Genetically modified maize: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
imported>Onel5969
 
imported>Mdm.Bla
Reverting edit(s) by 209.124.218.118 (talk) to rev. 1306724932 by Bender the Bot: Breaking formatting +content removal (UV 0.1.6)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
The [[Government of the Philippines|Philippine Government]] has promoted Bt corn, hoping for insect resistance and higher yields.<ref name="Freedman-2013">{{cite journal | vauthors = Freedman A | title=Rice security in Southeast Asia: beggar thy neighbor or cooperation? | journal=[[The Pacific Review]] | publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] | volume=26 | issue=5 | year=2013 | issn=0951-2748 | doi=10.1080/09512748.2013.842303 | pages=433–454| s2cid=153573639 }} p.{{spaces}}443</ref>
The [[Government of the Philippines|Philippine Government]] has promoted Bt corn, hoping for insect resistance and higher yields.<ref name="Freedman-2013">{{cite journal | vauthors = Freedman A | title=Rice security in Southeast Asia: beggar thy neighbor or cooperation? | journal=[[The Pacific Review]] | publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] | volume=26 | issue=5 | year=2013 | issn=0951-2748 | doi=10.1080/09512748.2013.842303 | pages=433–454| s2cid=153573639 }} p.{{spaces}}443</ref>


Approved Bt genes include single and stacked (event names bracketed) configurations of: Cry1A.105 (MON89034), CryIAb ([[MON 810|MON810]]), CryIF (1507), Cry2Ab (MON89034), [[Cry3Bb1]] ([[MON 863|MON863]] and MON88017), Cry34Ab1 (59122), Cry35Ab1 (59122), mCry3A (MIR604), and Vip3A (MIR162), in both corn and cotton.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Bessin R | work = University of Kentucky College of Agriculture | orig-date = first published May 1996 | date = November 2010 | url = http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef118.asp | title = Bt-Corn for Corn Borer Control }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Castagnola AS, Jurat-Fuentes, JL | chapter = Bt Crops: Past and Future. Chapter 15 | title = ''Bacillus Thuringiensis'' Biotechnology | veditors = Sansinenea E | publisher = Springer | date = 2 March 2012 }}</ref>{{rp|285ff}} Corn genetically modified to produce VIP was first approved in the US in 2010.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Hodgson E, Gassmann A | work = Iowa State Extension, Department of Entomology | date = May 2010 | url = http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2010/0510hodgsongassman.htm | title = New Corn Trait Deregulated in the U.S. }}</ref>
Approved Bt genes include single and stacked (event names bracketed) configurations of: Cry1A.105 (MON89034), CryIAb ([[MON 810|MON810]]), CryIF (1507), Cry2Ab (MON89034), [[Cry3Bb1]] ([[MON 863|MON863]] and MON88017), Cry34Ab1 (59122), Cry35Ab1 (59122), mCry3A (MIR604), and Vip3A (MIR162), in both corn and cotton.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Bessin R | work = University of Kentucky College of Agriculture | orig-date = first published May 1996 | date = November 2010 | url = http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef118.asp | title = Bt-Corn for Corn Borer Control }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Castagnola AS, Jurat-Fuentes, JL | chapter = Bt Crops: Past and Future. Chapter 15 | title = ''Bacillus Thuringiensis'' Biotechnology | veditors = Sansinenea E | publisher = Springer | date = 2 March 2012 }}</ref>{{rp|285ff}} Corn genetically modified to produce VIP was first approved in the US in 2010.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Hodgson E, Gassmann A | work = Iowa State Extension, Department of Entomology | date = May 2010 | url = http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2010/0510hodgsongassman.htm | title = New Corn Trait Deregulated in the U.S. | access-date = 6 October 2013 | archive-date = 11 December 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141211100034/http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2010/0510hodgsongassman.htm | url-status = dead }}</ref>


A 2018 study found that Bt-corn protected nearby fields of non-Bt corn and nearby vegetable crops, reducing the use of pesticides on those crops. Data from 1976 to 1996 (before Bt corn was widespread) was compared to data after it was adopted (1996–2016). They examined levels of the [[European corn borer]] and [[Helicoverpa zea|corn earworm]]. Their larvae eat a variety of crops, including peppers and green beans. Between 1992 and 2016, the amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by 85 percent. Another factor was the introduction of more effective pesticides that were applied less often.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/planting-gmos-kills-so-many-bugs-that-it-helps-non-gmo-crops/|title=Planting GMOs kills so many bugs that it helps non-GMO crops| vauthors = Gittig D |date=15 March 2018|work=Ars Technica|access-date=13 April 2018|language=en-us}}</ref>
A 2018 study found that Bt-corn protected nearby fields of non-Bt corn and nearby vegetable crops, reducing the use of pesticides on those crops. Data from 1976 to 1996 (before Bt corn was widespread) was compared to data after it was adopted (1996–2016). They examined levels of the [[European corn borer]] and [[Helicoverpa zea|corn earworm]]. Their larvae eat a variety of crops, including peppers and green beans. Between 1992 and 2016, the amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by 85 percent. Another factor was the introduction of more effective pesticides that were applied less often.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/planting-gmos-kills-so-many-bugs-that-it-helps-non-gmo-crops/|title=Planting GMOs kills so many bugs that it helps non-GMO crops| vauthors = Gittig D |date=15 March 2018|work=Ars Technica|access-date=13 April 2018|language=en-us}}</ref>
Line 38: Line 38:


