INDEX
• INTRODUCTION: Mutated Combination Incomplete Lifeforms.

• Nutritional: Apples.
• Nutritional: Bananas.
• Nutritional: Beverages.
• Nutritional: Biopolymers.
• Nutritional: Brazil Nuts.
• Nutritional: Cherries.
• Nutritional: Chocolate.
• Nutritional: Canola / Rapeseed.
• Nutritional: Corn / Maize.
• Nutritional: Cotton.
• Nutritional: Dairy; Ice Cream.
• Nutritional: Eggs; Poultry.
• Nutritional: Meats; Sausage.
• Nutritional: Papayas.
• Nutritional: Peas, green.
• Nutritional: Potatoes.
• Nutritional: Rice.
• Nutritional: Soybeans.
• Nutritional: Squash.
• Nutritional: Starch saccharification.
• Nutritional: Sugar Beet.
• Nutritional: Sugars, Sweets.
• Nutritional: Supplements.
• Nutritional: Tomato.
• Nutritional: Wheat.
• Nutritional: Insects, Spiders, Animals.

  AFTERWORD: ...

COMPANION RESOURCES:
IDENTITY : Becoming a Chimera. --- HEALTH : Living with & Beyond Mutation.
HOSTS : What is being/has been altered. --- MODIFIERS : What is/has been used to Mutate.

-Focus-: Monographs on Toxins and Enhancers.

INTRODUCTION: Mutated Combination Incomplete Lifeforms. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/149.plants_altered_composition.html
LINK 2: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/environmental_safety/
171.environmental_safety_which_crops_could_spread_genes.html

If you undertake to read the following and make an effort to integrate it such that you can interpret and identify what is RELEVANT for YOU, and perhaps other humans, in general, you will be best to resist attraction to fear, anxiety, paranoia, and hysterics ... which is encouraged by exposure to realities which we are systematically held apart from by the structure of our cultural authority infrastructures including educational, media, news, political, medical, and, pseudo-science boundaries.

That is, if our leaders had expressed a historical optimism in the self-directedness of their membership, and, a humility in their ignorance .. they would NOT have constructed and followed strategies to maintain their membership/voters as dependent, underinformed mental slaves willingly giving over their freedom of health and lifestyle Choices to SYMBOLIC human gods, generally known as experts, scientists, managers, leaders, and, corporations. Your leaders benefit from your accepting their offer of respecting you, as a CHILD, pressed into Dependency, and, without the knowledge to hold them accountable for their many and frequent errors. Allowing them to be irresponsible, while deceiving you with insincere promises and poorly founded good intentions provides them with the Confidence of the authority you sanction in them. Resist the temptation to REACT to sudden awareness with self-terror, and, with the Grace of God, allow the fog of your confusion to drift away and bring you to a discernment of Reality from which you can exercise self-directness.

Nutritional: Apples. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/
fruit_vegetables/6.genetically_modified_apples_eu.html

Nutritional: Bananas. (2006) INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/
17.bananas_using_genetic_engineering_against_fungal_disease.html
LINK 2:

About four million tonnes of bananas are imported into the EU each year.
A fungal disease is now threatening banana plantations, and plant breeders have not yet succeeded in developing resistant cultivars. Many hope that genetic engineering can offer a solution. At this point, such projects are still only in the greenhouse.

Monocultures offer the perfect conditions for the spreading of pests and diseases. ...

Back in the 50s, the most common banana variety, Gros Michel, was completely wiped-out by what was known as Panama disease. This disease was caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum, also called fusarium wilt. Gros Michel was replaced by a resistant southern Chinese variety called Cavendish.

For the last thirty years a new disease has been becoming more and more widespread.
The disease is called Black Sigatoka. Right now, the only way to treat this new disease is by applying massive doses of fungicides - a practice which is losing effectiveness as the fungus is becoming more resistant. In several regions the disease can cut banana yield in half, leading farmers to spray their plantations up to fifty times a year. This practice endangers the environment and the health of plantation workers.

Black Sigatoka ... also affects local varieties (of bananas) that are popular in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These include starchy plantains, prepared similarly to potatoes, which are a staple food in many poorer communities in the Third World.

Disease defence: Bananas lack genetic diversity

... Cultivated bananas are known as pathenocarpic, which means they can form fruit without ever having been fertilised. Rather than forming seeds, bananas reproduce by forming side-shoots and suckers. This means that the gene pool of bananas never really changes over the generations. This is a major restriction to breeding possibilities: all efforts to introduce fungus resistance to Cavendish bananas through conventional breeding methods have failed. ...

Last year a group of scientists announced that they would completely sequence the banana genome.
They intend to focus particularly on banana varieties found in nature. Wild bananas can reproduce by seeds and are constantly confronted with fungi and other pathogens. Sequencing the genome should enable researchers to discover resistance genes that could be transferred to high-yielding, seedless varieties.

• Crop improvement efforts with bananas have been going on for quite some time.
  Researchers in Belgium, in cooperation with the INIBAP-Network, have been working for years to develop improved banana cultivars using conventional breeding methods and genetic engineering. Leuven University set up a banana archive comprised of 1200 banana varieties from all over the world.

• Resistance genes from various plants including onions and dahlias were introduced into plantains, primarily with the goal of developing resistant plantain cultivars for the Third World.

• The resulting genetically modified plantains exhibit resistance to the fungus in greenhouses.
  ... some toxicological tests still need to be carried out.

People may soon be getting vaccinated for diseases like hepatitis B and cholera by simply taking a bite of banana. Researchers have successfully engineered bananas, potatoes, lettuce, carrots and tobacco to produce vaccines, but they say bananas are the ideal production and delivery vehicle.

