100 Billion Animals Make a Case for GMOs: Are They Actually Safe to Eat?
A scientific study published a little over a month ago by the Journal of Animal Science reviewed 29 years worth of scientific data “on livestock productivity and health…collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE (genetically engineered) crops in 1996… through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed” to “evaluate the effects of GE feed ingredients on the animals consuming those feeds.”
The review, titled “Prevalence and Impacts of Genetically Engineered Feedstuffs on Livestock Populations,” was conducted by Dr. Allison Van Eenennaam, a geneticist at the University of California-Davis’ Department of Animal Science.
The publication comes at a time when anti-GMO activism is at its peak, with U.S. states Vermont and Massachusetts following suit with 64 countries across the world that require explicit labeling on food items utilizing GE ingredients, a practice which some in the scientific community fear may stunt the progression of an emergent science that has the potential to guide us into the next stage of agriculture.
The Abstract states, “Numerous experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines…These field data sets, representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested there are no detectable or reliable quantifiable tracers of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.”
The Introduction goes on to give some background information on the paper, a key bit being that “In 2013, GE varieties were planted on more than 95% of sugar beet, 93% of soy, and 90% of all cotton and corn acres in the United States.” This, along with the opening bit in the abstract which claims that “Globally, food-producing animals consume 70-90% of genetically engineered crop biomass,” makes clear the prevalence of GE crops in our society.
The paper goes on to review "Livestock Feeding Studies with GE Food", beginning with, “a total of 165 GE crop events in 19 plant species…have been approved in the United States,” meaning that the FDA has approved 165 unique genetic modifications that have been performed in 19 different species of plants.
Risk analysis and regulation is discussed, and the idea of substantial equivalence is introduced, a leading principle that “stipulates that any new GE variety should be assessed for its safety by comparing it with an equivalent, conventionally bred variety that has an established history of safe use.” Thus, for the effects of GE crops to be properly studied, they should be compared with their non-GE equivalent. Unlike the genetic engineering of crops, “other processes of achieving genetic changes (e.g., radiation mutagenesis) go through no formal risk assessment before being placed on the market. There have been instances where plants bred using classical techniques have been unsuitable for human consumption.” This sheds light on the fact that because of the ambivalent attitude towards GMOs, GE crops undergo strict regulation and assessment in comparison to traditional methods of genetic modification, which go virtually unregulated.
A discussion on the requirements of studies posed by the European Union and some of the general literature that briefly goes over experimental designs follows. Two notably thorough long-term multigenerational studies on dairy cattle and pigs, both of which were fed Bt corn are reviewed. Several aspects of the productivity and health of these animals were recorded, including: the fate of the genetically modified DNA and recombinant protein, cell death, inflammation, disturbances in the cell cycles in the GI tract and liver histology, blood and urine analysis, effects on intestinal microbiota, organ weight and function, immune responses, feed intake, milk production, body condition, and growth performance. These studies occurred over a period of nine months in the pig study and twenty-five months in the cattle study.
Eenennaam concludes that, “results from these comprehensive studies revealed the compositional and nutritional noninferiority of GE corn to its isogenic control and an absence of long term adverse effects from GE corn consumption.”
The next section, "Field Datasets of Livestock Populations Fed with GE Feed", states that “less than 5% of U.S. animals within each of the major livestock sectors were raised for certified National Organic Program (NOP) markets that specifically prohibit the feeding of GE feed.” This statistic, along with the percentages of organic livestock to the total number of US livestock, (dairy cows 2%, beef cows 0.34%, poultry 0.33%) are very low, and hint as to why organic farmers might feel threatened by GMOs, and support a measure (GMO labels) that would deter customers away from such products.
The publication comes at a time when anti-GMO activism is at its peak, with U.S. states Vermont and Massachusetts following suit with 64 countries across the world that require explicit labeling on food items utilizing GE ingredients, a practice which some in the scientific community fear may stunt the progression of an emergent science that has the potential to guide us into the next stage of agriculture.
The Abstract states, “Numerous experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines…These field data sets, representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested there are no detectable or reliable quantifiable tracers of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.”
The Introduction goes on to give some background information on the paper, a key bit being that “In 2013, GE varieties were planted on more than 95% of sugar beet, 93% of soy, and 90% of all cotton and corn acres in the United States.” This, along with the opening bit in the abstract which claims that “Globally, food-producing animals consume 70-90% of genetically engineered crop biomass,” makes clear the prevalence of GE crops in our society.
The paper goes on to review "Livestock Feeding Studies with GE Food", beginning with, “a total of 165 GE crop events in 19 plant species…have been approved in the United States,” meaning that the FDA has approved 165 unique genetic modifications that have been performed in 19 different species of plants.
