding GM Crops in Small Animals

GM crops are utilized to feed pigs and small ruminants including sheep and goats similar to large animals. Different feeding trials were conducted to assess nutritional and safety concerns of GM crops. Piva et al¹⁵ reported that the performance of the pigs was significantly higher when offered the GM based diet. This was attributed to the fact that GM crops were insect protected and hence were not affected by fungal damage and had lower mycotoxin content as compared with the conventional maize grain. Reuter et al⁵⁹ confirmed that the performance of grower-finisher of pigs remained unaltered after feeding genetically modified (GM) Bt-maize (NX6262). Questions regarding the digestive fate of DNA and protein from GM crops fed to animals have been raised. Using highly sensitive and well- characterized analytical methods, pork loin samples were analyzed for the prence of transgenic DNA and protein from pigs fed with glyphosate-tolerant RR soybean. The study confirmed that neither small fragments of transgenic DNA nor immunoreactive fragments of transgenic protein were detectable in loin muscle samples. Similarly, Reuter and Aulrich also reported that although plant DNA fragments could be detected in the tissues of pigs at 48 h post- feed with transgenic maize, but no recombinant DNA was detected. Hyun et al demonstrated that feeding of growing pigs with glyphosate-tolerant RR (event nk603) corn gave equivalent animal performance as conventional corn. Broll et al used silage from a GM potato in a feeding experiment with pigs. After a feeding period of 42 d, they collected samples from various organs and digesta and investigated the fate of the foreign DNA with 4 different real-time PCR systems. No plant specific DNA or foreign recombinant DNA of the transgenic potato were detected. In contrast, chloroplast specific DNA was detected in the digesta of duodenum, jejunum, colon and rectum. In another study, the single-copy of metallo-carboxypeptidase inhibitor gene sequence was detected in samples from the stomach content of pigs fed with isogenic potato and animals fed the transgenic potato. No evidence for the integration of the foreign DNA into the host genome was observed. The sheep fed with silage sources of Rh208 (conventional isogenic Bt hybrid) and Rh208Bt (GM Bt176 corn hybrid) for 1 wk, when assayed biochemically, did not show any significant difference in organic matter digestibility and crude fiber digestibility. The stability of transgenic DNA, encoding the synthetic cp4 epsps protein, present in a diet containing RR® canola meal was determined in duodenal fluid (DF) batch cultures from sheep by real-time TaqMan® PCR assay. The study revealed that digestion of plant material and release of transgenic DNA could occur in the ovine small intestine, but free DNA was rapidly degraded at neutral pH in DF. This had reduced the likelihood that intact transgenic DNA would be available for absorption through the Peyer’s Patches in the distal ileum⁶⁴. The findings of some of the feeding trials for neutritional and safety studies for small animals (pig, sheep, goat and rabbit) are presented in Table 2.

GM Feeds in Poultry

The main conscious effort of plant breeders are to enhance the grain yield, while reduce the production cost. In this regard, GM crops could play an important role. Poultry feeds can utilize GM crops, especially, corn, soybean, wheat, canola and other ingredients to keep the industry economically viable. However, there are apprehensions regarding the use of GM crops in poultry nutrition, especially the unknown effects of foreign DNA and protein from these GM feeds. To this context, several feeding trials were done to analyse the effect of GM grains on productivity and safety concerns. In one of the early studies, a control parental line (DK580), a glyphosate- tolerant line (GA21/DK580) and five commercial varieties of corn were evaluated with 560 growing broiler chickens in a 39 d growth trial⁷⁷. Growth and feed efficiency were not found different for chickens fed with the control, glyphosate-tolerant corn or five commercial corn varieties. Similarly, in another study, a genetically modified Bt176 corn hybrid, containing an insecticidal protein against the European corn borer, and its conventional, non-modified counterpart were evaluated in four separate trials to verify substantial equivalence in feeding value and performance of broilers⁷⁸. The results revealed no significant differences in the performance between the birds that received the conventional non-modified corn and those that received GM-corn. It was also observed that no recombinant plant DNA, such as, recombinant bla or cry1 A(b) fragments, could be found in organs, meat or eggs of poultry. In order to assess safety of GM crop, Scheideler et al studied the fate of the Cry3Bb1 protein from YieldGard Rootworm corn (MON 863) when fed to laying hens. The results showed no significant effect on feed intake, egg production and body wt. The Cry3Bb1 protein was extensively digested, similar to that of other dietary proteins and, therefore, it was not detected in hepatic or muscle tissue. This study clearly shows that the intact foreign protein from the GM-crop would not get into the tissues of the food animals. Recently, Mejia et al⁸⁰ reported the performance of hens after feeding with diets containing GM transgenic soybean containing the gm- fad2-1 gene fragment and the gm-hra gene for high level oleic acid. The results indicated that body weight, egg production, egg mass, feed consumption and feed efficiency for hens fed GM soybean meal were not significantly different from hens fed with control soybean meal. Different feeding trails for GM feeds conducted in chicken and quails were listed in the Table 3.Over all, it can be  inferred that the composition of GM crops, engineered for insect resistance (Bt-maize) or herbicide tolerance (glyphosate), have been essentially indistinguishable from their conventional counterparts, even though their safety aspects require more number of long term studies.

