Artificial versus Natural Genetic Modification & Perils of GMOs
The precision, complexity, and all-pervasiveness of
natural genetic modification leave organisms and ecosystems particularly
vulnerable to artificial genetic modification Dr Mae-Wan
at 1st Forum of Development and Environmental Safety, under the theme
“Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture 2014”, 25 - 26 July 2014, Beijing,
An accompanying powerpoint presentation for this lecture is available here
new genetics and natural genetic modification
has been turned upside down beginning the mid-1970s and especially since the
human genome was announced in 2000. The tools of genetic manipulation have been
advancing and improving in leaps and bounds. Today, geneticists can dissect and
analyse the structure and function of genes and genomes in minute detail down
to the base sequence of a nucleic acid in one single cell using ‘next
generation deep sequencing’ (see Box 1 reproduced
Next generation deep
Next generation sequencing
(NGS) extends sequencing across millions of reactions taking place in parallel.
This enables rapid sequencing of large stretches of DNA base pairs spanning
entire genomes, with instruments capable of producing hundreds of gigabase (Gb)
data in a single sequencing run. To sequence a single genome, the genome is
first fragmented into a library of small segments that can be uniformly and
accurately sequenced in millions of parallel reactions. The newly identified
strings of bases, called reads (of a defined length) are then reassembled using
a known reference genome as a scaffold (re-sequencing), or in the absence of a reference
genome (de novo sequencing), assembled by overlaps. The full set of
aligned reads reveals the entire sequence of each chromosome in the genome.
output has been rising steeply since its invention in 2007, when a single
sequencing run could produce a maximum of about one Gb data. By 2011, the rate
has reached nearly a terabase (Tb, 1012b), a thousand fold increase.
By 2012, researchers can sequence more than 5 human genomes in a single run,
producing data in roughly one week at a cost of less than $5 000 per genome.
The $1 000 genome is now within our grasp.
throughput capacity has enabled ‘deep sequencing’ of genomes and transcriptomes
to look for rare DNA variants or rare species of RNA transcripts. Deep
sequencing means that the total number of reads is many times larger than the
length of the sequence under study. ‘Depth’ (coverage) is the average number of
times a nucleotide is read.
in the mid-1970s to 1980s, the primary motivation for both artificial genetic
modification and the human genome project was classical Watson-Crick molecular genetics
based largely on the Central Dogma that genes control the characteristics of
organisms in linear causal chains. That
picture has been overwhelmingly contradicted by empirical findings that began
to trickle, then stream, and pour out of laboratories. The new genetics is
telling us in no uncertain terms that the genome is fluid and dynamic. It is
constantly conversing with the environment in circular networks that mark and
change genomic DNA in myriad ways, with both DNA and RNA taking part in transmitting
genetic information and in executing and altering genetic information in real
use the term ‘natural genetic modification’ for the totality of changes made by
organisms in the genetic information of cells and tissues as part of their
survival strategy, and some of the changes are passed on to the next
generation(s) . Artificial genetic modification invariably
interferes with the natural process, and I suggested that is  Why GMOs Can
Never be Safe (SiS 59).
Natural genetic modification employs the
same copy, cut and splice tools as artificial genetic modification, but with
much greater finesse and precision. (Artificial genetic modification is
possible only by usurping the tools of the natural process.) It enables
organisms to express genes in different parts of the genome at the appropriate
levels, or mark and modify them, as and when required in specific cells and
produce even one protein – originally thought to be single continuous message –
requires elaborate cut and splice operations. The international research
consortium project ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) data have revealed
that the vast majority of genomic DNA include ‘non-coding’ segments [4, 5]. The
‘gene’, a theoretical construct that has never been possible to define
rigorously, is now known to be scattered in bits across the genome, overlapping
with bits of multiple genes that have to be spliced together before translating
into a protein. The term used for the bits is ‘coding sequences’ or exons.
expression of each gene already requires the assembly of a
small army of special molecular engineers. The human genome contains about 20 000
protein-coding genes, most of which would be active in one cell or other of the
body at any one time.
not all. Humans contain practically the same number of protein-coding genes as
nematodes that have only 1 000 cells compared to humans’ 1014 cells.