When an altered form of a virus is injected into a banana sapling, the virus' genetic material quickly becomes a permanent part of the plant's cells. As the plant grows, its cells produce the virus proteins -- but not the infectious part of the virus. When people eat a bite of a genetically engineered banana, which is full of virus proteins, their immune systems build up antibodies to fight the disease -- just like a traditional vaccine.

Nutritional: Beverages. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/
30.beverages_genetic_engineering.html

Fruit juice, beer, wine, and liquor -- many of our beverages are based on plant ingredients.
Neither the plants themselves, nor the yeasts used in alcoholic fermentation are genetically modified.
Nonetheless, many beverages are produced using enzymes made with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Alcoholic Beverages.
Whether it's wine, beer, or spirits, alcoholic fermentation is the fundamental metabolic process behind every alcoholic beverage. Yeasts break down plant starches into simple sugars, which are then converted into alcohol (ethanol). Secondary metabolic products help give alcoholic beverages their characteristic aromas and flavours.

Red wine:
A stable colour and full aroma are made are possible by enzymes.
Some wine makers use enzyme supplements.

Fruit juice.
Enzymes improve the efficiency of juice extraction and break down substances that cause cloudiness.

Beer from Bt maize.
A beer from Bt maize is brewed in Sweden (Kenth).
A similar beer is available in Switzerland (Cool Corn).

Plants.
Plant materials provide the starch for metabolic fermentation.
These may be wine grapes (wine), barley, wheat, maize (beer, spirits), potatoes, and fruit (spirits, liqueurs).
None of the plants that are used as starch sources for alcoholic beverages have commercially grown genetically modified varieties. The one exception to this is maize, which is sometimes used for brewing beer.

Yeast.
None of the yeast strains commercially used in alcoholic fermentation are genetically engineered.
No GM yeast strains have been approved in any country, and this is not likely to change any time soon.
At one time hopes were high that genetically modified yeast could open new possibilities for alcoholic fermentation. Several research projects were aimed at improving brewing processes to produce low-calorie or low-alcohol beers. Despite several attempts, these efforts have not panned out.

Enzymes.
The breakdown of starch, the fermentation of sugars, and the formation of characteristic secondary metabolites are all driven by enzymes. These enzymes naturally occur in raw plant materials or are produced by yeast. Sometimes, however, processes can be optimised by adding isolates of essential enzymes. Many of these are produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

In beer brewing, supplemental enzymes can accelerate malting, suppress off-flavours, or degrade residues.
In wine, they can improve juice recovery during pressing or can adjust the development of flavours and aromas. In spirits, they improve the breakdown of starch and carbohydrates.

The use of supplemental enzymes in beer is not permitted in Germany.

Juices.
Enzymes can increase the efficiency of juice extraction by digesting starches and cellulose, a tough compound that is found in plant cell walls. After pressing, fresh juice retains enzymes that break down cloudy, starchy residues. Many of these useful enzymes can now be produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Juices are sometimes fortified with vitamins or sweetened with artificial sweeteners for diabetics.
Some of these additives are produced with the help of genetic engineering.

Soft Drinks.
Cola and other soft drinks contain several ingredients and additives that are sometimes produced from GM maize or with the help of GM microorganisms.

Glucose syrup (corn syrup), glucose, and other products derived from starch can be made from GM maize.

Colourings like beta-carotene and riboflavin, vitamins, citric acid, and the sweetener aspartame can all be produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Nutritional: Biopolymers. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/glossary/239..html (2006)

Biopolymers are the basic building blocks of living organisms.
Examples of biopolymers are proteins, which are made up of amino acids, the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, which are made up of nucleotides, and polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose.

Biopolymers can be used to produce bioplastics.
For this they are usually modified chemically using technical procedures. The basic materials usually used for bioplastics are currently starch and cellulose. Plants like maize and potatoes are increasingly being grown as renewable raw materials to supply these basic materials.

Nutritional: Brazil Nuts. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/
stories/175.gm_peas_australia_cause_immune_response.html (part of)

Brazil nuts. A gene from the Brazil nut was transferred to soybeans.
Since the Brazil nut is a known allergenic food, the allergenicity of the newly introduced protein was assessed. It was found that this protein is probably a major Brazil nut allergen.

The case of the Australian genetically modified peas is not the only example of a development project that was abandoned after uncovering the allergenic potential of a new protein product. A crop improvement project in the US involved transferring a gene from the Brazil nut into soybeans. In 1996, the project was abandoned after analyses revealed that the gene of interest encoded a potential allergen. Again, the risk potential posed by this GM plant was recognized before approval. As of yet, no approved transgenic plants have been known to cause allergic reactions.

Nutritional: Canola / Rapeseed. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
grocery_shopping/crops/21.genetically_modified_rapeseed.html

Until recently (2006), rapeseed was a relatively unimportant crop.
Today rapeseed is grown not only as raw material for renewable resources, but also as a source of oil that is used to produce margarine. There is no GM rapeseed currently being grown in Europe. In Canada, however, GM rapeseed has become widespread.

Nutritional: Cherries. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/285.cherry.html -- 2007

Cherry trees grow in regions with moderate climates, mainly in the Northern hemisphere.
The major producers are Turkey, the USA, Iran, Germany, Russia and Italy.
The cherry harvest in 2005 yielded around 1.86 million tons worldwide.
As the fruit does not ripen after picking, cherries are harvested in an advanced state of ripeness.

