XII Conference Environmental
Genetically modified crops and food: pros and cons
Katarzyna LISOWSKA - Center for Translational Research and Molecular Biology of Cancer (former
Department of Tumour Biology), Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute
of Oncology, Gliwice Branch
Please cite as: CHEMIK 2011, 65, 11, 1193-1203
Historical perspective: genetic engineering and our
understanding of the phenomenon of life
Understanding of the molecular mechanisms of heredity, progress
in molecular biology and the possibilities offered by the genetic
engineering are all great achievements of science of the last century.
These discoveries have stirred up hopes for solving the mystery of life
and hopes that soon tools will be found for correcting the nature and
moulding it to our needs.
Initially there prevailed a belief that gene (DNA) is the sole and
absolute determinant of phenotype features of an organism, and that
the relation between genotype and phenotype has a simple, linear
nature. This simplified representation of life was an element of the
dogma forged by Crick and Watson: “DNA [gene] makes RNA, RNA
makes protein, a protein makes us.” During the Human Genome
Project, crowned in 2003 with the determination of the complete
DNA sequence of the human genome, it seemed that the knowledge
of the sequence of genes would enable us to understand the essence
of life, learn the causes of many disorders and develop therapeutic
tools. These hopes have not been fulfilled, and the subsequent research
project, named Encode, led to the discovery of further, unexpected
levels of complexity of gene expression control, and thereby disclosed
the perplexity of the phenomenon of life [1].
In a sense, the technology of obtaining genetically modified
organisms (GMO) and the tempting prospects of modifying plants
and animals, and also of “gene therapy” in humans, are founded on
the early, reductionist thinking about gene function (one gene – one
function) and fail to take into consideration later discoveries that
revealed the complexity of expression of genetic information. For this
reason we may tend to ignore certain biological phenomena and side
effects that may result from genetic modifications of live organisms (so
called unintended side effects of transgenesis).
One must also remember that evolution created species of plants,
animals and microorganisms, each of which has an individual pool of
genes. Distant species do not cross naturally. For thousands of years
enhancing of breeds was based on natural mechanisms of crossing
related plants and selecting desired characteristics, without artificial
intervention in the plant genome. It is less than two decades that
genetic engineering techniques have been applied in agriculture; there
is no earlier experience that could help predict distant effects of such
practices [2, 3].
What is GMO and where can it be used?
Genetic modifications were first applied to microorganisms.
Insertion of defined foreign genes into the genome of bacteria, moulds,
yeast, etc., has resulted in the creation of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), the products of which were useful for humans and found use
primarily in industry and pharmacy. Genetic modifications are also the
basic research tool in life sciences, where they are applied to study the
functions of genes and mechanisms that control their activity, their role
in disease processes, etc. There is not much controversy about such
applications, mainly because GMOs are retained in a closed cycle and
are not released into the environment.
However, the use of similar genetic manipulations in plants and
animals creates many new problems and unexpected hazards. The
strongest doubts are raised by genetic modification of cultivated
1198 •
plants and breeding animals – firstly, because GMOs enter the area
of food production, secondly – because that production is effected in
the natural environment. Of concern are both health safety, as well as
environmental hazards.
Genetically modified crops
First attempts to genetically modify crops were undertaken
in the 1980s and were applied to tobacco, not to food plants. The
first GM product to be released for human consumption was the
Flavr Savr tomato, which was characterized by extended shelf-life
(1994). This tomato was not a commercial success, probably due to
lack of consumer acceptance, and was eventually withdrawn from
the market.
Even today, contrary to what is commonly believed, the range
of genetically modified crops is rather narrow. Over 90% of biotech
crops produced worldwide include just four plants: soybean, maize, rape
and cotton. There are no genetically modified tomatoes, strawberries
or lettuces in the market. Also such agricultural produce as nectarines,
seedless tangerines or triticale, often erroneously defined as GMO, are
not the products of genetic engineering – they were obtained using
traditional methods of improving plant varieties or by interspecies
crossing.
Only two GM plants have been approved for cultivation in Europe:
MON 810 maize (Monsanto) and Amflora potato (BASF). MON 810
maize contains a Cry gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis,
which expresses a Bt protein, a toxin of insecticidal properties. The
Amflora potato, in its turn, was modified in such way as to avoid
production of amylose starch, and to produce only amylopectin starch,
which is desirable in many industrial applications (in the papermaking,
fibre and adhesive sectors). Amflora is therefore an industrial potato,
but one cannot exclude that it can, unintentionally, be introduced
into the human and farm animal food chain. Many European countries
have banned the cultivation of GM maize, and some have banned the
GM potato.