Risk analysis and regulation is discussed, and the idea of substantial equivalence is introduced, a leading principle that “stipulates that any new GE variety should be assessed for its safety by comparing it with an equivalent, conventionally bred variety that has an established history of safe use.” Thus, for the effects of GE crops to be properly studied, they should be compared with their non-GE equivalent. Unlike the genetic engineering of crops, “other processes of achieving genetic changes (e.g., radiation mutagenesis) go through no formal risk assessment before being placed on the market. There have been instances where plants bred using classical techniques have been unsuitable for human consumption.” This sheds light on the fact that because of the ambivalent attitude towards GMOs, GE crops undergo strict regulation and assessment in comparison to traditional methods of genetic modification, which go virtually unregulated.
A discussion on the requirements of studies posed by the European Union and some of the general literature that briefly goes over experimental designs follows. Two notably thorough long-term multigenerational studies on dairy cattle and pigs, both of which were fed Bt corn are reviewed. Several aspects of the productivity and health of these animals were recorded, including: the fate of the genetically modified DNA and recombinant protein, cell death, inflammation, disturbances in the cell cycles in the GI tract and liver histology, blood and urine analysis, effects on intestinal microbiota, organ weight and function, immune responses, feed intake, milk production, body condition, and growth performance. These studies occurred over a period of nine months in the pig study and twenty-five months in the cattle study.
Eenennaam concludes that, “results from these comprehensive studies revealed the compositional and nutritional noninferiority of GE corn to its isogenic control and an absence of long term adverse effects from GE corn consumption.”
The next section, "Field Datasets of Livestock Populations Fed with GE Feed", states that “less than 5% of U.S. animals within each of the major livestock sectors were raised for certified National Organic Program (NOP) markets that specifically prohibit the feeding of GE feed.” This statistic, along with the percentages of organic livestock to the total number of US livestock, (dairy cows 2%, beef cows 0.34%, poultry 0.33%) are very low, and hint as to why organic farmers might feel threatened by GMOs, and support a measure (GMO labels) that would deter customers away from such products.
The next study addressed involves cattle condemnation rates [1]. Yearly data on cattle condemnation rates between 1983-1994, 1999-2002, 2003-2007 were compared and graphed. The resultant data showed that condemnation rates have decreased, from 2.6% in 1994, a pre-GMO year, to 0.47% between 2003-2007. Eenennam concludes that, “These field data sets representing billions of observations did not reveal unfavorable or unexpected trends in livestock health and productivity. The available health indicators from US livestock suggest that these rates actually improved over time despite widespread adoption of GE crops in U.S. agriculture and increasing levels of GE content in livestock diets. There was no indication of worsening animal health after the introduction of GE feed.”
In the spirit of scientific objectivity, the review goes on to discuss the role and validity of isolated controversial experiments that suggest, “deleterious health effects of GE feed,” such as, “high rates of tumorogenesis, sterility, premature mortality, and histopathological abnormalities.” However, “these studies have been criticized for nonadherence to…standard protocols.” The designs of these experiments were typically poorly contrived, containing “methodological flaws,” such as non-isogenic control feed, insufficient animal numbers, lack of dose response, insufficient or absent information on natural variations in test parameters, over interpretation, poor toxicological and/or statistical interpretations of data, and the unethical treatment of animals. The review relates how fringe studies like these typically gain the focus of media attention and cause any actual reliable scientific data to be overlooked.
"A Summary of Data on Recombinant DNA/protein in Milk, Meat, and Eggs from Animals Fed Genetically Engineered Feed" follows, concluding that, “animals do not digest transgenic and native plant DNA differently and that rDNA from GE crops has not been detected in animal products (Einspanier, 2013)… Neither recombinant DNA nor protein has ever been found in milk, meat, or eggs from animals that have eaten GE feed.”
The following section reviews "2013 Data on Global Production and Trade in GE and Sources of Non-GE Feedstuffs", notably that of soybean and corn meal. Then, U.S. Options for Products from Non-GE Fed Livestock is covered, going over the organic food industry in the U.S. of dairy, beef, and poultry. The penultimate section reviews the Impact of GE Feedstuffs on the Sustainability of Livestock Production, and a notable bit of information reads, “the adoption of the technology also reduced pesticide spraying by 499 million kg (-8.7%), and has decreased the environmental impact of these crops by 18.1% (as measured by the indicator the Environmental Impact Quotient [a method that measures the environmental impact of pesticides]; Kovach et al., 1992) as a result of the use of less-toxic herbicides and reduced insecticide use (Brookes and Barfoot, 2014b).” The section concludes that “the adoption of GE technology…over the past 16 yr has had a positive sustainability outcome both in terms of increased global yield as a result of improved pest control and reduced overall environmental impacts per kilogram of animal feed produced.”