In contrast, non-protein-coding DNA, largely absent from bacteria, increases
with increasing complexity of organisms  (see  Non-Coding
RNA and Evolution of Complexity, SiS 63), reaching 98.8 %
of the human genome. Much of that was considered ‘junk DNA’ until geneticists
discovered to their surprise that most of the sequences (latest estimate >
85 % ) are dynamically and differentially transcribed in tissues and cells,
into many families of short and long non-coding (nc)RNAs. These ncRNAs regulate
gene expression and genome architecture by interacting with DNA, RNAs, proteins,
and other cofactors.
Cells and tissues also respond to their environments by
recruiting different contingents of molecular engineers for marking and
modifying, cutting and splicing specific RNA or DNA, or remodelling chromatin
(complex of DNA and histone proteins) at specific genome locations. We know
only a small fraction of the vast amount of details involved. But it is already
so remarkable that leading molecular geneticist James Shapiro at University of
Chicago is saying that practically nothing happens at random [9, 10]. Cells
and their genomes are not  “passive victims of replication errors or DNA
damage” (see  Evolution
by Natural Genetic Engineering,
SiS 63). Instead, just about everything, including so-called random
mutations happens by “natural genetic engineering” (almost the same as what I
call natural genetic modification).
Indeed, cells have special proof-reading and
error correcting functions to eliminate and repair damaged/mutated bases in the
genetic material, getting errors down to below 1 in a billion bases under
normal conditions. But during starvation, bacteria can also target precise mutations
to specific sites in the genome to generate new metabolic functions [9, 10].
Such ‘directed’ or ‘adaptive’ mutations are now well-documented in bacteria as
well as human cells (see  Non-Random
Directed Mutations Confirmed, SiS 60). The human immune system executes accurate cut and splice
genome rearrangements to create a large variety of immunoglobulin chains and
also targets hypermutations to specific immunoglobulin variable sites to generate
huge diversities of antibodies for defence against invading pathogens.
I have only given you a tiny sampling of the
organisms’ remarkable feats of natural genetic modification, which are precisely
targeted, context dependent, complex, and negotiated by the organism as a whole.
It is a well-known paradox that both plant and animal cells maintained in
culture undergo uncontrollable mutations and chromosomal rearrangements (somaclonal
variations) , in contrast to cells within the healthy organism, which show
extremely low levels of ‘random’ mutations.
Artificial genetic modification acts against
and undermines the natural process
The targeted precision and complexity of natural genetic
engineering/ modification makes clear that genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) created by the crude methods generally used until very recently can only
be highly unsafe [2, 3]. Much current effort is dedicated to ‘genome editing’
using guided or otherwise specific DNA cutting enzymes to alter DNA sequence at
target locations in the genome. But off-target, cytotoxic effects continue to
dog the latest attempts [14-16]. Artificial genetic modification invariably
interferes with natural genetic modification, and it is well-nigh impossible to
avoid doing so. It depends on disrupting and overriding the organism’s own minutely
choreographed process, the result is uncontrollable and unpredictable
To override the natural system,
the synthetic GM DNA molecules are forced into the cells in large numbers with
stressful methods such as gene gun  or electric shock , carried by
vectors (such as the Agrobacterium binary vector) designed to invade
genomes. Further, the transgenes are equipped with aggressive promoters such as
the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35s and similar viral promoters in order to
force the cells to express the foreign genes (see ). These and other
stresses (as Shapiro points out) are well-known to mobilize endogenous transposons
(jumping genes) that scramble and destabilize genomes. Consequently, transgenic
lines are unstable, both from silencing and loss of transgenes, which makes
horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA more likely than non-transgenic DNA. For
the same reasons, transgenic lines often suffer yield drag; while complete crop
failures have been reported in India [19-22] (GM Crops Failed, SiS
Cotton Offers No Advantage, SiS 38) and during the recent drought
in the United States  (GM Crops
Destroyed by US Drought but non-GM Varieties Flourish, SiS 56). The
same transgene instability may have been responsible for the latest failure in
the pilot commercial planting of Bt brinjal in Bangladesh  (Bangladeshi
Bt Brinjal Pilot Scheme Failed, SiS 63).
genetic modification is not something that happens only occasionally, it is
constant and all-pervasive in the life of the organism; interconnecting millions
of molecular players in a cell at any one time. That is why artificial genetic
modification has failed to produce any ecologically beneficial or complex traits,
while even the ‘single gene’ traits are unstable. Artificial
and natural genetic modification is contrasted in Table 1.