===Drought-resistant maize ===
===Drought-resistant maize ===
In 2013 [[Monsanto]] launched the first transgenic drought tolerance trait in a line of corn hybrids called DroughtGard.<ref>{{cite web | work = OECD BioTrack Database | url = http://www2.oecd.org/biotech/Product.aspx?id=MON-8746%C3%98-4 | title = MON87460 | access-date = 15 March 2014 | archive-date = 1 July 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170701140407/http://www2.oecd.org/biotech/Product.aspx?id=MON-8746%C3%98-4 | url-status = dead }}</ref> The MON 87460 trait is provided by the insertion of the cspB gene from the soil microbe ''[[Bacillus subtilis]]''; it was approved by the USDA in 2011<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/BRS_20111227c.pdf | author = Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | id = APHIS–2011–0023 | title = Monsanto Co.; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Corn Genetically Engineered for Drought Tolerance | journal = Federal Register | volume = 76 | issue = 248 | date = 27 December 2011 }}</ref> and by China in 2013.<ref name="pmid24067764">{{cite journal | vauthors = Eisenstein M | title = Plant breeding: Discovery in a dry spell | journal = Nature | volume = 501 | issue = 7468 | pages = S7–9 | date = September 2013 | pmid = 24067764 | doi = 10.1038/501S7a | bibcode = 2013Natur.501S...7E | doi-access = free }}</ref>
In 2013 [[Monsanto]] launched the first transgenic drought tolerance trait in a line of corn hybrids called DroughtGard.<ref>{{cite web | work = OECD BioTrack Database | url = http://www2.oecd.org/biotech/Product.aspx?id=MON-8746%C3%98-4 | title = MON87460 | access-date = 15 March 2014 | archive-date = 1 July 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170701140407/http://www2.oecd.org/biotech/Product.aspx?id=MON-8746%C3%98-4 | url-status = dead }}</ref> The MON 87460 trait is provided by the insertion of the cspB gene from the soil microbe ''[[Bacillus subtilis]]''; it was approved by the USDA in 2011<ref>{{cite journal | url = https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/brs_20111227c.pdf | author = Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | id = APHIS–2011–0023 | title = Monsanto Co.; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Corn Genetically Engineered for Drought Tolerance | journal = Federal Register | volume = 76 | issue = 248 | date = 27 December 2011 }}</ref> and by China in 2013.<ref name="pmid24067764">{{cite journal | vauthors = Eisenstein M | title = Plant breeding: Discovery in a dry spell | journal = Nature | volume = 501 | issue = 7468 | pages = S7–9 | date = September 2013 | pmid = 24067764 | doi = 10.1038/501S7a | bibcode = 2013Natur.501S...7E | doi-access = free }}</ref>