Principal types of genetic modification in agriculture
In contrast to common belief, GM varieties of plants resistant to
drought and to other climatic adversities, able to grow on saline soils,
as well as the famous “golden rice” rich in pro-vitamin A – are still at
the stage of laboratory/field experiments and have not been approved
for cultivation and consumption. In fact, the biotechnological industry
is not interested in introducing GM varieties resistant to drought, soil
salinity, cold, etc., because of their “low marketing potential” [56].
Despite that, we may come across statements in the press that “golden
rice has saved millions of children in Asia from blindness caused by
vitamin A deficiency”.
At present more than 90% of cultivated GM varieties contain only
two types of gene modification: one of them makes plants resistant to
herbicides, the other enables them to synthesize bacterial Bt toxin,
which is a kind of pesticide. Plants of the first type are designated HR
(herbicide resistant). The most widespread trademark in HR plants
are Roundup Ready (RR) varieties produced by Monsanto. They are
resistant to Roundup herbicide, product of the same company. This
modification allows herbicide spraying during the growing season
– weeds are eliminated, while GMO crops tolerate the herbicide.
nr 11/2011 • tom 65
Can “foreign DNA” be dangerous?
It seems now that harmful effects of GM food/feed are not
associated with the presence of “foreign DNA” in the plant genome,
although in the light of our expanding knowledge of the complexity
of genetic information expression (mentioned at the beginning), this
must not be excluded completely. More is also known about the
side effects of transgenesis: the insertion of a foreign gene into plant
DNA causes multiple mutations, including the rearrangement of the
genetic material and the so-called position effect – the new gene may
fall under the control of endogenous regulatory elements, and also
the regulatory elements of the transgene may disturb the activity
of plant genes [reviewed in: 19]. The foreign protein synthesized from
the transgene may also undergone in the new environment of a plant
cell an unpredicted modifications and interactions, thus leading for
example to alergenicity [43÷46].
Despite biotechnologists’ assurances, “foreign DNA” present
in a diet does not necessarily have to be digested completely in the
gastro-intestinal tract of mammals, including that of humans [20÷26].
When the pH level in the stomach is increased (for instance due
to administration of drugs inhibiting the excretion of gastric acid
or neutralizing the action thereof), nucleic acids are not digested and
pass to the intestines. It has been shown that fragments of a transgene
(containing viral components, antibiotic resistance genes, etc.) can be
absorbed from the intestine into blood, and even be secreted with
milk This may prove quite important in view of recent findings that
microRNA molecules present in a diet (in rice) may penetrate into
human cells and actively regulate the expression of human genes [27].
This is a proof that the adage that “we are what we eat” is not just
a poetic metaphor.
There are also concerns about the use of selective markers, namely
the antibiotic resistance genes in genetic engineering. In face of the
ever growing problem of resistance of pathogenic microorganisms
to antibiotics, the European Commission has banned the release into
the environment of GMOs with resistance conferring genes. This is
aimed to avoid the risk of passing resistance to other bacteria in the
process of horizontal gene transfer.
Pesticides in GM food
While there is no solid scientific evidence that “foreign DNA”
introduced into transgenic plants may be the cause of adverse effects
in humans, reports are appearing on the harmful impact of pesticides
nr 11/2011 • tom 65
used in the cultivation of GM crops [28÷41]. It must be borne in mind
that most of cultivated GMOs contain one of two (or both) types
of modification: resistance to herbicide spraying, or the ability to
produce Bt toxin, a bacterial pesticide. There is growing evidence
indicating that herbicides such as Roundup can cause developmental
abnormalities and fertility problems. It is still not known what effect can
Bt toxin have on human organism. Of concern is certainly the fact that
both Roundup and Bt toxin may pass into human bloodstream. Until
recently it was believed that Bt toxin was degraded at pH level of the
gastric fluid and that mammals had no receptors for this protein in their
intestines. We now know that this is not true.
Canadian researchers have analysed blood samples from 30
pregnant women and from their newborns and from 39 non-pregnant
women. The samples were analysed for two herbicides (glyphosate
and ammonium glufosinate), for products of its decomposition
(3-MPPA) and for Bt protein. Glyphosate is the active ingredient of
total herbicide Roundup, used for spraying Roundup Ready plants
several times during the growing season. Ammonium glufosinate
is used for similar purposes. Bt toxin was detected in 93% of the
mothers examined and in 80% of the newborns, and also in 69%
of the non-pregnant women. Glyphosate and glufosinate was found
only in non-pregnant women (5% and 18% of the examined women,
respectively). 3-MPPA, on the other hand, was detected in all pregnant
women and in all newborns (100%) [43]. The data indicate that it is
hard to count food generated with the use of GMO technology as the
so-called healthy food.