 

GM Feeds in Fishery

Most prepared fish feeds utilize soybean and maize meals. GM soybean and GM corn are increasingly being used as a feed ingredient in fish feeds. Hence, the safety and quality needs to be investigated. Similar to GM-feeds of other livestock, two important issues are considered in the safety assessment of GM crops used as fish feed ingredients. First, the fish safety, which is assessed through feed studies to evaluate the equivalence of nutritional performance. Second, the food safety, which is determined by the digestibility of the transgenic protein and its incorporation within the fish. Some of the feeding trials of GM crops in fishes are presented in Table 4. These studies on feeding trails showed that GM crops did not interfere the economical traits of the fishes.

source-Rajib Deb*, Basavraj Sajjanar¹, Karuna Devi², K M Reddy³, Rajendra Prasad, Sushil Kumar and Arjava Sharma, Indian Journal of Biotechnology

FAQ on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

 

These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns by a number of WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

Q1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.

Such methods are used to create GM plants — which are then used to grow GM food crops.

Q2. Why are GM foods produced?

GM foods are developed — and marketed — because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high.

Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

Q3. Are GM foods assessed differently from traditional foods?

Generally consumers consider that traditional foods (that have often been eaten for thousands of years) are safe. When new foods are developed by natural methods, some of the existing characteristics of foods can be altered, either in a positive or a negative way National food authorities may be called upon to examine traditional foods, but this is not always the case. Indeed, new plants developed through traditional breeding techniques may not be evaluated rigorously using risk assessment techniques.

With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.

One of the objectives of the WHO Food Safety Programme is to assist national authorities in the identification of foods that should be subject to risk assessment, including GM foods, and to recommend the correct assessments.

Q4. How are the potential risks to human health determined?

The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.

Q5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.

Q6. How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?

Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and the potential receiving environment. The assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the insertion of the new gene.

Q7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?

Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.

Current investigations focus on: the potentially detrimental effect on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant insects; the potential generation of new plant pathogens; the potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and wildlife, and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations; and the movement of herbicide resistance genes to other plants.

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.

Q9. How are GM foods regulated nationally?

The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries GM foods are not yet regulated. Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries which have provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account health and environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and labelling regimes). In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to evolve.

Q10. What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?

All GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. All the genes used to modify crops are derived from microorganisms.

Crop	Trait	Areas/countries with approval
Maize	Insect resistance	Argentina, Canada, South Africa, United States, EU
	Herbicide tolerance	Argentina, Canada, United States, EU
Soybean	Herbicide tolerance	Argentina, Canada, South Africa, United States, EU (for processing only)
Oilseed rape	Herbicide tolerance	Canada, United States
Chicory	Herbicide tolerance	EU (for breeding purposes only)
Squash	Virus resistance	Canada, United States
Potato	Insect resistance/herbicide tolerance	Canada, United States

Q11. What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?

No specific international regulatory systems are currently in place. However, several international organizations are involved in developing protocols for GMOs.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO body responsible for compiling the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius: the international food code. Codex is developing principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods. The premise of these principles dictates a premarket assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis and including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new gene). The principles are at an advanced stage of development and are expected to be adopted in July 2003. Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and can be used as a reference in case of trade disputes.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties, regulates transboundary movements of living modified organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. The cornerstone of the CPB is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment. The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country has ratified it, which may be in early 2003 in view of the accelerated depositions registered since June 2002.

Q12. Have GM products on the international market passed a risk assessment?

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed risk assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. These assessments are thorough, they have not indicated any risk to human health.

Q13. Why has there been concern about GM foods among some politicians, public interest groups and consumers, especially in Europe?

Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been increasing concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved.

In the late 1980s – early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species.

Consumers frequently ask, “what is in it for me?”. Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. medicines with improved treatment potential). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not cheaper, no increased shelf-life, no better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the risk-benefit equation.

Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term effects. Other topics for debate by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed choice. At the same time, it has proved difficult to detect traces of GMOs in foods: this means that very low concentrations often cannot be detected.

Q14. How has this concern affected the marketing of GM foods in the European Union?

The public concerns about GM food and GMOs in general have had a significant impact on the marketing of GM products in the European Union (EU). In fact, they have resulted in the so-called moratorium on approval of GM products to be placed on the market. Marketing of GM food and GMOs in general are the subject of extensive legislation. Community legislation has been in place since the early 1990s.

The procedure for approval of the release of GMOs into the environment is rather complex and basically requires agreement between the Member States and the European Commission. Between 1991 and 1998, the marketing of 18 GMOs was authorized in the EU by a Commission decision.