Table 1 Artificial vs natural genetic modification
Context-inappropriate, hence uncontrollable & unpredictable hazards: scrambled
genomes, new nucleic acids, proteins, and metabolites
precise targeting &accurately choreographed with little or no off-target effects
Depends on disrupting the natural process, hence adverse & hazardous interference Stressful methodology – gene guns, electric shocks, invasive vectors (Agrobacterium), aggressive virus promoters (CaMV 35S) – multiply hazards and destabilize genomes, resulting in transgene instability, yield drag, and horizontal transfer of transgenes.
Always appropriate to context and hence no adverse interference
Reductionist aims, without regard to the whole organism (uncontrollable somaclonal variations of cells in culture)
Negotiated by the organism as a whole (very low random mutation rates in cells unless targeted)
Artificial GM imperils the biosphere by
hijacking the natural process
Despite its failures and inefficacy,
artificial genetic modification can nevertheless endanger organisms exposed to
its sphere of influence. There is abundant reliable evidence that GM feed and
other exposures to GMOs invariably cause harm, regardless of the species
of animal, GM crop, or the genes and constructs involved. The health impacts of
GMOs are independent of those caused by glyphosate herbicides, the world’s top
herbicide used with glyphosate/Roundup tolerant GM crops and for other purposes,
which fill volumes on their own. Laboratory findings obtained by scientists
independent of the biotech industry have fully backed up the real life
experience of farmers in the field: liver and kidney damage, infertility, excess
deaths, birth defects, tumours, cancers. Since our last comprehensive review in
2013  Ban GMOs Now (ISIS special report), further corroborating evidence
have become available.
Male rats fed Bt corn MON 810 showed a wide
range of organ and tissue abnormalities [26, 27], these effects were replicated
in male and female rats and their offspring during a three month feeding trial
.The changes were attributed to the Cry1 AB
toxin engineered into the Bt corn. Certainly, the transgene product itself is a
conspicuous source of harm, as is the toxicity of the herbicides used with
herbicide tolerant GM crops. There are two other major categories of harm
arising from GMOs: the uncontrollable, unpredictable effects of artificial
genetic modification and the GM insert and its instability, which I have dealt
with at some length previously (see [2, 3, 25]).
Here, I shall highlight aspects that are
increasingly important in the ‘new generation’ GMOs being pushed onto the
market. New nucleic acids and other unintended artificial modifications of the
genome can act like a Trojan horse to harm organisms and ecosystems by
hijacking the natural process; especially via nucleic acids in food, horizontal
gene transfer, and trans-generational inheritance.
New nucleic acids enter the human food chain
to alter gene expression & worse
A research team from China first reported in
2011 that short regulatory micro (mi)RNAs (~ 22 nt) originating from plants
eaten can resist digestion, enter the bloodstream, and get into cells to change
the expression of specific genes . It raised serious concerns over the
safety of GMOs, for they introduce entirely new nucleic acids into the human
food chain  (How Food Affects
Genes, SiS 53), both intentionally created and unintended within the
GMOs. Monsanto orchestrated an attempt to discredit this finding (see ).
But it has been abundantly confirmed and extended.
survey of human plasma for miRNAs using next generation sequencing (NGS)
carried out by Kai Wang and David Galas at the Institute for Systems Biology and
Paul Wiles at University of Luxembourg found extensive and widespread presence
of miRNAs originating from grains and other food items including soybean,
tomato and grape. Some of the miRNAs or miRNA-like molecules were synthesized and
transfected into mouse fibroblasts, and found to alter the expression profiles
of a number of genes .
at Moringga Milk Industry Zama Kanagawa, Japan, using more conventional
microarray and quantitative PCR analyses, identified 102 miRNA in cow’s milk,
100 in colostrum and 53 in mature milk, with 51 common to both . In
addition, some messenger(m)RNAs were found in the milk. These miRNAs and mRNAs were
wrapped inside lipoprotein vesicles rather like the exosomes identified in the
bloodstream of animals (as well as in cell culture medium) that are believed to
be part of the nucleic acid intercommunication system of the body (see below). Both
miRNAs and mRNAs were also present in infant formulas bought from Japanese supermarket.