Legislation
Across the world, and particularly in Europe, there is growing
resistance against the application of GMO technology in agriculture
and food production. At present, MON810 maize cultivation was
banned in leading agricultural countries, France and Germany, and also
in Luxembourg, Greece, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy. Ireland
and Wales are nearly in 100% covered by GMO-free zone, and England
by nearly 50%. Also in Switzerland there is a moratorium on GMO
cultivation declared after a nation-wide referendum.
The Polish government’s position declared in 2008 states that
it will pursue the goal of Poland being a country with GMO-free
agriculture. Up to now this goal has not been realized effectively,
partially for fear of sanctions from the European Commission.
In August 2011, however, the President of Poland, Bronisław
Komorowski, vetoed a seed act, which would otherwise open
a side gateway for GM crops. The Minister of Agriculture, Marek
Sawicki, still declares that he will strive to restrict the use of GM
crops in Poland and Europe. There is now a favourable climate
for this, as in July 2011 the European Parliament drew up new
guidelines that will leave the question of cultivating GM varieties to
the independent decisions of the individual member countries. Bans
can be substantiated by considerations of environmental, social
or even cultural nature. These regulations are to come into force
in the near future.
Profitability of GM crops
There is much talk about GM food/feed being cheaper than food
produced by traditional methods. GM soybeans imported from both
Americas are in fact cheaper, but this is probably mainly because the
product is grown in huge industrial farms, where labour costs have
been reduced to a minimum. Such model of agribusiness is not suitable
under conditions prevailing in Polish countryside. I am convinced
that it should not be promoted in our country, as it is contradictory t
o the principles of sustainable development and has an adverse effect
on biodiversity. In view of the fact that that there is excess labour force
in the Polish rural regions, it would be advantageous to direct some
of this force to the more labour-intensive ecological and family farming.
• 1199
XII Conference Environmental
Can food derived from GM varieties be harmful?
Today it is difficult to answer the question whether these products
can be harmful to health. Results of research performed on animals are
ambiguous. Epidemiological studies on humans have not been carried
out yet, mainly because in the Americas, where such food products
have appeared first, and are most abundant, there is no obligation to
disclose GMO content on food labels. It is therefore virtually impossible
to inquire consumers whether their diet contains GMO derived food.
Thus the allegation that the experience of American consumers
indicates that GMOs are not harmful, is from the methodological point
of view completely unsubstantiated.
Results of studies performed so far indicate that GM food and feed
admitted to market circulation does not seem to show acute toxicity
[10÷18]. If any harmful effects are bound to occur, the dynamics of
their manifestation will be similar to that of the effects of exposure
to tobacco smoke or asbestos – they will become apparent only after
many years. Hence the objections to the methods of risk assessment,
as it is common to perform only short-term tests on adult laboratory
animals (acute and subchronic toxicity tests, usually 90-days tests
on rats). With this approach, subtle changes are barely revealed, or
they do not show at all. No long-term and multi-generation tests are
routinely undertaken [4÷9].
XII Conference Environmental
This type of farming produces high quality food and provides means of
living for rural population. Cultivation of GM crops, on the other hand,
irreversibly leads to aggregation of rural land into vast estates, ousting
of smallholders and increase in unemployment 48].
The profits from GM crops are going to be affected by the costs
concerned with increasing weed and pest resistance worldwide to
the pesticides applied in biotech crops [49÷56]. The efficiency and
profitability of GM crops are discussed widely in several reports
prepared by distinct institutions [56÷59]
that current resources may enable the feeding of the present and
even much larger population, without resorting to GMOs. The cause
of the famine problem is not the lack of food, but the unjust distribution
thereof, poverty, as well as stock speculation and processing food into
biofuels. The promise that GMOs will feed the starving is a marketing
slogan rather than a real argument. And anyway, in Poland there is
no shortage of food, quite the contrary: the European Union, in its
common agricultural policy, requires us to limit production. Thus, GM
crops are not needed in Poland.