==== Health Safety ====
==== Health Safety ====
Line 79: Line 79:
Critics claim that Bt proteins could target predatory and other beneficial or harmless insects as well as the targeted pest. These proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with no ill effects on the environment reported.<ref name="UC-history">{{cite web |url= http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html |title=History of Bt |publisher= University of California|access-date=8 February 2010}}</ref> While ''cyt'' proteins are toxic towards the insect order [[Diptera]] (flies), certain ''cry'' proteins selectively target [[lepidopterans]] (moths and butterflies), while other ''cyt'' selectively target [[Coleoptera]].<ref>{{Cite journal| vauthors = Al-Deeb MA, Wilde GE, Blair JM, Todd TC |title=Effect of Bt Corn for Corn Rootworm Control on Nontarget Soil Microarthropods and Nematodes|journal=Environmental Entomology|language=en-US|volume=32|issue=4|pages=859–865|doi=10.1603/0046-225x-32.4.859|year=2003|doi-access=free}}</ref> As a toxic mechanism, ''cry'' proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut ([[epithelial]]) cells, resulting in rupture of those cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate gut receptors cannot be affected by the ''cry'' protein, and therefore Bt.<ref>{{cite web |title=Bt corn: is it worth the risk?|url=http://www.scq.ubc.ca/bt-corn-is-it-worth-the-risk/| vauthors = Hall H |date=30 May 2006|publisher=The Science Creative Quarterly}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Dorsch JA, Candas M, Griko NB, Maaty WS, Midboe EG, Vadlamudi RK, Bulla LA | title = Cry1A toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis bind specifically to a region adjacent to the membrane-proximal extracellular domain of BT-R(1) in Manduca sexta: involvement of a cadherin in the entomopathogenicity of Bacillus thuringiensis | journal = Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology | volume = 32 | issue = 9 | pages = 1025–36 | date = September 2002 | pmid = 12213239 | doi = 10.1016/s0965-1748(02)00040-1 }}</ref> Regulatory agencies assess the potential for the transgenic plant to impact nontarget organisms before approving commercial release.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A, Gatehouse AM, Herman RA, Huesing JE, McLean MA, Raybould A, Shelton AM, Waggoner A | display-authors = 6 | title = Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants | journal = Transgenic Research | volume = 20 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–22 | date = February 2011 | pmid = 20938806 | pmc = 3018611 | doi = 10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MM, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD | display-authors = 6 | title = Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods | journal = Nature Biotechnology | volume = 26 | issue = 2 | pages = 203–8 | date = February 2008 | pmid = 18259178 | doi = 10.1038/nbt1381 | s2cid = 1159143 | url = https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=ent_pubs }}</ref>
Critics claim that Bt proteins could target predatory and other beneficial or harmless insects as well as the targeted pest. These proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with no ill effects on the environment reported.<ref name="UC-history">{{cite web |url= http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html |title=History of Bt |publisher= University of California|access-date=8 February 2010}}</ref> While ''cyt'' proteins are toxic towards the insect order [[Diptera]] (flies), certain ''cry'' proteins selectively target [[lepidopterans]] (moths and butterflies), while other ''cyt'' selectively target [[Coleoptera]].<ref>{{Cite journal| vauthors = Al-Deeb MA, Wilde GE, Blair JM, Todd TC |title=Effect of Bt Corn for Corn Rootworm Control on Nontarget Soil Microarthropods and Nematodes|journal=Environmental Entomology|language=en-US|volume=32|issue=4|pages=859–865|doi=10.1603/0046-225x-32.4.859|year=2003|doi-access=free}}</ref> As a toxic mechanism, ''cry'' proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut ([[epithelial]]) cells, resulting in rupture of those cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate gut receptors cannot be affected by the ''cry'' protein, and therefore Bt.<ref>{{cite web |title=Bt corn: is it worth the risk?|url=http://www.scq.ubc.ca/bt-corn-is-it-worth-the-risk/| vauthors = Hall H |date=30 May 2006|publisher=The Science Creative Quarterly}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Dorsch JA, Candas M, Griko NB, Maaty WS, Midboe EG, Vadlamudi RK, Bulla LA | title = Cry1A toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis bind specifically to a region adjacent to the membrane-proximal extracellular domain of BT-R(1) in Manduca sexta: involvement of a cadherin in the entomopathogenicity of Bacillus thuringiensis | journal = Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology | volume = 32 | issue = 9 | pages = 1025–36 | date = September 2002 | pmid = 12213239 | doi = 10.1016/s0965-1748(02)00040-1 }}</ref> Regulatory agencies assess the potential for the transgenic plant to impact nontarget organisms before approving commercial release.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A, Gatehouse AM, Herman RA, Huesing JE, McLean MA, Raybould A, Shelton AM, Waggoner A | display-authors = 6 | title = Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants | journal = Transgenic Research | volume = 20 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–22 | date = February 2011 | pmid = 20938806 | pmc = 3018611 | doi = 10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MM, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD | display-authors = 6 | title = Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods | journal = Nature Biotechnology | volume = 26 | issue = 2 | pages = 203–8 | date = February 2008 | pmid = 18259178 | doi = 10.1038/nbt1381 | s2cid = 1159143 | url = https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=ent_pubs }}</ref>


A 1999 study found that in a lab environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto [[milkweed]] could harm the [[monarch butterfly]].<ref name="pmid10353241">{{cite journal | vauthors = Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME | title = Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae | journal = Nature | volume = 399 | issue = 6733 | pages = 214 | date = May 1999 | pmid = 10353241 | doi = 10.1038/20338 | bibcode = 1999Natur.399..214L | s2cid = 4424836 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Engineered corn kills monarch butterflies | date=19 May 1999 | publisher=Cornell News | url=http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html}}</ref> Several groups later studied the phenomenon in both the field and the laboratory, resulting in a [[risk assessment]] that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible.<ref name="pmid11559842">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP | display-authors = 6 | title = Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 98 | issue = 21 | pages = 11937–42 | date = October 2001 | pmid = 11559842 | pmc = 59819 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.211329998 | bibcode = 2001PNAS...9811937S | jstor = 3056827 | doi-access = free }}</ref> A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population".<ref name="pmid12047949">{{cite journal | vauthors = Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ | title = The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned | journal = Trends in Genetics | volume = 18 | issue = 5 | pages = 249–51 | date = May 2002 | pmid = 12047949 | doi = 10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02664-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Monarch butterflies: A threat to individual caterpillars, but not to the population as a whole |date=Dec 2004 |publisher=GMO Safety |url=http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173513/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |archive-date=21 July 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| title=Butterflies and Bt Corn| work=United States Department of Agriculture| url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| access-date=19 June 2005| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050318233043/http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| archive-date=18 March 2005| url-status=dead}}</ref> A 2007 review found that "nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with [[insecticide]]s. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P | title = A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates | journal = Science | volume = 316 | issue = 5830 | pages = 1475–7 | date = June 2007 | pmid = 17556584 | doi = 10.1126/science.1139208 | s2cid = 23172622 | bibcode = 2007Sci...316.1475M }}</ref>
A 1999 study found that in a lab environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto [[milkweed]] could harm the [[monarch butterfly]].<ref name="pmid10353241">{{cite journal | vauthors = Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME | title = Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae | journal = Nature | volume = 399 | issue = 6733 | pages = 214 | date = May 1999 | pmid = 10353241 | doi = 10.1038/20338 | bibcode = 1999Natur.399..214L | s2cid = 4424836 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Engineered corn kills monarch butterflies | date=19 May 1999 | publisher=Cornell News | url=https://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html}}</ref> Several groups later studied the phenomenon in both the field and the laboratory, resulting in a [[risk assessment]] that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible.<ref name="pmid11559842">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP | display-authors = 6 | title = Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 98 | issue = 21 | pages = 11937–42 | date = October 2001 | pmid = 11559842 | pmc = 59819 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.211329998 | bibcode = 2001PNAS...9811937S | jstor = 3056827 | doi-access = free }}</ref> A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population".<ref name="pmid12047949">{{cite journal | vauthors = Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ | title = The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned | journal = Trends in Genetics | volume = 18 | issue = 5 | pages = 249–51 | date = May 2002 | pmid = 12047949 | doi = 10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02664-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Monarch butterflies: A threat to individual caterpillars, but not to the population as a whole |date=Dec 2004 |publisher=GMO Safety |url=http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173513/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |archive-date=21 July 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| title=Butterflies and Bt Corn| work=United States Department of Agriculture| url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| access-date=19 June 2005| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050318233043/http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| archive-date=18 March 2005| url-status=dead}}</ref> A 2007 review found that "nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with [[insecticide]]s. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P | title = A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates | journal = Science | volume = 316 | issue = 5830 | pages = 1475–7 | date = June 2007 | pmid = 17556584 | doi = 10.1126/science.1139208 | s2cid = 23172622 | bibcode = 2007Sci...316.1475M }}</ref>