As of October 1998, no further authorizations have been granted and there are currently 12 applications pending. Some Member States have invoked a safeguard clause to temporarily ban the placing on the market in their country of GM maize and oilseed rape products. There are currently nine ongoing cases. Eight of these have been examined by the Scientific Committee on Plants, which in all cases deemed that the information submitted by Member States did not justify their bans.

During the 1990s, the regulatory framework was further extended and refined in response to the legitimate concerns of citizens, consumer organizations and economic operators (described under Question 13). A revised directive will come into force in October 2002. It will update and strengthen the existing rules concerning the process of risk assessment, risk management and decision-making with regard to the release of GMOs into the environment. The new directive also foresees mandatory monitoring of long-term effects associated with the interaction between GMOs and the environment.

Labelling in the EU is mandatory for products derived from modern biotechnology or products containing GM organisms. Legislation also addresses the problem of accidental contamination of conventional food by GM material. It introduces a 1% minimum threshold for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification, below which labelling is not required.

In 2001, the European Commission adopted two new legislative proposals on GMOs concerning traceability, reinforcing current labelling rules and streamlining the authorization procedure for GMOs in food and feed and for their deliberate release into the environment.

The European Commission is of the opinion that these new proposals, building on existing legislation, aim to address the concerns of Member States and to build consumer confidence in the authorization of GM products. The Commission expects that adoption of these proposals will pave the way for resuming the authorization of new GM products in the EU.

Q15. What is the state of public debate on GM foods in other regions of the world?

The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues under debate are usually very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from country to country. On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date. This has become apparent during discussions within the Codex Alimentarius Commission over the past few years. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, significant progress has been made on the harmonization of views concerning risk assessment. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is about to adopt principles on premarket risk assessment, and the provisions of the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety also reveal a growing understanding at the international level.

Most recently, the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa has drawn attention to the use of GM food as food aid in emergency situations. A number of governments in the region raised concerns relating to environmental and food safety fears. Although workable solutions have been found for distribution of milled grain in some countries, others have restricted the use of GM food aid and obtained commodities which do not contain GMOs.

Q16. Are people’s reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of the world?

Depending on the region of the world, people often have different attitudes to food. In addition to nutritional value, food often has societal and historical connotations, and in some instances may have religious importance. Technological modification of food and food production can evoke a negative response among consumers, especially in the absence of good communication on risk assessment efforts and cost/benefit evaluations.

Q17. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?

Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patenting obligations of the TRIPS Agreement (an agreement under the World Trade Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) have been discussed in the light of their consequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops. In the context of the related subject of the use of gene technology in medicine, WHO has reviewed the conflict between IPRs and an equal access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. The review has considered potential problems of monopolization and doubts about new patent regulations in the field of genetic sequences in human medicine. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.

Q18. Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?

Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an undesirable level of control of seed markets by a few chemical companies. Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop protection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the values attached to food. These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the chemical industry in seed markets, the range of varieties used by farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would impact on the food basket of a society as well as in the long run on crop protection (for example, with the development of resistance against insect pests and tolerance of certain herbicides). The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on these chemicals. These groups fear a dominant position of the chemical industry in agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to be sustainable.

Q19. What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?

Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved disease or drought resistance, crops with increased nutrient levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics and plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as vaccines.

At the international level, the response to new developments can be found in the expert consultations organized by FAO and WHO in 2000 and 2001, and the subsequent work of the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. This work has resulted in an improved and harmonized framework for the risk assessment of GM foods in general. Specific questions, such as the evaluation of allergenicity of GM foods or the safety of foods derived from GM microorganisms, have been covered and an expert consultation organized by FAO and WHO will focus on foods derived from GM animals in 2003.

Q20. What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?

WHO will take an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons: (1) on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient food production; and (2) based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification, also at the global level. It is clear that modern technologies must be thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced. Such evaluations must be holistic and all-inclusive, and cannot stop at the previously separated, non-coherent systems of evaluation focusing solely on human health or environmental effects in isolation.

Work is therefore under way in WHO to present a broader view of the evaluation of GM foods in order to enable the consideration of other important factors. This more holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products will consider not only safety but also food security, social and ethical aspects, access and capacity building. International work in this new direction presupposes the involvement of other key international organizations in this area. As a first step, the WHO Executive Board will discuss the content of a WHO report covering this subject in January 2003. The report is being developed in collaboration with other key organizations, notably FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It is hoped that this report could form the basis for a future initiative towards a more systematic, coordinated, multi-organizational and international evaluation of certain GM foods.

COMPILED & EDITED BY-PRAWEEN SRIVASTAVA,CEO,LBCS

SOURCE- World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/

https://www.pashudhanpraharee.com/utility-of-transgenic-animal-in-food-industry/

 REFERENCE-ON REQUEST