Field trials with GM cherries.
Italy -- Period: 1998 ---- Traits sought: Modified root system
Canada -- Period: 1996/8 -- Traits sought: Modified fruit quality

Nutritional: Chocolate. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/
31.sweets_chocolate_ice_cream_genetic_engineering.html
LINK 2:

Chocolate and biscuits, sweets and ice cream - most of our sweet snacks were made with the help of genetic engineering. You won't find this information on a label, however, because content from genetically modified crops stays below labelling thresholds, and additives made from GM microorganisms do not require labelling.

Sugars from Starch.
Sugar beets and sugarcane aren't the only plants that make things sweet.
Starch products such as glucose syrup (corn syrup) are commonly used as sugar by food producers.
Even though they're derived from maize or potatoes, sugars derived from starches are chemically identical to granulated table sugar (sucrose) from conventional sources. When chain-like starch molecules are broken down, the result is a mixture of sugar molecules in the form of a syrup that is easier to process than table sugar. The enzymes (e.g. amylase) used to transform corn starch into glucose syrup are predominantly produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Glucose syrup is the basis for many ingredients that are used in sweets, for example:

    Dextrose (grape sugar)
    Sugar substitutes like sorbit
    Maltodextrin and other modified starches

Any ingredient made from converted starch can be involved with genetic engineering in two ways.
First, the enzymes used to break down starch are usually made with the help of genetically modified microorganisms. Second, the raw material used as a starch source could be from a genetically modified plant like GM maize. GM maize is commonly grown in the USA, Argentina, and even in parts of Europe.

Soy ingredients.
Genetic engineering is also difficult to avoid when it comes to lecithin, an emulsifier derived from soy that is used in many chocolates, ice creams, and desserts. Other ingredients commonly used in sweets and desserts that are derived from soy include:

    Fats, oils, and fat-based coatings
    Numerous emulsifiers made from modified fatty acids

Almost 60 percent (2006) of the world soybean crop is genetically modified.
Europe imports almost all of its soybeans from Brazil, the USA, and Argentina, countries where GM soybean is widespread. "GM-free" soybeans can only be obtained from certain regions of Brazil.

In order to avoid using GM ingredients and thereby forgo GMO labelling, some food producers have replaced soy with alternative raw materials. For instance, rapeseed or sunflower oil is sometimes used instead of soy oil. It is also possible to replace soy lecithin with other emulsifiers.

Additives.
Sweets contain a number of additives that are often produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms:

    Citric acid (E 330)
    Vitamin B2 (riboflavin colouring / E 101), vitamin C (ascorbic acid / E 300)
    The sweetener, aspartame (E 951)
    Beta-carotene colouring (E 160a)
    Thickening agent, xanthan (E 415)

Additives made with the help of genetically modified microorganisms do not require labelling.

Nutritional: Corn, Maize. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/ingredients_additives/
37.products_starch_corn_syrup_fructose_glucose.html
LINK 2: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
grocery_shopping/crops/18.genetically_modified_maize_eu.html (2008)
LINK 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize

Maize is the only GM crop that is currently (2008) being grown in Europe.
Maize is used primarily for animal feed and is also an important raw material for the starch industry.
If GM maize production in Europe were to increase, it would most likely make its way into food products.

The transformation of starch into sugar is an important branch of the starch industry and is one of the most important applications of biotechnology. Countless foods contain ingredients produced by the breakdown of starch. Enzymes are the key to these chemical reactions - enzymes that are predominantly produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Starches are chemically bound clusters of sugar molecules found in plants.
Under the right conditions, starch molecules can be broken down into sugar.
This process makes it possible to obtain sugar from the starch of many different plants, rather than just sugar beets or sugar cane. This is now being done by industrial-scale starch saccharification. The most important sources of starch are maize, potatoes, and wheat. ...

Enzymes:
Most of the enzymes used in starch saccharification are produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms. Some of these enzymes are economically impossible to produce without biotechnological methods. Certain procedures use "immobilised" enzymes, which are bound to a reaction surface. Rather than mixing freely, they remain fixed to a surface and are not present in the final product.

Labelling: It is impossible to tell by examining starch derived sugar products if the source material was genetically modified or if the enzymes used were produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms. Nonetheless, such products require labelling if they contain sugar products derived from the starch of genetically modified plants.

Enzymes do not need to be declared or listed, regardless of the way they were produced.

Biopolymers
Polymers that occur in nature (macromolecules)

Biopolymers are the basic building blocks of living organisms.
Examples of biopolymers are proteins, which are made up of amino acids, the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, which are made up of nucleotides, and polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose.

Biopolymers can be used to produce bioplastics.
For this they are usually modified chemically using technical procedures. The basic materials usually used for bioplastics are currently starch and cellulose. Plants like maize and potatoes are increasingly being grown as renewable raw materials to supply these basic materials.

Nutritional: Cotton. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
grocery_shopping/crops/161.genetically_modified_cotton.html (2008)

Cotton is not only important as a source of fibre for textiles.
The seeds make up an important part of food and animal feed.
GM cotton is grown primarily in India, China and the United States.
China is currently expanding its production of GM cotton, which could allow for drastic reductions in pesticide use.

Nutritional: Dairy; Ice Cream. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/
31.sweets_chocolate_ice_cream_genetic_engineering.html

LINK 2: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/
processed_foods/29.dairy_products_eggs_genetic_engineering.html

Chocolate and biscuits, sweets and ice cream - most of our sweet snacks were made with the help of genetic engineering. You won't find this information on a label, however, because content from genetically modified crops stays below labelling thresholds, and additives made from GM microorganisms do not require labelling.