=== Gene flow ===
=== Gene flow ===
Line 102: Line 102:
{{main|Starlink corn recall}}
{{main|Starlink corn recall}}


StarLink contains Cry9C, which had not previously been used in a GM crop.<ref name=ColStateExt-Starlink>{{cite web | work = Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University | date = 11 March 2004 | url = http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | title = What is StarLink Corn | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060907235951/http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | archive-date = 7 September 2006 }}</ref> Starlink's creator, [[Plant Genetic Systems]],  had applied to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to market Starlink for use in animal feed and in human food.<ref name=Pew>{{cite web | vauthors = Taylor MR, Tick JS | work = Resources for the Future, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology | url = http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/food_and_biotechnology/hhsbiotechstarcasepdf.pdf | title = The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future }}</ref>{{rp|14}} However, because the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.<ref>{{cite web | quote = While EPA had no specific data to indicate that Cry9C was an allergen, the protein expressed in StarLink corn did exhibit certain characteristics (i.e. relative heat stability and extended time to digestion) that were common to known food allergens such as those found in peanuts, eggs, etc. EPA's concern was that StarLink corn may be a human food allergen and in the absence of more definitive data, EPA has not made a decision whether or not to register the human food use. | author = Staff | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | date = November 2000 | url = http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf | title = Executive Summary: EPA Preliminary Evaluation of Information Contained in the October 25, 2000 Submission from Aventis Cropscience }}</ref>{{rp|3}} As a result, PGS split its application into separate permits for use in food and use in [[compound feed|animal feed]].<ref name="ColStateExt-Starlink"/><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-11-26/pdf/97-31131.pdf | title = Plant Genetic Systems (America) Inc.: PP 7G4921 | journal = Federal Register | volume = 62 | issue = 228 | date = 26 November 1997 | page = 63169 }} bottom of middle column - 63170 right column; see especially p63169 top of right column</ref> Starlink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed only in May 1998.<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|15}}
StarLink contains Cry9C, which had not previously been used in a GM crop.<ref name=ColStateExt-Starlink>{{cite web | work = Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University | date = 11 March 2004 | url = http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | title = What is StarLink Corn | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060907235951/http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | archive-date = 7 September 2006 }}</ref> Starlink's creator, [[Plant Genetic Systems]],  had applied to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to market Starlink for use in animal feed and in human food.<ref name=Pew>{{cite web | vauthors = Taylor MR, Tick JS | work = Resources for the Future, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology | url = http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/food_and_biotechnology/hhsbiotechstarcasepdf.pdf | title = The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future }}</ref>{{rp|14}} However, because the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.<ref>{{cite web | quote = While EPA had no specific data to indicate that Cry9C was an allergen, the protein expressed in StarLink corn did exhibit certain characteristics (i.e. relative heat stability and extended time to digestion) that were common to known food allergens such as those found in peanuts, eggs, etc. EPA's concern was that StarLink corn may be a human food allergen and in the absence of more definitive data, EPA has not made a decision whether or not to register the human food use. | author = Staff | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | date = November 2000 | url = http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130922073315/http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf | url-status = dead | archive-date = 22 September 2013 | title = Executive Summary: EPA Preliminary Evaluation of Information Contained in the October 25, 2000 Submission from Aventis Cropscience }}</ref>{{rp|3}} As a result, PGS split its application into separate permits for use in food and use in [[compound feed|animal feed]].<ref name="ColStateExt-Starlink"/><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-11-26/pdf/97-31131.pdf | title = Plant Genetic Systems (America) Inc.: PP 7G4921 | journal = Federal Register | volume = 62 | issue = 228 | date = 26 November 1997 | page = 63169 }} bottom of middle column - 63170 right column; see especially p63169 top of right column</ref> Starlink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed only in May 1998.<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|15}}