Patents, corporations, consolidation of seed market
When discussing the advantages and disadvantages of GM
crops, one must bear in mind that GM seeds are subject to strict
patent protection. Question arises whether the biotechnological
industry should have the right to patent living organisms. After all
they are the outcome of evolution, not a man-made product; they
should therefore remain a universal public property. However, the
involvement of large funds by agribusiness seems, thus far, to settle
the matter: the patent law of USA permits the patenting of genomes,
genes, regulatory sequences, and also DNA segments of unknown
function and significance. GM plants are thus the property of a few
global corporations that produce seeds and manufacture chemicals
dedicated to protect crops grown from these seeds (e.g. Roundup).
This positions GM plant growers and food producers as entities
dependent on patent owners. Another problem is the concentration
of the global seed market in the hands of a few powerful multinational
corporations. Today Monsanto provides ca. 90% of world GM seed
supplies. At the same time there is growing tendency of taking over
seed growing companies by larger corporations, and in some countries
the availability of conventional seed-grains is decreasing rapidly
[60]. One must also remember that concerns also own a patent on
“terminator technology” (not applied yet, mercifully), which enables
the production of cereals that at harvest render sterile seeds, unable
to germinate. Therefore a question arises about the food sovereignty
in a world, where the role of international corporations is growing.
Polish agriculture and GM crops
There is an ongoing debate whether to introduce genetically
modified crops into the Polish agriculture. These matters may be
regulated by two acts: act on genetically modified organisms and act
on seed production. None of these acts have been passed before the
end of the last term of the Polish Parliament. Therefore the issue is
not regulated by national legislation (the valid act on GMOs of 2001
does not apply to commercial crops). The discussion will therefore be
continued, and legal decisions will be made in the future.
It must be borne in mind that Poland represents a market with
nearly 40 million consumers and that it is one of the largest agricultural
countries in Europe. It is therefore an area of strong lobbying aimed
at persuading Polish consumers of the advantages of GM food, at
encouraging farmers to cultivate modified plant varieties, and at
making allies of politicians, scientists and the media. When discussing
the legislation of GM crops, we must not succumb to political pressure,
to the persuasion of international economic organisations and circles
lobbying for multinational corporations.
Consideration should be given in this debate to issues reviewed
here, such as: flaws of genetic engineering techniques, insufficient risk
assessment studies, potential health and environmental hazards as well
as socioeconomic and political problems associated with GM crops
and food.
In conclusion I will quote here the most important and still valid
objections set forth by the Bureau of Research of the Polish Parliament
in a collection of opinions voiced during the debate about the act on
GMOs in 2010:
1. The effects of GMO release to the environment are far-reaching
and irreversible. It may be much more severe than the effects
caused by any other factors that pose today a hazard to biodiversity
and environmental quality, whereas the true magnitude of the
threat still remains unrecognized.
2. The coexistence of GM crops and traditional and ecological crops
is in fact impossible. There are too many unpredictable factors that
determine the “gene flow”, that is uncontrolled dissemination of
pollen or seed. Another reason is the atomized structure of the
Polish agriculture. Thus, ecological and transgenic farming exclude
each other.
3. Implementation of GM crops is in conflict with long-term interests
of the Polish agriculture and food industry. Approval of GM
varieties will affect the traditional model of Polish agriculture, will
threaten the position of the Polish food in EU and may induce rapid
unemployment growth.
The problem of coexistence of traditional and GM crops
The experiences of countries with the longest history of GMO
cultivation show that effective protection against contamination
is virtually impossible. The world register of contamination
of traditional crops and food, with both legal, as well as unauthorised
varieties of GMOs, records several dozen such cases each year
(www.GMcontaminationregister.org). The scale of the problem
may be illustrated by the example of Japan, where GM varieties are
not cultivated at all, and despite that wild growing transgenic rape
plants have been found in five of six major seaports and along two
out of four investigated roads. The contamination probably comes
from imported seeds lost during transportation to oil mills [61].
There are also reports on the cross-breeding of transgenic rape
(Brassica napus) with feral populations of closely related species,
B. rapa and B. juncea [62].
More and more farmers prosecute claims before courts. For
instance, on 21 March 2011 German Bayer AG has been ordered
to pay $136.8 million to Riceland Foods, a farmers cooperative in
Arkansas, for contaminating rice produced by the cooperative 4 years
ago. The GMO contamination led to the loss of markets and export
opportunities.
It is also widely reported that GM crops may have negative impact
on natural ecosystems causing genetic contamination of wild relatives
and affecting water and soil invertebrates [63÷82].