Nutritional: Eggs, Poultry. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/
processed_foods/29.dairy_products_eggs_genetic_engineering.html

Nutritional: Meats; Sausage. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/
processed_foods/32.genetic_engineering_meats_sausage.html

If the animal has been fed GMO grains, fiber, supplements, and other foods, its meat and other products/tissues have likely been modified by the exposure. ONE feeding can, and has, genetically modify the stomach and intestine tissue DNA of an animal, including humans.

Nutritional: Papayas. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/
14.genetically_modified_papayas_virus_resistance.html

Nutritional: Peas, green. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/
stories/175.gm_peas_australia_cause_immune_response.html (2006)

GM peas cause immune response -- A gap in the approval process?

In late 2005, a private research institute in Australia, CSIRO Plant Industry, put a halt on the further development of a genetically modified pea cultivar responsible for causing an immune response in laboratory mice. Opposing sides of the public debate have taken these findings in conflicting directions. Some say the Australian findings confirm the effectiveness of screening processes, while for others, the results only prove that genetically modified plants are too unpredictable to reckon with.

Fighting pea weevils with peas
CSIRO has been working for almost ten years on developing an insect resistant pea cultivar.
Peas are commonly used as an intercrop in Australia, where the annual pea crop totals AU$120 million.
However, farmers face major challenges when it comes to the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum), an important insect pest that lays its eggs in pea pods. If no chemical pesticides are used, up to 30 percent of the crop may be destroyed.

In order to address this problem, scientists at CSIRO took a defence gene from kidney beans and transferred it to peas. This gene is responsible for producing a kind of protein known as an amylase inhibitor. Amylase inhibitors prevent the breakdown of starch in the digestive system of pea weevils, causing them to starve before they are able to cause damage. Field trials revealed that the transgenic peas were 99.5 percent resistant.

Genetically modified peas expressing a newly introduced amylase inhibitor gene are resistant to the pea weevil (above). Conventional peas (bottom) show characteristic damage caused by pea weevil larvae.

Safety testing for weevil resistant GM peas
To find out about the safety of their new genetically modified pea cultivar, CSIRO conducted several field studies. The trials were conducted under strict containment conditions, so that none of the GM peas would make their way into the food supply. Regarding the planning of safety testing, CSIRO consulted Australia and New Zealand's food safety authority, Food Standard Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). FSANZ is responsible for conducting safety assessments of genetically modified plants. The results of the safety studies proposed by FSANZ would then have to be submitted along with an application for approval. As a part of the required safety research, CSIRO conducted a comprehensive analysis of the new protein. Additionally, substances found in the plant, especially amylase inhibitor, must be checked for potential toxic or allergenic effects. These safety research requirements for transgenic plants are in accordance with standards set by international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), as well as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Feeding experiment
Initially, long-term laboratory and field tests conducted over several years suggested that the new peas were harmless for humans and animals (excluding the pea weevil). Even independent animal feeding experiments carried out by the Hungarian scientist Arpad Pusztai in 1999 showed no negative effects.

It was only with the final molecular characterisation of the new protein and further tests on animals that scientists from CSIRO made some unexpected findings. Although the amylase inhibitor gene comes from beans, a close relative of peas, it appears that when made by transgenic peas, the protein is produced slightly differently. CSIRO researchers, working together with the John Curtin School of Medical Research (JCSMR), found that amylase inhibitor produced in peas has a slightly different surface structure than the same protein produced in beans. A different arrangement of sugar molecules was attached to the protein's surface.

Subsequent feeding tests on laboratory mice were able to confirm this difference.
For four weeks, one test group was fed transgenic peas, while the lungs of another test group was given GM pea aerosol treatments. The tests revealed immune reactions among test animals:

Mice fed GM peas had elevated levels of antibodies in their bloodstream.

The lungs of mice directly treated with the aerosol made from GM peas had above average levels of inflammation.

Control groups treated with conventional peas or beans did not have these changes.

Humans could potentially have allergic reactions similar to those observed in mice.
Nonetheless, the Australian and New Zealand authority on food safety (FSANZ) maintains that results of animal tests do not prove the allergic potential of GM peas in humans.

Testing stopped
The safety testing mentioned above took place before an application for the genetically modified peas was ever submitted to Australian authorities for approval. Due to the results of the safety research, the research institute decided to abandon the project after 10 years of development. CSIRO will not be seeking approval for the crop. The promising method, however, will be developed for use in other plants, said Thomas Higgins, deputy chief of CSIRO. Evidence has suggested that amylase inhibitor from beans may be expressed in other varieties of peas without forming a protein that would cause immune reactions.

Is safety testing adequate?
Environmental protection organisations like Greenpeace have expressed concern about the findings of CSIRO's safety research. According to Christoph Then, Greenpeace's spokesperson on GMOs in Germany, the findings lend further support to the argument that the consequences of genetically modifying plants are incalculable. He has voiced fears that the disputed peas could have even received approval in the European Union, because animal feeding tests are not explicitly required for approving genetically modified plants in the EU.

A very different conclusion was made by Thomas Higgins.
From his point of view, the case-by-case approach to assessing the safety of GM plants has functioned well.
Rather than mandating a standardised batch of tests for each genetically modified plant awaiting approval, scientific commissions evaluate each plant individually and demand certain tests addressing specific areas of concern. This is intended to keep safety assessments in sync with the most advanced science and methodology to date. Animal models for predicting allergenic potential are being researched and developed, but they are currently not directly applicable to humans. International organisations such as WHO and FAO agree that a safe assessment is possible using existing methods.