StarLink corn was subsequently found in food destined for consumption by humans in the US, Japan, and South Korea.<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|20–21}} This corn became the subject of the widely publicized [[Starlink corn recall]], which started when [[Taco Bell]]-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain the corn. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = King D, Gordon A | collaboration = Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition | url = http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | title = Contaminant found in Taco Bell taco shells. Food safety coalition demands recall | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20001209004300/http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | archive-date=9 December 2000 | location = Washington, DC | publisher = Friends of the Earth | date = 3 November 2001 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Fuler M | date = 23 September 2000 |url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-23-mn-25314-story.html |title=Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn | work = The Los Angeles Times |access-date=31 December 2013}}</ref> The registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Pioneer had been bought by AgrEvo which then became Aventis CropScience at the time of the incident,<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|15–16}} which was later bought by [[Bayer CropScience|Bayer]].<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Carpenter JE, Gianessi LP | title = Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. | location = Washington, DC | publisher = National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy | date = January 2001 | url = http://ucbiotech.org/biotech_info/PDFs/Carpenter_2001_Updated_Benefits.pdf }}</ref>
StarLink corn was subsequently found in food destined for consumption by humans in the US, Japan, and South Korea.<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|20–21}} This corn became the subject of the widely publicized [[Starlink corn recall]], which started when [[Taco Bell]]-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain the corn. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = King D, Gordon A | collaboration = Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition | url = http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | title = Contaminant found in Taco Bell taco shells. Food safety coalition demands recall | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20001209004300/http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | archive-date=9 December 2000 | location = Washington, DC | publisher = Friends of the Earth | date = 3 November 2001 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Fuler M | date = 23 September 2000 |url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-23-mn-25314-story.html |title=Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn | work = The Los Angeles Times |access-date=31 December 2013}}</ref> The registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Pioneer had been bought by AgrEvo which then became Aventis CropScience at the time of the incident,<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|15–16}} which was later bought by [[Bayer CropScience|Bayer]].<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Carpenter JE, Gianessi LP | title = Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. | location = Washington, DC | publisher = National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy | date = January 2001 | url = http://ucbiotech.org/biotech_info/PDFs/Carpenter_2001_Updated_Benefits.pdf }}</ref>


Fifty-one people reported adverse effects to the FDA; [[US Centers for Disease Control]] (CDC), which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink.<ref>{{cite web | author = Staff, EPA review committee. | url = http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx | title = LLP Incidents | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency }}</ref> However, the CDC studied the blood of these 28 individuals and concluded there was no evidence of hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/default.htm |title= Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn | work = CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | location = Atlanta, GA | publisher = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | date = 2001 |access-date=28 October 2014}}</ref>
Fifty-one people reported adverse effects to the FDA; [[US Centers for Disease Control]] (CDC), which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink.<ref>{{cite web | author = Staff, EPA review committee. | url = https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx | title = LLP Incidents | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency }}</ref> However, the CDC studied the blood of these 28 individuals and concluded there was no evidence of hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/default.htm |title= Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn | work = CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | location = Atlanta, GA | publisher = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | date = 2001 |access-date=28 October 2014}}</ref>


A subsequent review of these tests by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel points out that while "the negative results decrease the probability that the Cry9C protein is the cause of allergic symptoms in the individuals examined ... in the absence of a positive control and questions regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the assay, it is not possible to assign a negative predictive value to this."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001|website=epa.gov|access-date=8 April 2018}}</ref>
A subsequent review of these tests by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel points out that while "the negative results decrease the probability that the Cry9C protein is the cause of allergic symptoms in the individuals examined ... in the absence of a positive control and questions regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the assay, it is not possible to assign a negative predictive value to this."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=dead|title=FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001|website=epa.gov|access-date=8 April 2018}}</ref>


The US corn supply has been monitored for the presence of the Starlink Bt proteins since 2001.<ref>{{cite web|title=Starlink Corn Regulatory Information |url=http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |date=April 2008 |publisher=Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115215719/http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |archive-date=15 January 2013 }}</ref>
The US corn supply has been monitored for the presence of the Starlink Bt proteins since 2001.<ref>{{cite web|title=Starlink Corn Regulatory Information |url=http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |date=April 2008 |publisher=Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115215719/http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |archive-date=15 January 2013 }}</ref>

Latest revision as of 19:15, 23 October 2025

Template:Short description Template:Use dmy dates Template:Genetic engineering sidebar

File:Btcornafrica.jpg
Transgenic maize containing a gene from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis

Genetically modified maize (corn) is a genetically modified crop. Specific maize strains have been genetically engineered to express agriculturally-desirable traits, including resistance to pests and to herbicides. Maize strains with both traits are now in use in multiple countries. GM maize has also caused controversy with respect to possible health effects, impact on other insects and impact on other plants via gene flow. One strain, called Starlink, was approved only for animal feed in the US but was found in food, leading to a series of recalls starting in 2000. Template:Toclimit