team at University of Louisville Kentucky USA succeeded in isolating exosome-like
nanoparticles from the edible plants ginger root, grape, grapefruit and carrot,
which contain proteins, lipids and miRNA. These were taken up by intestinal
macrophages and stem cells of mice and preferentially induced the expression of
antioxidant genes and genes involved in the maintenance of intestinal
homeostasis  that protect against all kinds of chronic diseases including
cancer. This serves to remind us that epigenetic effects can be beneficial or
harmful, and why it is important to eat good wholesome food.
only RNA, but also DNA from meals eaten could be identified. A study led by
Sándor Spisák at Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest and Harvard Medical
School Boston, Massachusetts in the USA analysed over 1 000 human adult samples
from four independent studies using NGS and NGS databases, and found DNA
fragments derived from food in all plasma samples, some large enough to code
for complete genes . The team found DNA from dozens of plant species
differing between individuals, mostly likely reflecting their diet, including
grains, beans and vegetables. There was also meat DNA, but because animal DNA
is more similar to human DNA, it is more difficult to ascertain.
is increasing evidence that cells in the body intercommunicate via circulating
nucleic acids actively secreted into the bloodstream [2, 36] (Intercommunication
via Circulating Nucleic Acids, SiS 42). These circulating nucleic
acids are able to influence gene expression in other cells and to transform
other cells by horizontal gene transfer. Cancer cells use the system to spread
cancer around the body. Thus, nucleic acids from meals eaten including those containing
GMOs may also enter the bloodstream to influence gene expression and to
transfer horizontally into the cell’s genome with potentially harmful
consequences associated with insertion mutagenesis, including cancer
development and genome instability. The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S
promoter, used to drive the expression of transgenes in almost all commercially
grown GM crops, is known to contain a recombination hotspot (hence prone to
horizontal gene transfer), is promiscuously active in all kingdoms of organisms
including human cells, and specifically induces transcription factors required
for CaMV and HIV replication  (New Evidence Links
CaMV 35S Promoter to HIV Transcription, SiS 43); and after it has
been widely used in commercially grown GM crops for 20 years, regulators
‘discovered’ it overlaps with another dangerous virus gene involved in RNA
silencing  (Hazardous
Virus Gene Discovered in GM Crops after 20 Years, SiS 57), and most likely
involved in host defence against virus attacks.
new GM crops based on RNA interference (RNAi) are obviously hazardous in this
regard, as RNAi – based on sequence-specific interactions between regulatory
RNA and target(s) (see  New GM Nightmares
with RNA, SiS 58), are known to tolerate numerous mismatches, changing
in different cells at different times, and certainly beyond control [40, 41] RNA
Interference "Complex and Flexible", SiS 59). The
potential off-target effects are huge.
transfer of GM nucleic acids
gene transfer is part and parcel of natural genetic modification. In its
simplest form, horizontal gene transfer involves uptake of foreign nucleic
acids into cells and incorporation into the cell’s genome. For this very
reason, GMOs carrying bacterial and viral genes and other synthetic genetic
elements can readily exploit this natural avenue to spread antibiotic
resistance and to create new pathogens as some of us have been warning since
the late 1990s . All the more so, as GM constructs are designed to overcome
natural barriers and to invade genomes [2, 3]. There is already evidence that widespread
unintended horizontal transfer of GM DNA has probably occurred. The most
decisive evidence was provided in 2012 by Li Jun Wen, Jin Min and colleagues at
Sichuan University in China . (It appears that scientists in China are
taking the lead in biosafety research.) The team set out to look for horizontal
transfer of the ampicillin antibiotic resistance marker (arm) gene blá,
which has been extensively deployed in artificial genetic modification. By
using the appropriate molecular probes (primers), sufficiently sensitive polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) for detection, and constructing a metagenomics plasmid
library, they detected the GM arm gene in all of China’s rivers, despite
the fact that the country has not been growing any GM crops commercially, but
field trials of GM crops containing the arm gene have been carried out  (GM
Antibiotic Resistance in China's Rivers (SiS 57). This is the first
study of its kind in the world. The researchers concluded that horizontal
transfer of GM antibiotic resistance gene may be linked to the rise in
antibiotic resistance in livestock and humans in China. The possibility that
genetic engineering biotechnology may have contributed to the increase in
antibiotic resistance and the emergence of new viral and bacterial pathogens
was raised by some of us since the 1990s , but it has never been admitted
by the World Health Organisation or any other agency monitoring the spread of
antibiotic resistance and infectious diseases.
findings suggest that even very short (~20 bp) and damaged pieces of DNA can be
taken up and incorporated in the bacterial genome , making it clear that GM
nucleic acids can indeed spread antibiotic resistance and create new viruses
and bacteria that cause diseases by horizontal gene transfer and recombination
(see  Horizontal
Transfer of GM DNA Widespread, SiS 63). But regulatory agencies
in the US, Europe, and elsewhere are still denying that horizontal transfer of
GM DNA has taken place, based on unfounded assumptions and the failure to use
sufficiently sensitive up-to-date detection methods with the correct molecular
probes. It is a case of “don’t look, don’t find.”