GM crops and the problem of famine
GMO advocates argue that the technology will enable increased
food production in the world. However, FAO data indicate clearly
1200 •
A selection of research papers and publications on GMO
risk assessment as related to health, environmental and
socioeconomic issues
Inadequate methods of GMO risk assessment
1. Chorąży M. 2011. Wprowadzenie do biologii systemów. Nauka
2011(1): 59–84.
2. Lisowska K. Genetycznie modyfikowane uprawy a zrównoważone
rolnictwo i nasze zdrowie. Journal of Ecology and Health 2010(6):
303–309.
nr 11/2011 • tom 65
Cell structure disturbances, histological and biochemical
changes in organs of animals fed with GMO feed
10. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Rossi L, Battistelli S, Rocchi MB,
Tonucci F, Gazzanelli G. Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar
cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. J Anat. 2002,
201(5): 409-15.
11.Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M.
Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically
modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2004, 48(4): 448-54.
12. Cisterna B, Flach F, Vecchio L, Barabino SM, Battistelli S, Martin
TE,Malatesta M, Biggiogera M. Can a genetically-modified organismcontaining diet influence embryo development? A preliminary
study on pre-implantation mouse embryos. Eur J Histochem. 2008,
52(4): 263-7.
13. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera
M. Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed
on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2005, 49(3):
237-42.
14. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera
M,Quaglino D. A long-term study on female mice fed on a
genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem
Cell Biol. 2008,130(5): 967-77.
15. Ewen SW, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified
potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.
Lancet. 1999, 354(9187): 1353-4.
16. Magaña-Gómez JA, Cervantes GL, Yepiz-Plascencia G, de la Barca
AM. Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean.
J Appl Toxicol. 2008, 28(2): 217-26.
17. Kiliç A & Akay MT (2008). A three generation study with genetically
modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological
investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 46: 1164-70.
18. Sagstad A, Sanden M, Haugland O, Hansen AC, Olsvik PA, Hemre
GI. J: Evaluation of stress- and immune-response biomarkers in
Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., fed different levels of genetically
modified maize (Bt maize), compared with its near-isogenic
parental line and a commercial suprex maize. Fish Dis. 2007,
30(4): 201-12.
Unintended effects of transgenesis, the fate of foreign DNA
after ingestion of GMO food/feed, miRNA from food (rice)
may regulate gene expression
19. Filipecki M, Malepszy S. Unintended consequences of plant
transformation: a molecular insight. J Appl Genet. 2006, 47(4):
277-86
nr 11/2011 • tom 65
20. Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O’Donnell AG, Gockling
S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ. Assessing the survival of
transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat
Biotechnol. 2004 , 22(2): 204-9.
21. Tudisco R., Mastellone., Cutrignelli M.I, Lombardi P, Bovera F.,
Mirabella N., Piccolo1 G., Calabro, S., Avallone L., Infascelli F. Fate
of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed
genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal 2010
22. Chainark, P. (2008) Availability of genetically modified feed ingredient
II: investigations of ingested foreign DNA in rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fisheries Science, 74(2): 380-390(11)
23. Ran,T, Mei, L., Lei, W., Aihua, L., Ru, H., Jie, S (2009) Detection of
transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain)
fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready). Aquaculture
Research, 40 (12): 1350-1357
24. Mazza R, Soave M, Morlacchini M, Piva G, Marocco A. Assessing
the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal
tissues. Transgenic Res. 2005, 14(5): 775-84.
25. Sharma R, Damgaard D, Alexander TW, Dugan ME, Aalhus JL,
Stanford K, McAllister TA. Detection of transgenic and endogenous
plant DNA in digesta and tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup
Ready canola meal. J Agric Food Chem. 2006, 54(5): 1699-709.
26. Schubbert R, Hohlweg U, Renz D, Doerfler W. On the fate of
orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and
placental transmission to the fetus. Mol Gen Genet. 1998, 259(6):
569-76.
27. Zhang L, Hou D, Chen X et al. Exogenous plant MIR168a
specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of crosskingdom regulation by microRNA. Cell Res. 2011 Sep 20. doi:
10.1038/cr.2011.158.
Harmful efects of pesticides from GMO crops on live
organisms and cells cultivated in vitro
28. Malatesta M, Perdoni F, Santin G, Battistelli S, Muller S, Biggiogera
M. Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating
the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and
function. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008, 22(8): 1853-60.
29. Paganelli A, Gnazzo V, Acosta H, López SL, Carrasco AE. GlyphosateBased Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by
Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010, 23 (10):
1586–1595
30.Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Seralini
GE. Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human
placental cells and aromatase. Environ Health Perspect. 2005,
113(6): 716-20.