Marketed products

Herbicide-resistant maize

Corn varieties resistant to glyphosate herbicides were first commercialized in 1996 by Monsanto, and are known as "Roundup Ready Corn". They tolerate the use of Roundup.[1] Bayer CropScience developed "Liberty Link Corn" that is resistant to glufosinate.[2] Pioneer Hi-Bred has developed and markets corn hybrids with tolerance to imidazoline herbicides under the trademark "Clearfield" – though in these hybrids, the herbicide-tolerance trait was bred using tissue culture selection and the chemical mutagen ethyl methanesulfonate, not genetic engineering.[3] Consequently, the regulatory framework governing the approval of transgenic crops does not apply for Clearfield.[3]

As of 2011, herbicide-resistant GM corn was grown in 14 countries.[4] By 2012, 26 varieties of herbicide-resistant GM maize were authorised for import into the European Union,[5] but such imports remain controversial.[6] Cultivation of herbicide-resistant corn in the EU provides substantial farm-level benefits.[7]

Insect-resistant corn

File:Corn borer.jpg
The European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, destroys corn crops by burrowing into the stem, causing the plant to fall over.

Bt maize/corn

Template:Visible anchor/Template:Visible anchor is a variant of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis[8] including Delta endotoxins. The protein is poisonous to certain insect pests. Spores of the bacillus are widely used in organic gardening,[9] although GM corn is not considered organic. The European corn borer causes about a billion dollars in damage to corn crops each year.[10]

In recent years, traits have been added to ward off corn ear worms and root worms, the latter of which annually causes about a billion dollars in damages.[11][12]

The Bt protein is expressed throughout the plant. When a vulnerable insect eats the Bt-containing plant, the protein is activated in its gut, which is alkaline. In the alkaline environment, the protein partially unfolds and is cut by other proteins, forming a toxin that paralyzes the insect's digestive system and forms holes in the gut wall. The insect stops eating within a few hours and eventually starves.[13][14]

In 1996, the first GM maize producing a Bt Cry protein was approved, which killed the European corn borer and related species; subsequent Bt genes were introduced that killed corn rootworm larvae.[15]

The Philippine Government has promoted Bt corn, hoping for insect resistance and higher yields.[16]

Approved Bt genes include single and stacked (event names bracketed) configurations of: Cry1A.105 (MON89034), CryIAb (MON810), CryIF (1507), Cry2Ab (MON89034), Cry3Bb1 (MON863 and MON88017), Cry34Ab1 (59122), Cry35Ab1 (59122), mCry3A (MIR604), and Vip3A (MIR162), in both corn and cotton.[17][18]Template:Rp Corn genetically modified to produce VIP was first approved in the US in 2010.[19]

A 2018 study found that Bt-corn protected nearby fields of non-Bt corn and nearby vegetable crops, reducing the use of pesticides on those crops. Data from 1976 to 1996 (before Bt corn was widespread) was compared to data after it was adopted (1996–2016). They examined levels of the European corn borer and corn earworm. Their larvae eat a variety of crops, including peppers and green beans. Between 1992 and 2016, the amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by 85 percent. Another factor was the introduction of more effective pesticides that were applied less often.[20]

Sweet Corn

GM sweet corn varieties include "Attribute", the brand name for insect-resistant sweet corn developed by Syngenta[21] and Performance Series insect-resistant sweet corn developed by Monsanto.[22]

Cuba

While Cuba's agriculture is largely focused on organic production, as of 2010, the country had developed a variety of genetically modified corn that is resistant to the palomilla moth.[23]

Drought-resistant maize

In 2013 Monsanto launched the first transgenic drought tolerance trait in a line of corn hybrids called DroughtGard.[24] The MON 87460 trait is provided by the insertion of the cspB gene from the soil microbe Bacillus subtilis; it was approved by the USDA in 2011[25] and by China in 2013.[26]

Health Safety

In regular corn crops, insects promote fungal colonization by creating "wounds," or holes, in corn kernels. These wounds are favored by fungal spores for germination, which subsequently leads to mycotoxin accumulation in the crop that can be carcinogenic and toxic to humans and other animals. This can prove to be especially devastating in developing countries with drastic climate patterns such as high temperatures, which favor the development of toxic fungi. In addition, higher mycotoxin levels leads to market rejection or reduced market prices for the grain. GM corn crops encounter fewer insect attacks, and thus, have lower concentrations of mycotoxins. Fewer insect attacks also keep corn ears from being damaged, which increases overall yields.[27]

Products in development

In 2007, South African researchers announced the production of transgenic maize resistant to maize streak virus (MSV), although it has not been released as a product.[28] While breeding cultivars for resistance to MSV isn't done in the public, the private sector, international research centers, and national programmes have done all of the breeding.[29] As of 2014, there have been a few MSV-tolerant cultivars released in Africa. A private company Seedco has released 5 MSV cultivars.[30]

Research has been done on adding a single E. coli gene to maize to enable it to be grown with an essential amino acid (methionine).[31][32]