Finally, the effects of GMOs are perpetrated
and amplified across generations, because they can be inherited. As mentioned
earlier, the scope of genetic information passed onto the next generation of
cells and organisms has greatly expanded to include besides genomic DNA, DNA
marks (such as methylation), histone marks, chromatin structure (whether
inactive heterochromatin or active), plus a host of small RNA regulators of
gene expression. It appears that different RNAs not only register so-called
epigenetic change as the organism responds to the environment, they also
transmit acquired genetic information to subsequent generations independently
of DNA (reviewed in  RNA Inheritance of Acquired
Characters, SiS 63). Once again, this
highlights the potential perils of using RNA interference in GMOs (see above).
The exposure of organisms to regulatory RNA molecules (without transgenesis)
could already result in the transmission of effects to subsequent generations .
Certain small regulatory
RNAs can be independently replicated by RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, an enzyme
present in RNA viruses that do not go through a DNA intermediate, while another
form of this enzyme is present in all eukaryote genomes , and is suspected
to be involved in the maintenance of transcriptional silencing.
Regulatory RNAs are
passed on via germ cells from one generation to the next, and they may be
stabilized by RNA methylation to survive the maternal-to-zygote transition
during early embryogenesis to influence gene expression in the development of
RNA also operates in a
RNA-memory system to distinguish ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ via viral and other
sequences integrated into the genome that can defend the host from viral
infections and animal predators. This memory system is centrally involved in
maintaining active as well as silenced genes across generations.
Female germ cells carry
maternal RNAs, and maternal effects are well-known and generally accepted. Much
less known is that male germ cells are particularly adept at picking up somatic
RNA and DNA and carrying the cargo into the egg at fertilization in a process
that has come to be known as ‘sperm mediated gene transfer’ [50, 51] (Sperm-Mediated
Inheritance of Acquired Characters, SiS
63) . While most of the extraneous nucleic acids added to mature sperm in
vitro are taken in and transmitted as extra-chromosomal DNA in mosaic
fashion (present in some cells), integration into the genome can also occur.
The inheritance of acquired characters via the male germ cells has been
demonstrated in all species examined.
first hint that fathers can pass on acquired characters was the discovery that
the experience of young boys could affect not just their health in later life,
but also the health of their sons and grandsons. That was the beginning of the
epigenetic revolution  (Epigenetic Inheritance
- What Genes Remember, SiS 41). All kinds of life experiences, good
and bad, from caring mothers to environmental toxins, leave epigenetic imprints
that are passed on for generations afterwards (see [53, 54] Caring
Mothers Strike Fatal Blow against Genetic Determinism, and Epigenetic Toxicology,
SiS 41). In the case of environmental toxins, Michael Skinner’s
reproductive biology lab at Washington State University Pullman in the United
States first reported in 2005 that injecting pregnant rats with
endocrine disruptor fungicide vinclozolin caused sperm abnormalities that
persisted in the male progeny for at least 4 generations . The effects on
reproduction correlate with altered DNA methylation pattern in the germ line
(though the methylation differences vary widely among the animals, and failed
to satisfy his critics ). Subsequently, they found that insecticides DDT and permethrin, jet fuel, plastic
additives phthalates and bisphenol A, and dioxin can all trigger trans-generational
health effects in rats such as obesity and ovarian disease, and each resulted
in a different pattern of methylation in sperm DNA.
the context of epigenetic toxicology, we should also highlight the abundant
evidence on the toxicity of glyphosate, the top herbicide used worldwide. It is
an endocrine disruptor at very low concentrations, implicated in male infertility,
birth defects and cancers [57-59] (Ban GMOs Now, ISIS Report, Glyphosate/Roundup
and Human Male Infertility and Glyphosate and Cancer,
SiS 63). A new study  shows that acute exposure of male rats to
Roundup herbicide at 0.5 % (typical of agricultural waters after Roundup
application) for 8 days was sufficient to increase aromatase enzyme that alters
testosterone/oestrogen balance in the testis and to increase abnormal sperm up
to 54 days afterwards, as consistent with the herbicide’s endocrine disrupting
The processes and agents responsible for transmitting
transgenerational effects are summarized in Box 2 (see [47, 51-54]).