31. Marc J, Mulner-Lorillon O, Boulben S, Hureau D, Durand G, Bellé R.
Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of
CDK1/cyclin B activation. Chem Res Toxicol. 2002, 15(3): 326-31.
32. Benachour N, Séralini GE. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis
and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells.
Chem Res Toxicol. 2009, 22(1): 97-105.
33. Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC,
Séralini GE. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine
disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. 2009, 262(3): 184-91.
34. Marc J, Mulner-Lorillon O, Bellé R. Glyphosate-based pesticides
affect cell cycle regulation. Biol Cell. 2004, 96 (3): 245-9.
35. Bellé R, Le Bouffant R, Morales J, Cosson B, Cormier P, MulnerLorillon O. Sea urchin embryo, DNA-damaged cell cycle checkpoint
and the mechanisms initiating cancer development. J Soc Biol.
2007, 201(3): 317-27.
36. Marc J, Bellé R, Morales J, Cormier P, Mulner-Lorillon O. Formulated
glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle
leading to the prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicol Sci. 2004,
82(2): 436-42.
• 1201
XII Conference Environmental
3. Lisowska K., Chorąży M. Genetycznie zmodyfikowane uprawy
i żywność – przegląd zagrożeń. Nauka 2010(4): 127–136.
4. Séralini GE, de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Sultan C, Buiatti M,
Gallagher L, Antoniou M, Dronamraju KR. How subchronic and
chronic health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or
chemicals. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Jun 17;5(5):438-43. Review.
5. Domingo JL. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review
of the published literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2007;47(8):72133. Review.
6. de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison
of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int
J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.
7. Dona A & Arvanitoyannis IS (2009). Health risks of genetically
modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 49:164-75.
8. WALTZ E. 2009. Under Wraps, Nature Biotechnology 27(10):
880-882.
9. DO Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? 2009. Scientific
American Magazine, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id
=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
XII Conference Environmental
37. Mañas F, Peralta L, Raviolo J, García Ovando H, Weyers A, Ugnia
L, Gonzalez Cid M, Larripa I, Gorla N. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the
environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet
assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009, 72(3):
834-7.
38. Mañas F.; Peralta L.; García Ovando H.; Weyers A.; Ugnia L.;
Larripa I.; Gonzalez Cid M.; Gorla N. Genotoxicity of Glyphosate
assessed by the comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Environmental
Toxicology and Pharmacology 28 (2009): 37-41.
39. Lajmanovich RC, Sandoval MT, Peltzer PM. Induction of mortality
and malformation in Scinax nasicus tadpoles exposed to glyphosate
formulations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2003, 70(3): 612-8.
40. Raport z badań wykonanych na zlecenie rządu Austrii: Biological
effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term
reproduction studies in mice Redakcja: Dr. A. Velimirov, Dr. C.
Binter, Univ. Prof. Dr. J. Zentek. Zespół badawczy: N. Cyran, Dr.
C. Gülly, Dr. S. Handl, G. Hofstätter, F. Meyer, Dr. M. Skalicky,
Prof. Dr. R. Steinborn, Department/Universitätsklinik für Nutztiere
und öffentliches Gesundheitswesen in der Veterinärmedizin,
Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau – FiBL
41. Vázquez-Padrón RI, Gonzáles-Cabrera J, García-Tovar C, NeriBazan L, Lopéz-Revilla R, Hernández M, Moreno-Fierro L, de
la Riva GA. 2000. Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis
sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small
intestine. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 271(1): 54-8.
42. Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS. New analysis of a rat feeding
study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal
toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007, 52(4): 596-602.
43. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides
associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of
Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011, 31(4): 528-33.
51.Ferré J, Van Rie J. Biochemistry and genetics of insect resistance
to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu Rev Entomol. 2002, 47: 501-33.
Review.
52.Griffitts JS, Aroian RV. Many roads to resistance: how
invertebrates adapt to Bt toxins. Bioessays. 2005, 27(6): 61424. Review.
53.Heckel DG, Gahan LJ, Baxter SW, Zhao JZ, Shelton AM, Gould F,
Tabashnik BE. The diversity of Bt resistance genes in species of
Lepidoptera. J Invertebr Pathol. 2007, 95(3): 192-7. Review.
54.Downes S, Mahon R, Olsen K. Monitoring and adaptive resistance
management in Australia for Bt-cotton: current status and future
challenges. J Invertebr Pathol. 2007, 95(3): 208-13. Review.