Refuges

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require farmers who plant Bt corn to plant non-Bt corn nearby (called a refuge), with the logic that pests will infest the non-Bt corn and thus will not evolve a resistance to the Bt toxin.[33] Typically, 20% of corn in a grower's fields must be refuge; refuge must be at least 0.5 miles from Bt corn for lepidopteran pests, and refuge for corn rootworm must at least be adjacent to a Bt field.[34] EPA regulations also require seed companies to train farmers how to maintain refuges, to collect data on the refuges and to report that data to the EPA.[33] A study of these reports found that from 2003 to 2005 farmer compliance with keeping refuges was above 90%, but that by 2008 approximately 25% of Bt corn farmers did not keep refuges properly, raising concerns that resistance would develop.[33]

Unmodified crops received most of the economic benefits of Bt corn in the US in 1996–2007, because of the overall reduction of pest populations. This reduction came because females laid eggs on modified and unmodified strains alike, but pest organisms that develop on the modified strain are eliminated.[35]

Seed bags containing both Bt and refuge seed have been approved by the EPA in the United States. These seed mixtures were marketed as "Refuge in a Bag" (RIB) to increase farmer compliance with refuge requirements and reduce additional work needed at planting from having separate Bt and refuge seed bags on hand. The EPA approved a lower percentage of refuge seed in these seed mixtures ranging from 5 to 10%. This strategy is likely to reduce the likelihood of Bt-resistance occurring for corn rootworm, but may increase the risk of resistance for lepidopteran pests, such as European corn borer. Increased concerns for resistance with seed mixtures include partially resistant larvae on a Bt plant being able to move to a susceptible plant to survive or cross pollination of refuge pollen on to Bt plants that can lower the amount of Bt expressed in kernels for ear feeding insects.[36][37]

Resistance

Resistant strains of the European corn borer have developed in areas with defective or absent refuge management.[35][33] In 2012, a Florida field trial demonstrated that army worms were resistant to Bt maize produced by Dupont-Dow; armyworm resistance was first discovered in Puerto Rico in 2006, prompting Dow and DuPont to voluntarily stop selling the product on the island.[38]

Regulation

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Regulation of GM crops varies between countries, with some of the most-marked differences occurring between the US and Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on intended uses.[39][40]

Controversy

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

There is a scientific consensus[41][42][43][44] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[45][46][47][48][49] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[50][51][52] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[53][54][55][56] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[57][58][59][60]

The scientific rigor of the studies regarding human health has been disputed due to alleged lack of independence and due to conflicts of interest involving governing bodies and some of those who perform and evaluate the studies.[61][62][63][64] However, no reports of ill effects from GM food have been documented in the human population.[65][66][67]

GM crops provide a number of ecological benefits, but there are also concerns for their overuse, stalled research outside of the Bt seed industry, proper management and issues with Bt resistance arising from their misuse.[64][68][69]

Critics have objected to GM crops on ecological, economic and health grounds. The economic issues derive from those organisms that are subject to intellectual property law, mostly patents. The first generation of GM crops lose patent protection beginning in 2015. Monsanto has claimed it will not pursue farmers who retain seeds of off-patent varieties.[70] These controversies have led to litigation, international trade disputes, protests and to restrictive legislation in most countries.[71]

Introduction of Bt maize led to significant reduction of mycotoxin-related poisoning and cancer rates, as they were significantly less prone to contain mycotoxins (29%), fumonisins (31%) and thricotecens (37%), all of which are toxic and carcinogenic.[72]

Effects on nontarget insects

Critics claim that Bt proteins could target predatory and other beneficial or harmless insects as well as the targeted pest. These proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with no ill effects on the environment reported.[8] While cyt proteins are toxic towards the insect order Diptera (flies), certain cry proteins selectively target lepidopterans (moths and butterflies), while other cyt selectively target Coleoptera.[73] As a toxic mechanism, cry proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut (epithelial) cells, resulting in rupture of those cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate gut receptors cannot be affected by the cry protein, and therefore Bt.[74][75] Regulatory agencies assess the potential for the transgenic plant to impact nontarget organisms before approving commercial release.[76][77]

A 1999 study found that in a lab environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto milkweed could harm the monarch butterfly.[78][79] Several groups later studied the phenomenon in both the field and the laboratory, resulting in a risk assessment that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible.[80] A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population".[81][82][83] A 2007 review found that "nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields."[84]

Gene flow

Gene flow is the transfer of genes and/or alleles from one species to another. Concerns focus on the interaction between GM and other maize varieties in Mexico, and of gene flow into refuges.