miRNA & other small RNAs
mRNA and other RNAs (via RNA methylation to stabilize through maternal to zygote transition
RNA memory (via integrated sequences)
Sperm mediated gene transfer
Integration of reverse transcribed RNA
The importance of natural genetic modification and the
numerous molecular mechanisms for the inheritance of acquired characters have
large implications for social policy (see ). A pioneer of modern
genetics Joshua Lederberg (1925-2008) invented the term euphenics ,
practices intended to improve phenotypes as opposed to eugenics,
practices intended to improve genotypes. He was remarkably prescient. In the
light of the fluid genome, optimising the environment for euphenics will
automatically guarantee the good genes desired in eugenics, on account of
circular causation in the fluid genome. For the same reasons, no amount of
eugenics or good genes will protect you from a hostile adverse environment,
gene therapy and genetic modification notwithstanding.
Is euphenics so idealistic that
it is just a fantasy? Not at all! They are the things most if not all people
have always wanted: social equality - the benefits of which are backed up by a
lot of serious data – (see [61-63] Global
Inequality and Its Ills, Capitalism
and the Inexorable Rise of Inequality, and Equality is Good
for You, SiS 63), non-stressful work places, creative collaborative
atmosphere at schools and universities as well as in society, good wholesome
non-GM food produced ecologically while safeguarding natural biodiversity,
renewable energies and a circular non-polluting green economy  (Living,
Green and Circular, SiS 53) just around the corner.
What’s notably missing so far is any investigation on
the trans-generational epigenetic effects of GMOs and glyphosate herbicides; and
this glaring omission in risk assessment can no longer be ignored and swept
But don’t wait for it. Take it upon yourselves to ban
GMOs now, at individual and local community levels. It has failed and
will fail again, being based on a reductionist, obsolete science. It is an
agronomic disaster, and bad for climate change. Most of all, it is standing in the
way of sustainable, biodiverse, climate friendly, non-GM agriculture that’s
productive, resilient and health-promoting (see  Food Futures Now: *Organic
*Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free (ISIS publication).
Ho MW. Nucleic acid invaders from food confirmed. Science in Society 63 (to appear) 2014.
Ho MW. The new genetics and natural versus artificial genetic modification. Entropy 2013, 15, 4748-81.
Kuscu C, Arslan S, Singh R, Thorpe J and Adli M. Genome-wide analysis reveals characteristics of off-target sites bound by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature biotechnology 2014, 32, 677-83.
Turkki V, Schenkwein D, Timonen O, Husso T, Lesch HP and Ylä-Herttuaia S. Lentiviral protein transduction with genome-modifying HIV-1 integrase-I-PpoI fusion proteins: studies on specificity and cytotoxicity. BioMed Research Interna 2014, article ID 370340, 11 pp, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/379340/
Jost P, Shurley D, Culpepper S, Roberts P, Nichols R, Reeves J and Anthony S. Economic Comparison of transgenic and montransgenic cotton production systems in Georgia. Agronomy Journal 2008, 100, 42-51. (doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0259)
Gab-Alla A A, El-Shamei ZS, Shatta AA, Moussa EA, Rayan AM. Morphological and Biochemical Changes in Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG). Journal of American Science 2012, 8, 1117-1123
El-Shamei ZS. Gab-Alla AA, Shatta AA, Moussa EA, Rayan AM. Histopathological Changes in Some Organs of Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG). Journal of American Science 2012, 10, 684,996
Abdo EM, Barbary OM, and Shaltout OE-S. Feeding study with Bt corn (MON810: AjeebYG) on rats: biochemical analysis and liver histopathology. Food and Nutri Sci 2014, 5, 185-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.52024
Zhang L, Hou D, Chen X. et al. Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA. Cell Research advance online publication 20 September 2011, doi:10.1038/cr 2011.158
Sirinathsinghji E. The paradigm shift from genetic to epigenetics and its implications for GM crops utilising RNAi technologies. Presentation at
Wang K, Li H, Yan Y, Etheridge A, Zhou Y, Huang D, Wilmes P and Galas D. The complex exogenous RNA spectra in human plasma: an interface with human gut biota. PLOS One 2012, 7, e51009. Doi:10.1371/journalpone.0051009.