The question of whether European authorities would have noticed the difference in the amylase inhibitor protein has aroused concern. According to the Guidance Document for the Risk Assessment of GM Plants and Derived Food and Feed, EFSA demands that novel proteins in GM plants be checked for possible size differences and surface modifications. This includes checking for modifications to the protein's glycosylation pattern, or in other words, the way sugar molecules are attached to the protein's surface. Because the immune response was thought to be caused by an altered glycosylation pattern, one can assume that European safety assessments would have discovered the unusual structure of the amylase inhibitor and called for further testing.

Furthermore, simple amino acid sequence comparisons would have identified correspondence with known allergens. Targeted blood serum reactivity tests based on the sequence information would have been conducted to detect immune reactivity. Finally, routine tests with digestive juices would have revealed that the novel amylase inhibitor is relatively stable in the presence of digestive enzymes. This is a common characteristic of problematic allergens.

To explain the abandonment of the GM pea project, Australian authorities from FSANZ referred to similar unexpected consequences that sometimes result from conventional breeding projects. For example, the potato cultivars Lenape (USA, Canada) and Magnum Bonum (Sweden) were taken off the market due to elevated levels of toxic glycoalkaloids in their tubers. These types of risks are not entirely new, and they are not limited to genetically modified plants.

Nutritional: Potatoes. (2011) INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/23.genetically_modified_potato.html
LINK 2: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/fury-as-eu-approves-gm-potato-1915833.html
Fury as EU approves GM potato - Green Living, Environment - The Independent.
The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper. --- Hickman, M. (2010, March 4).
LINK 3: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/potato/nutrition/675.docu.html
LINK 4: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/gm-potatoes-may-benefit-health-approved-usda
LINK 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato

Another future GM potato is the protein-packed potato developed in India.
Researchers in India have created a potato with 35% to 60% more protein!
This potato uses the gene from amaranth seed. This potato would be beneficial to human health in developed and developing countries and help fight malnutrition in India, especially in children. So far, this potato looks promising in my opinion, there were no side effects on rats and rabbits, it doesn't contain any known allergens and doesn't contain pesticide.

... Listed below are the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, especially potatoes.

ADVANTAGES
Decrease in cost of production, 
less money spent on pesticides and insecticides (Saves money)
Better for the environment: 
 -- In Amflora production less energy, water and chemicals are used. 
Less chemical used to resist pests.
Less pesticide, better for farmers' health
High in nutrients: the protein packed potato
Benefits farmers and people of developing countries
Reduces soil erosion
Better quality potatoes

DISADVANTAGES
Harmful health risks: 
--- Can cause antibiotic resistance
--- Cause health problems for animals eating the product.
--- Some GM foods may contain allergens and toxins.
--- Gene transfer may occur between organisms.

The above chart shows the pros and cons of genetically modified food, and there seems to be more advantages than disadvantages but people still have many misconceptions of genetically modified food. People began to misunderstand GM foods when a Scottish scientist named Arpad Pustzai ... carried out his experiments on the Bt Potato. Dr. Pustzai proved GM potatoes to be toxic, however according to Pandora's Picnic Basket, he confused product and process. Dr. Pustzai showed that raw GM potatoes caused health problems in rats. What he failed to note was that natural potatoes contain a natural toxin called lectins, therefore when potatoes are cooked, the toxin dies.

In this case, Dr. Pustzai (confused) the "product with the process", the natural lectin caused the side effects not the new gene. Later scientists concluded that GM potatoes are the same non-modified potatoes, except for the gene and the product. ... According to Health Canada, no genetically modified product is allowed to be sold unless Health Canada scientist proves that the product is safe and nutritious. (Yet, their scientists are NOT allowed to test such because the institution deems all GMO products to be safe and unnecessary to test.)
Chelsea McPherson

After thirteen years of research, in March 2010, the European Union approved the newest genetically modified potato called the Amflora. ... the history of the GM potato. Before the arrival of the Amflora potato, pest-resistant potatoes existed, however, they were later removed from the North American market. A biotechnology company ... Monsanto introduced a pest-resistant potato in the year 1996. These potatoes are commonly known as New Leaf or Natural Mark potatoes. These potatoes were designed to resist the Colorado potato beetles and the Potato Virus Y (PVY). These potatoes contained two isolated genes from bacteria and were used to create proteins. The first gene is known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and the second gene is a "biological marker" used to identify the GM potato.

.. "How are the genes transferred to the plant?"
Before the gene can be transferred, it first must be isolated and then is ready for gene transfer.
The first step in transferring the gene is delivering it to the nucleus and the second step is cell growth.
There are two common methods used in gene transfer mentioned in the book Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods. The first method is the "gene gun" or the "shotgun" method. The gene is combined with microscopic gold or tungsten pellets and placed on a "support" and is then shot into the plant using helium. Although, the cell becomes damaged during this process, the cell does not die.

The second method mentioned is Agrobacterium, which is a "naturally occurring agent".
Although the process is not simple, basically the two strands of DNA are cut, and one forms a protein while the other is used as a template for the complementary base. ... the pest-resistant potato was discontinued in the year 2001 by Monsanto. ... The New Leaf potatoes showed little to no economic advantages. Also companies like McDonald's, Wendy's and the company the makes Lays chips, Fritos, stopped purchasing potatoes that were genetically modified because consumers were concerned about health issues. As well, McCain, the company that makes McCain French fries stopped purchasing GM potatoes and other companies followed. As a result, Monsanto stopped producing the GM potato.