In 2009 the government of Mexico created a regulatory pathway for genetically modified maize,[85] but because Mexico is the center of diversity for maize, gene flow could affect a large fraction of the world's maize strains.[86][87] A 2001 report in Nature presented evidence that Bt maize was cross-breeding with unmodified maize in Mexico.[88] The data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact. Nature later stated, "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper".[89] A 2005 large-scale study failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca.[90] However, other authors also found evidence of cross-breeding between natural maize and transgenic maize.[91]

A 2004 study found Bt protein in kernels of refuge corn.[92]

In 2017, a large-scale study found "pervasive presence of transgenes and glyphosate in maize-derived food in Mexico"[93]

Food

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois et al. study and concluded that it "presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[94] However, the French government applies the precautionary principle with respect to GMOs.[95][96][97]

A review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and others of the same study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.[98][99]

A 2011 Canadian study looked at the presence of CryAb1 protein (BT toxin) in non-pregnant women, pregnant women and fetal blood. All groups had detectable levels of the protein, including 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses at concentrations of 0.19 ± 0.30 and 0.04 ± 0.04 mean ± SD ng/ml, respectively.[100] The paper did not discuss safety implications or find any health problems. FSANZ agency published a comment pointing out a number of inconsistencies in the paper, most notably that it "does not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein".[101]

In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority released all data submitted by Monsanto in relation to the 2003 authorisation of maize genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance.[102]

Starlink corn recalls

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

StarLink contains Cry9C, which had not previously been used in a GM crop.[103] Starlink's creator, Plant Genetic Systems, had applied to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to market Starlink for use in animal feed and in human food.[104]Template:Rp However, because the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.[105]Template:Rp As a result, PGS split its application into separate permits for use in food and use in animal feed.[103][106] Starlink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed only in May 1998.[104]Template:Rp

StarLink corn was subsequently found in food destined for consumption by humans in the US, Japan, and South Korea.[104]Template:Rp This corn became the subject of the widely publicized Starlink corn recall, which started when Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain the corn. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued.[107][108] The registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Pioneer had been bought by AgrEvo which then became Aventis CropScience at the time of the incident,[104]Template:Rp which was later bought by Bayer.[109]

Fifty-one people reported adverse effects to the FDA; US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink.[110] However, the CDC studied the blood of these 28 individuals and concluded there was no evidence of hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein.[111]

A subsequent review of these tests by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel points out that while "the negative results decrease the probability that the Cry9C protein is the cause of allergic symptoms in the individuals examined ... in the absence of a positive control and questions regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the assay, it is not possible to assign a negative predictive value to this."[112]

The US corn supply has been monitored for the presence of the Starlink Bt proteins since 2001.[113]

In 2005, aid sent by the UN and the US to Central American nations also contained some StarLink corn. The nations involved, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala refused to accept the aid.[114]

Corporate espionage

On 19 December 2013 six Chinese citizens were indicted in Iowa on charges of plotting to steal genetically modified seeds worth tens of millions of dollars from Monsanto and DuPont. Mo Hailong, director of international business at the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., part of the Beijing-based DBN Group, was accused of stealing trade secrets after he was found digging in an Iowa cornfield.[115]

See also

References

Template:Reflist

External links

  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". - research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". (Part of the minutes of the plenary meeting held on 3–4 December 2008, see on page 9)

Template:Genetic engineering Template:Corn

  1. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  4. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  5. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  8. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  10. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  11. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  12. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  13. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  14. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  15. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  16. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1". p.Script error: No such module "String".443
  17. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  18. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  19. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  20. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  21. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  22. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  23. ↑ Anna Glayzer for The Food Commission. 19 July 2010 Cuba's food production revolution
  24. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  26. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  27. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  28. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  29. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  30. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  31. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  32. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  33. ↑ a b c d Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  34. ↑ Template:Cite report
  35. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  36. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  37. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  38. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". Template:Subscription required
  39. ↑ Wesseler, J. and N. Kalaitzandonakes (2011): Present and Future EU GMO policy. In Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meesters and Huib Silvis (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas. Second Edition, pp. 23-323 – 23-332. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers
  40. ↑ Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, J. Wesseler (2011): Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-modified (non GM) crops: Are the two main property rights regimes equivalent with respect to the coexistence value? In "Genetically modified food and global welfare" edited by Colin Carter, GianCarlo Moschini and Ian Sheldon, pp 201-224. Volume 10 in Frontiers of Economics and Globalization Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
  41. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Nicolia2013
  42. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FAO
  43. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ronald2011
  44. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Also
  45. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AAAS2012
  46. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ECom2010
  47. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AMA2001
  48. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named LoC2015
  49. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named NAS2016
  50. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WHOFAQ
  51. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Haslberger2003
  52. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named BMA2004
  53. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PEW2015
  54. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Marris2001
  55. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PABE
  56. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Scott2016
  57. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named loc.gov
  58. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Bashshur
  59. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sifferlin
  60. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Council on Foreign Relations
  61. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  62. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  63. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  64. ↑ a b Template:Cite magazine
  65. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  66. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.
  67. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  68. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  69. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  70. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  71. ↑ Wesseler, J. (ed.) (2005): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Press
  72. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  73. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  74. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  75. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  76. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  77. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  78. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  79. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  80. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  81. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  82. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  83. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  84. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  85. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  86. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  87. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  88. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  89. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  90. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  91. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  92. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  93. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  94. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  95. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  96. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  97. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  98. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  99. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  100. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  101. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  102. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  103. ↑ a b c d Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  104. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  105. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1". bottom of middle column - 63170 right column; see especially p63169 top of right column
  106. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  107. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  108. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  109. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  110. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  111. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  112. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  113. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  114. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_maize&oldid=3107917"