Izumi H, Kosaka N. Shimizu T, Sekine K, Ochiya T and Takase M. Bovine milk contains microRNA and messenger RNA that are stable under degradative conditions. J Dairy Science 2012, 95, 4831-41.
Mu J, Zhuang X, Wang Z, Jiang H, Deng Z-B, Wang B, Zhang L, Kakar S, Yun Y, Miller D and Zhaing H-G. Interspecies communication between plant and mouse gut host cells through edible plant derived exosome-like nanoparticles. Mol Nutr Food Res 2014, 58, 1561-73.
Spisák S, Solymosi N, Ittzés P, Bodor A, et al. Complete genes may pass from food to human blood. PLOS ONE 2013, 8, e69805
Ho MW, Traavik T, Olsvik O, Tappeser B, Howard V, von Weizsacker C, and McGaein GC. Gene technology and gene ecology of infectious diseases. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1998, 10, 33-39.
Chen J, Jin M, Ziu Z-G, Guo C, Chen Z-L, Shen Z-Q, Wang X-W and Li J-W. A survey of drug resistance blá genes originating from synthetic plasmid vectors in six Chinese Rivers. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 45, 13448-54.
Ho MW and Sirinathsinghji E. Ban GMOs Now, ISIS, London, June 2013, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now.phpNielsen KM, Bøhn T and Townsend JP. Detecting rare gene transfer events in bacterial populations. Frontiers in Microbiology 2014, 4, Article 415, 12pp.
Cassault-Meyer E, Gress S, Serálini G-É, and Galeraud-Denis I. An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2014, 38, 131-40.
Lederberg J. Molecular biology, eugenics and euphenics. Nature 1963, 198, 428-9.
Saunders PT. Global inequality and its ills. Science in Society 63 (to appear) 2014.
Saunders PT. Capitalism and the inexorable rise of inequality. Science in Society 63 (to appear) 2014.
Saunders PT. Equality is good for you. Science in Society 63 (to appear) 2014.
Ken Lys Comment left 5th August 2014 21:09:19 My biggest concern has always been Monsanto's push to DNA-alter every major food plant and food animal in a rush to establish the lion's-share of the patented-foods-market without first having sufficient knowledge of what effects those transgenic alterations may have on the long term health of those animals and people consuming GMO food. My fears of Monsanto pursuing their corporate goals without a sufficient depth of understanding of the DNA science is being borne out more and more every day. There may come a time where the DNA science and technology may affect only clearly-positive changes and GMO food will have sufficient benefit, but that time is not now. Of equal concern is the level of ineptitude/corruption in our government's regulatory departments that allow this and like ventures to proceed without clearly establishing the safety of the technology or the product. The right and left sides of our governments have blurred into the same corrupt faction. Something good has to arise from this that honors "democracy" and our "right to healthy foods and safe products". Corporations have been calling the shots for far too long - its time for change.
norm cameron Comment left 5th August 2014 21:09:14 I sensed the sheer lunacy of genetic modification 11 years ago..I laid in bed in a state of non belief when I heard what was planned for corn and soy...nothing was done by the well educated then as well as now...everyone is afraid of financial ruin...big business is in charge...a political take over has occurred ...I didn't even finish high school and I see mass media avoiding this issue still...I might say amongst many other serious crimes ...a suggestion of paranoia if I attempt discussion..maybe we are going down a path we are supposed to go...
thank you for a chance to discuss
Rory Short Comment left 7th August 2014 20:08:18 Monsanto's GM behaviour is criminal. This behaviour is driven by a greed for money and this inordinate greed for money is aided and abetted by an even deeper criminality that is built into society's money system. The production of new money, which rightfully belongs to everyone has, probably since the idea of money was first conceived, been usurped by a small group within society at the expense of everybody else. This usurpation has enable the growth of an elite within society that feels free to ignore the interests of the rest of society in its pursuit of money.
Because of the availability of mobile phones, the internet and information technology it is now quite possible to issue new money to those who need it at the point of need and to ensure that the new money does not cause inflation by removing from circulation an equivalent amount of old money. This change in the money system will fundamentally re-empower ordinary people and relax the hold that those who currently control the money have over them.