Although the Bt potato did have its disadvantage, it also had its advantages.
... it protected the potatoes from the Potato Beetles and the PVY virus. As well, it ensured quality potatoes and farmers saved money on insecticide. As well, insecticides and pesticide chemicals affected the farmers' health. One drawback of the potato was pests became resistant to insecticides and the Bt potato as well. Since discontinued, North America no longer grows genetically modified potatoes.

The Amflora potato was designed thirteen years ago by a German company BASF.
... potatoes contain starch. The starch of potatoes contains two different components in different proportions. Eighty percent of the potato's starch contains amylopectin, which is soluble in water and makes the starch sticky. This component of the starch is perfect for use in chemical industries, producing food, paper, glue, lubricant etc. The second component of the starch is Amylose, which is used in films and foils. The starch in traditional potatoes in not "ideal" for the use in chemical industries, therefore amylopectin and amylose must be separated. Although it can be done, separating the two components is an expensive procedure and bad for the environment since it wastes energy, water and chemicals.

SOLUTION: Create a potato that contains ONLY amylopectin.
Since breeding methods have failed, genetic engineers have used the "antisense technique" to separate the two components. A molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) is used to help express genetic information of genes. When the mRNA travels to the ribosomes, proteins are created and the genes are "expressed". The potato is modified by doing the opposite, using "antisense genes". When antisense genes are present, the mRNA creates a "mirror image" of the gene and two mRNAs attach to each other and can no longer perform their function. Therefore, proteins are not able to be synthesized; the gene is "blocked" from producing amylose.

The Amflora potato is currently being used for industrial use only.
The advantages of having a genetically modified potato is it more economical, and according to BASF, paper is made more glossier, yarn is stronger, glue lasts longer and concrete sticks better, products overall are better! BASF would also like to use waste of the potato for animal feed and bio-fuel. This has alarmed Europeans, because if an animal eats the GM potato skins, it may modify the animal. Not only will this have an affect on the animal's health, but if we consume the animal it may affect our health as well. An enzyme produced by the Amflora gene causes antibiotic resistance to antibiotics such as kanamycin, neomycin, butitosin, gentamicin and now it will be difficult to fight disease. As well, in North America genetically modified food does not need to be labelled, but in Europe genetically modified food is rare and must be labelled. However, these animals consuming the genetically modified potato skins will not be labelled as genetically modified. Not only is this a health issue, but this is also an ethical issue, because people have the right to know if the meat they are consuming had contact with genetically modified food. ...

Researchers at University of Victoria, used frog genes to resist pathogens such as Phytophthora infestans.
South American Frogs "excrete" a chemical in their skin to fight off bacteria and other pathogens. An effective chemical called B1 (found in the skin of tree frogs), called Phyllomedusa bicolour. The team of researchers showed that by inserting a "synthetic" of this gene into the potato, the plant was able to resist disease-causing fungi and bacteria responsible for dry rot, late blight, and pink rot. ... Late blight is responsible for the 1846 potato famine in Europe and causes significant crop loss each year. ...

Genetic engineering research is going on to modify potatoes and sugar beets to produce higher amounts of (fructan) inulins.

Varieties developed by somaclonal variation exist for tomatoes, potatoes, sugar cane and others.

Biopolymers
Polymers that occur in nature (macromolecules)

Biopolymers are the basic building blocks of living organisms.
Examples of biopolymers are proteins, which are made up of amino acids, the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, which are made up of nucleotides, and polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose.

Biopolymers can be used to produce bioplastics.
For this they are usually modified chemically using technical procedures. The basic materials usually used for bioplastics are currently starch and cellulose. Plants like maize and potatoes are increasingly being grown as renewable raw materials to supply these basic materials.

Nutritional: Rice. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
grocery_shopping/crops/24.genetically_modified_rice.html (2008)

Nutritional: Soybeans. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
grocery_shopping/crops/19.genetically_modified_soybean.html (2008)

LINK 2: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/
stories/175.gm_peas_australia_cause_immune_response.html (part of) 2006

Brazil nuts. A gene from the Brazil nut was transferred to soybeans.
Since the Brazil nut is a known allergenic food, the allergenicity of the newly introduced protein was assessed.
It was found that this protein is probably a major Brazil nut allergen.

A crop improvement project in the US involved transferring a gene from the Brazil nut into soybeans. In 1996, the project was abandoned after analyses revealed that the gene of interest encoded a potential allergen. Again, the risk potential posed by this GM plant was recognized before (EU) approval.

Over half of the world's 2007 soybean crop (59%) was genetically modified, a higher percentage than for any other crop. Each year, the EU Member States import approximately 40 million tonnes of soy material, primarily used for feeding cattle, swine, and chickens. Soybeans are also used to produce many food additives.

Soy ingredients.
Genetic engineering is also difficult to avoid when it comes to lecithin, an emulsifier derived from soy that is used in many chocolates, ice creams, and desserts. Other ingredients commonly used in sweets and desserts that are derived from soy include:

    Fats, oils, and fat-based coatings
    Numerous emulsifiers made from modified fatty acids

Almost 60 percent (2006) of the world soybean crop is genetically modified.
Europe imports almost all of its soybeans from Brazil, the USA, and Argentina, countries where GM soybean is widespread. "GM-free" soybeans can only be obtained from certain regions of Brazil.

In order to avoid using GM ingredients and thereby forgo GMO labelling, some food producers have replaced soy with alternative raw materials. For instance, rapeseed or sunflower oil is sometimes used instead of soy oil. It is also possible to replace soy lecithin with other emulsifiers.