The final section, aptly titled “The Future”, discusses the potential of GE crops, such as the ability to improve the nutritional value of feed, lowering nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, and reducing manure excretion by livestock. “Several of these crops are far advanced in the regulatory pipeline (Tillie et al., 2013).” It goes on to discuss the obstacles that a poorly organized system of regulatory approval present.
The Conclusion states, “An extensive search of peer-reviewed literature and field observations of animals fed diets containing GE crop products have revealed no unexpected perturbations or disturbing trends in animal performance or health indicators. Likewise, it is not possible to distinguish any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products following consumption of GE feed.”
Before taking a stance on GMOs it is important to consider the independent hard science behind it, rather than adopting unverified claims, or buying in to one-off bad science. As Bill Gates puts it, “any conceivable plan to feed our growing population includes investment and development in GMOs.” Plants with greater yields, less sensitivity to disease and drought, and the capability of adjusting to global climate changes are the future of agriculture. The obstacles that stand in the way are not health related, but instead have to do with business and propaganda, like seed patents and GMO labeling that may do more harm than good.
[1] Animals that arrive at USDA-inspected slaughter facilities undergo inspections before and after death to identify abnormalities, such as lesions or tumors. Condemned cows are those found with abnormalities. The number of cows condemned divided by the number of cows inspected produces the condemnation rate.
-Bryan Díaz, Editor
In the spirit of scientific objectivity, the review goes on to discuss the role and validity of isolated controversial experiments that suggest, “deleterious health effects of GE feed,” such as, “high rates of tumorogenesis, sterility, premature mortality, and histopathological abnormalities.” However, “these studies have been criticized for nonadherence to…standard protocols.” The designs of these experiments were typically poorly contrived, containing “methodological flaws,” such as non-isogenic control feed, insufficient animal numbers, lack of dose response, insufficient or absent information on natural variations in test parameters, over interpretation, poor toxicological and/or statistical interpretations of data, and the unethical treatment of animals. The review relates how fringe studies like these typically gain the focus of media attention and cause any actual reliable scientific data to be overlooked.
"A Summary of Data on Recombinant DNA/protein in Milk, Meat, and Eggs from Animals Fed Genetically Engineered Feed" follows, concluding that, “animals do not digest transgenic and native plant DNA differently and that rDNA from GE crops has not been detected in animal products (Einspanier, 2013)… Neither recombinant DNA nor protein has ever been found in milk, meat, or eggs from animals that have eaten GE feed.”
The following section reviews "2013 Data on Global Production and Trade in GE and Sources of Non-GE Feedstuffs", notably that of soybean and corn meal. Then, U.S. Options for Products from Non-GE Fed Livestock is covered, going over the organic food industry in the U.S. of dairy, beef, and poultry. The penultimate section reviews the Impact of GE Feedstuffs on the Sustainability of Livestock Production, and a notable bit of information reads, “the adoption of the technology also reduced pesticide spraying by 499 million kg (-8.7%), and has decreased the environmental impact of these crops by 18.1% (as measured by the indicator the Environmental Impact Quotient [a method that measures the environmental impact of pesticides]; Kovach et al., 1992) as a result of the use of less-toxic herbicides and reduced insecticide use (Brookes and Barfoot, 2014b).” The section concludes that “the adoption of GE technology…over the past 16 yr has had a positive sustainability outcome both in terms of increased global yield as a result of improved pest control and reduced overall environmental impacts per kilogram of animal feed produced.”
The final section, aptly titled “The Future”, discusses the potential of GE crops, such as the ability to improve the nutritional value of feed, lowering nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, and reducing manure excretion by livestock. “Several of these crops are far advanced in the regulatory pipeline (Tillie et al., 2013).” It goes on to discuss the obstacles that a poorly organized system of regulatory approval present.
The Conclusion states, “An extensive search of peer-reviewed literature and field observations of animals fed diets containing GE crop products have revealed no unexpected perturbations or disturbing trends in animal performance or health indicators. Likewise, it is not possible to distinguish any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products following consumption of GE feed.”
Before taking a stance on GMOs it is important to consider the independent hard science behind it, rather than adopting unverified claims, or buying in to one-off bad science. As Bill Gates puts it, “any conceivable plan to feed our growing population includes investment and development in GMOs.” Plants with greater yields, less sensitivity to disease and drought, and the capability of adjusting to global climate changes are the future of agriculture. The obstacles that stand in the way are not health related, but instead have to do with business and propaganda, like seed patents and GMO labeling that may do more harm than good.
[1] Animals that arrive at USDA-inspected slaughter facilities undergo inspections before and after death to identify abnormalities, such as lesions or tumors. Condemned cows are those found with abnormalities. The number of cows condemned divided by the number of cows inspected produces the condemnation rate.
-Bryan Díaz, Editor