55.Tabashnik BE, Van Rensburg JB, Carrière Y. Field-evolved insect
resistance to Bt crops: definition, theory, and data. J Econ
Entomol. 2009, 102(6): 2011-25. Review.
56.National Research Council. 2010. The Impact of Genetically
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
57.Economic Impact of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide:
a Review. EUR 22547 EN Manuel Gómez-Barbero, Emilio
Rodríguez-Cerezo. EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG JRC-IPTS,
Sustainability in Agriculture, Food and Health Unit December
2006
58.Gurian-Sherman D. Failure to yield: Evaluating the Performance
of Genetically Engineered Crops., Union of Concerned
Scientists, IV/2009
59.Benbrook C. The Organic Center Critical Issue Report: The
magnitude and impact of the biotech and organic organic seed
price premium, December 2009.
60.Howard P. H. 2009. Visualizing consolidation in the global seed
industry: 1996÷2008. Sustainability 2009(1): 1266–1287.
GMO and the risk of allergy
44.Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME,
Foster PS, Higgins TJ, Hogan SP. Transgenic expression of bean
alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and
immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 2005, 53(23): 9023-30.
45.Vázquez RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazán L, De La Riva GA,
López-Revilla R. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a
potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J Immunol. 1999,
49(6): 578-84.
46.Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK.
Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N
Engl J Med. 1996, 334(11): 688-92.
47.Cisterna B, Flach F, Vecchio L, Barabino SM, Battistelli S,
Martin TE, Vázquez-Padrón RI, Moreno-Fierros L, NeriBazán L, Martínez-Gil AF, de-la-Riva GA, López-Revilla R.
Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response
induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in
mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000, 33(2): 147-55.
Environmental aspects. The impact on traditional
agriculture
61.Saji H, Nakajima N, Aono M, Tamaoki M, Kubo A, Wakiyama S,
Hatase Y, Nagatsu M. 2005. Monitoring the escape of transgenic
oilseed rape around Japanese ports and roadsides. Environ
Biosafety Res. 4(4): 217-22.
62.Aono M, Wakiyama S, Nagatsu M, Nakajima N, Tamaoki M, Kubo
A & Saji H (2006). Detection of feral transgenic oilseed rape
with multiple-herbicide resistance in Japan. Environ Biosafety
Res. 5: 77-87.
63.Yoshimura Y, Beckie HJ & Matsuo K (2006). Transgenic oilseed
rape along transportation routes and port of Vancouver in
western Canada. Environ Biosafety Res. 5: 67-75.
64.Wolfenbarger L.L., Phifer P.R. 2000 The ecological risks and
benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science. 290(5499):
2088-93.
65.Benbrook C. The Organic Center Critical Issue Report: Impacts
of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United
States: The First Thirteen Years, November 2009
66.Jenczewski E, Ronfort J, Chèvre AM. Crop-to-wild gene flow,
introgression and possible fitness effects of transgenes. Environ
Biosafety Res. 2003, 2(1): 9-24. Review.
67.Arnaud JF, Viard F, Delescluse M, Cuguen J. Evidence for gene
flow via seed dispersal from crop to wild relatives in Beta vulgaris
(Chenopodiaceae): consequences for the release of genetically
modified crop species with weedy lineages. Proc Biol Sci. 2003,
270(1524): 1565-71.
68.Gepts P, Papa R. Possible effects of (trans)gene flow from crops
on the genetic diversity from landraces and wild relatives.
Environ Biosafety Res. 2003, 2(2): 89-103.
69.Piñeyro-Nelson A, Van Heerwaarden J, Perales HR, SerratosHernández JA, Rangel A, Hufford MB, Gepts P, Garay-Arroyo A,
Economical and sociological problems. Superweeds and
superpests
48.Antoniou M., Brack P., Carrasco A., Fagan J., Habib M., Kageyama
P., Leifert C., Nodari R.O., Pengue W. GM Soy – Sustainable?
Responsible? GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de / ARGE
Gentechnik-frei www.gentechnikfrei.at
49.Adler G. Ekspansja superchwastów. Świat Nauki 2011-06-01.
50.Gaines TA, Zhang W, Wang D, Bukun B, Chisholm ST, Shaner
DL, Nissen SJ, Patzoldt WL, Tranel PJ, Culpepper AS, Grey
TL, Webster TM, Vencill WK, Sammons RD, Jiang J, Preston
C, Leach JE, Westra P. Gene amplification confers glyphosate
resistance in Amaranthus palmeri. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2010, 107(3): 1029-34.