Nutritional: Squash. INDEX
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/genetically-modified-squash.aspx

Nutritional: Starch saccharification. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/
ingredients_additives/37.products_starch_corn_syrup_fructose_glucose.html
LINK 2: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/glossary/

The transformation of starch into sugar is an important branch of the starch industry and is one of the most important applications of biotechnology. Countless foods contain ingredients produced by the breakdown of starch. Enzymes are the key to these chemical reactions - enzymes that are predominantly produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Starches are chemically bound clusters of sugar molecules found in plants.
Under the right conditions, starch molecules can be broken down into sugar.
This process makes it possible to obtain sugar from the starch of many different plants, rather than just sugar beets or sugar cane. This is now being done by industrial-scale starch saccharification. The most important sources of starch are maize, potatoes, and wheat.

Strong acids were once used to break apart starch molecules and release sugar.
Now, enzymes do the job offering many advantages: With enzymes, the process targets the proper chemical bonds much more precisely. Different enzymes can be used to produce syrups with different levels of sweetness and different technical characteristics. The end products are not only used as custom tailored ingredients in countless foods and drinks, they can also be further processed into glucose, artificial sweeteners, or fat substitutes.

For a long time, breaking down starch (saccharification) didn't make economic sense.
Things changed, however, as soon as the enzymes responsible for this process became available at low cost, high quality, and at unlimited quantities. Now, (2006) almost all of the enzymes used to break down starch are produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Genetic engineering: Starch and enzymes
Genetic engineering can be associated with starch derived sugars that are used in foods and beverages in two ways: The plant starch source can be genetically modified, and the enzymatic "tools" used for breaking down the starch can be made by genetically modified microorganisms.

Plant used as a starch source:
When maize is used as a source of starch, a certain portion of the raw material may be genetically modified, as GM maize is common in the US and in other countries. When GM maize in Europe becomes more widespread, so will the proportion of GM content in starch processing. For potatoes, the second most important source of starch, GM cultivars with optimised starch content are getting closer to commercial cultivation.

Enzymes:
Most of the enzymes used in starch saccharification are produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms. Some of these enzymes are economically impossible to produce without biotechnological methods. Certain procedures use "immobilised" enzymes, which are bound to a reaction surface. Rather than mixing freely, they remain fixed to a surface and are not present in the final product.

Labelling: It is impossible to tell by examining starch derived sugar products if the source material was genetically modified or if the enzymes used were produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms. Nonetheless, such products require labelling if they contain sugar products derived from the starch of genetically modified plants.

Enzymes do not need to be declared or listed, regardless of the way they were produced.

Starch saccharification
Conversion of plant starch to various sugars

All plants consist to a greater or lesser extent of starches, which are composed of various chemically linked sugars (saccharides). If these chemical links are broken, the starch breaks down into its individual sugar components. This means that sugar can be obtained from plant starch as well as from sugar cane and sugar beet. Today this is done on an industrial scale in the starch saccharification process.

The most important plants for supplying starch for this process are maize, potatoes and wheat.

Whereas in the past, powerful acids were used to separate the starch into its individual sugars, today this is achieved almost exclusively with enzymes. Enzymes are highly specific and can separate the linked starch molecules at specific sites. This means that the saccharification process can be controlled precisely.

Today, nearly all enzymes used in starch saccharification -- with a few exceptions -- are obtained with the help of genetically modified micro-organisms.

Nutritional: Sugar Beet. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/20.sugar_beet.html

Commercial planting of a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet began in the USA in 2008.
This is expected to make weed management simpler and more effective.
This sugar beet is approved for import into the EU, as well as for food and feed processing; however, it is not yet authorised for cultivation.

Genetic engineering research is going on to modify potatoes and sugar beets to produce higher amounts of (fructan) inulins.

Nutritional: Sugars, Sweets. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/
31.sweets_chocolate_ice_cream_genetic_engineering.html

Chocolate and biscuits, sweets and ice cream - most of our sweet snacks were made with the help of genetic engineering. You won't find this information on a label, however, because content from genetically modified crops stays below labelling thresholds, and additives made from GM microorganisms do not require labelling.

Sugars from Starch.
Sugar beets and sugarcane aren't the only plants that make things sweet.
Starch products such as glucose syrup (corn syrup) are commonly used as sugar by food producers.
Even though they're derived from maize or potatoes, sugars derived from starches are chemically identical to granulated table sugar (sucrose) from conventional sources. When chain-like starch molecules are broken down, the result is a mixture of sugar molecules in the form of a syrup that is easier to process than table sugar. The enzymes (e.g. amylase) used to transform corn starch into glucose syrup are predominantly produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Glucose syrup is the basis for many ingredients that are used in sweets, for example:

    Dextrose (grape sugar)
    Sugar substitutes like sorbit
    Maltodextrin and other modified starches

Any ingredient made from converted starch can be involved with genetic engineering in two ways.
First, the enzymes used to break down starch are usually made with the help of genetically modified microorganisms. Second, the raw material used as a starch source could be from a genetically modified plant like GM maize. GM maize is commonly grown in the USA, Argentina, and even in parts of Europe.

Soy ingredients.
Genetic engineering is also difficult to avoid when it comes to lecithin, an emulsifier derived from soy that is used in many chocolates, ice creams, and desserts. Other ingredients commonly used in sweets and desserts that are derived from soy include:

    Fats, oils, and fat-based coatings
    Numerous emulsifiers made from modified fatty acids

Almost 60 percent (2006) of the world soybean crop is genetically modified.
Europe imports almost all of its soybeans from Brazil, the USA, and Argentina, countries where GM soybean is widespread. "GM-free" soybeans can only be obtained from certain regions of Brazil.

In order to avoid using GM ingredients and thereby forgo GMO labelling, some food producers have replaced soy with alternative raw materials. For instance, rapeseed or sunflower oil is sometimes used instead of soy oil. It is also possible to replace soy lecithin with other emulsifiers.

Additives.
Sweets contain a number of additives that are often produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms:

    Citric acid (E 330)
    Vitamin B2 (riboflavin colouring / E 101), vitamin C (ascorbic acid / E 300)
    The sweetener, aspartame (E 951)
    Beta-carotene colouring (E 160a)
    Thickening agent, xanthan (E 415)

Additives made with the help of genetically modified microorganisms do not require labelling.

Nutritional: Supplements. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/ingredients_additives/
36.gm_microorganisms_taking_place_chemical_factories.html (2008)

LINK 2: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
grocery_shopping/processed_foods/30.beverages_genetic_engineering.html (2008)

GM microorganisms produce additives, vitamins, enzymes and amino acids.

Enzymes.
The breakdown of starch, the fermentation of sugars, and the formation of characteristic secondary metabolites are all driven by enzymes. These enzymes naturally occur in raw plant materials or are produced by yeast. Sometimes, however, processes can be optimised by adding isolates of essential enzymes. Many of these are produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

In beer brewing, supplemental enzymes can accelerate malting, suppress off-flavours, or degrade residues.
In wine, they can improve juice recovery during pressing or can adjust the development of flavours and aromas. In spirits, they improve the breakdown of starch and carbohydrates.

The use of supplemental enzymes in beer is not permitted in Germany.

Juices.
Enzymes can increase the efficiency of juice extraction by digesting starches and cellulose, a tough compound that is found in plant cell walls. After pressing, fresh juice retains enzymes that break down cloudy, starchy residues. Many of these useful enzymes can now be produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Juices are sometimes fortified with vitamins or sweetened with artificial sweeteners for diabetics.
Some of these additives are produced with the help of genetic engineering.

Soft Drinks.
Cola and other soft drinks contain several ingredients and additives that are sometimes produced from GM maize or with the help of GM microorganisms.

Glucose syrup (corn syrup), glucose, and other products derived from starch can be made from GM maize.

Colourings like beta-carotene and riboflavin, vitamins, citric acid, and the sweetener aspartame can all be produced with the help of genetically modified microorganisms.

Nutritional: Tomatoes. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html

Varieties developed by somaclonal variation exist for tomatoes, potatoes, sugar cane and others.

Nutritional: Wheat. INDEX

Nutritional: Insects, Spiders, Animals. INDEX
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/environmental_safety/
169.effects_gm_plants_insects_spiders_animals.html (2006)
LINK 2:

The best pest management practices have targeted effectiveness, sparing beneficial organisms as much as possible.

There are numerous approaches to pest management:
The most common way is using chemical pesticides.

For some pests, biological measures such as deploying natural predators are possible.
One example is releasing Trichogramma to control the European corn borer.

New methods are made possible by genetic engineering.

Plant biotechnology for pest control

The Bt concept made its first appearance in recent years, making it the first molecular approach to pest management (see: insect resistance). It has been known for almost 100 years that certain widespread soil bacteria -- Bacillus thuringiensis -- have a deadly, toxic effect on certain insects. The agent responsible for this is called Bt toxin, a protein produced by the toxic bacteria. When ingested by insects, the protein takes its active form, quickly destroying the insect's gut.

Preparations of Bt have been approved in Germany since 1964 for pest management.
Bt is used most often for maize, potatoes, fruits, and vegetables.
Bt preparations play an especially important role in organic agriculture.
They consist of dried bacterial spores or the crystallised protein itself, of which there are more than one hundred identified natural variations targeting different insect groups.

Advantages of Bt preparations:

Targeted effect: The various forms of Bt toxin affect only the pests specific to the crop being treated, lowering the risk of harm to beneficial insects.

Bt toxin is harmless to mammals, including humans.

New strategies are made possible through genetic engineering.
Now plants can better defend themselves against pests on their own.

Case study: Bt maize and the Monarch butterfly.
The pest targeted by transgenic maize producing Bt-toxin is primarily the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Bt maize varieties also exist designed to be effective against the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera).

Even though Bt toxin is very specific, some effects on non-target insects may be possible.
Such "non-target effects" are especially likely for organisms that are closely related to the target pest.
To address this risk, numerous studies have been conducted around the world on the effects of Bt crops on all kinds of insects and other small animals.

A good example is a widely publicised study conducted in the United States that suggested pollen from Bt maize harms the iconic monarch butterfly.

After an initial period of commotion, the concern subsided.
The assertions of this study were only based on laboratory experiments that did not correspond to real conditions in the field. In nature, monarch butterflies do not feed on maize plants themselves, as does the European corn borer. The monarch is only affected if it feeds on wild plants dusted by Bt maize pollen. Wild plants covered with significant amounts of maize pollen are only found within a few metres of maize fields and only for a short period of the year. The effects this has on the ecology of the monarch are negligible at most.

Other studies, including research conducted in Germany and in Switzerland, have found no negative effects on non-target organisms. The organisms observed in the studies included spiders, lacewings, hover flies, beetles, and earthworms. The greatest effects on non-target organisms were always observed in fields of conventional maize, where the European corn borer is treated with chemical insecticides.

AFTERWORD: INDEX
S
W

Autopsy: Internal Exam - Impacted Waste
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj3d7p2Fu6M