1202 •
nr 11/2011 • tom 65
Innovation to Transform
the Chemical Industry
Oct 12, 2011, SCI HQ, 15 Belgrave Square,
London, SW1X 8PS
Chemistry is at the heart of everything we do. It
beats throughout all aspects of our life and our world.
Nature has evolved innovative chemistry to shape our
world. Mankind needs to innovate chemistry and chemical
processes constantly to sustain our future. This one day
conference will highlight the latest thinking about real
business opportunities for the chemical and chemistryusing industries and how companies need to transform
to gain a competitive edge. Leading industrialists will set
out their insights of the future and views on how business
needs to change through open innovation. This conference
will not only be strategic but also grounded in closed-loop
systems engineering, new business models, high value
manufacturing and sustainable product design. It will
seek to deliver tangible societal benefits by connecting
business with science and society, and by building trust and
reputation through a new social contact. This conference
follows on directly from the Technology Strategy Board’s
Innovate 11 on 11 October 2011 at the Business Design
Katarzyna LISOWSKA, Ph.D., is a graduate of the Faculty of Biology and
Environmental Protection of the Silesian University in Katowice. She has
Centre, London. The two events have a strong synergy
on new business growth by stimulating new thinking and
been granted the degree of Doctor habilitatus in the field of medical biology.
Works as a professor of molecular biology in the research department of the
Institute of Oncology in Gliwice. Member of the GMO Commission in the
Ministry of Environment. Invited to participate as an expert in a meeting in
August 2011 with the President of Poland to discuss the contents of the act
on seed production relating to GM crops. The President has vetoed the act.
Katarzyna Lisowska is also a councillor in the Gliwice City Center District
Council (2008÷2011 term).
nr 11/2011 • tom 65
making new connections. We believe that by attending both
events, delegates will take away invaluable new knowledge
to build their businesses in suitable ways.
(http://www.chemistry2011.org/ 12.10.2011)
• 1203
XII Conference Environmental
Rivera-Bustamante R, Alvarez-Buylla ER. Transgenes in Mexican
maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations
for GMO detection in landrace populations. Mol Ecol. 2009,
18(4): 750-61.
70.Quist D, Chapela I. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional
maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 2001, 414: 541–
543.
71.Snow A. Unwanted transgenes re-discovered in Oaxacan maize.
Molecular Ecology 2009, 18: 569-571.
72.Serratos-Hernández JA, Gómez-Olivares JL, Salinas-Arreortua
N, Buendía-Rodríguez E, Islas-Gutiérrez F & de-Ita A. Transgenic
proteins in maize in the Soil Conservation area of Federal
District, Mexico. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
2007, 5: 247-252.
73.Galeano P, Martínez Debat C, Ruibal F, Franco Fraguas L & Galván
GA. Cross-fertilization between genetically modified and nongenetically modified maize crops in Uruguay. Environmental
Biosafety Research DOI: 10.1051/ebr/2011100 Published online
by Cambridge University Press: March 2011.
74.Gealy DR, Mitten DH and Rutger JN. Gene Flow Between Red
Rice (Oryza sativa) and Herbicide-Resistant Rice (O. sativa):
Implications for Weed Management. Weed Technology 2003,
17: 627-645.
75.Rosi-Marshall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White
M, Chambers C,Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J, Stephen ML. Toxins
in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream
ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007, 104(41): 16204-8.
76.Bohn T., Primicerio R., Hessen D.O. Traavik T. Reduced fitness of
Daphnia magna fed a Bt-transgenic maize variety. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 2008, 55: 584-592.
77.Lövei GL, Arpaia S. The impact of transgenic plants on natural
enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomol Exp
Applic 2005, 114:1–14
78.Marvier M., McCreedy C., Regetz J., Kareiva P. A meta-analysis
of effects of Bt cotton and maize on non-target invertebrates.
Science 2007, 316: 1475-1477.
79.Benamú M.A., Schneider M.I. Sánchez N.E. Effects of the
herbicide glyphosate on biological attributes of Alpaida veniliae
(Araneae, Araneidae), in laboratory. Chemosphere 2010, 78:
871-876.
80.Bøhn T., Traavik T., Primicerio. Demographic responses of
Daphnia magna fed transgenicBt-maize. Ecotoxicology 2010,
19: 419–430.
81.Relyea RA. The lethal impact of roundup on aquatic and terrestrial
amphibians. Ecological Applications 2005, 15: 1118-1124.
82.Gassmann AJ, Petzold-Maxwell JL, Keweshan RS, Dunbar MW.
Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm.
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22629.