The use of life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of production and feeding of conventional and genetically modified maize for broiler production in Argentina

The paper presents the methods and results of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the production of maize grain from a conventional variety compared with maize grain from a variety genetically modified to be herbicide tolerant and insect protected and to contain an enhanced oil and lysine content, and its impact when fed to broiler chickens. The findings show that there are both environmental and human health benefits of growing GM maize including lower impacts on global warming, ozone depletion, freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity. However, when considered in terms of the use of maize as a feed input to broiler chicken production, the benefits of the GM alternative become negligible compared to the use of conventional maize.

Technologies for biological containment of GM and Non-GM crops

International Perspective The development of GM technology continues to expand into increasing numbers of crops and conferred traits. Inevitably, the focus remains on the major field crops of soybean, maize, cotton, oilseed rape and potato with introduced genes conferring herbicide tolerance and/or pest resistance. Although there are comparatively few GM crops that have been commercialised to date, GM versions of 172 plant species have been grown in field trials in 31 countries. European Crops with Containment Issues Of the 20 main crops in the EU there are four for which GM varieties are commercially available (cotton, maize for animal feed and forage, and oilseed rape). Fourteen have GM varieties in field trials (bread wheat, barley, durum wheat, sunflower, oats, potatoes, sugar beet, grapes, alfalfa, olives, field peas, clover, apples, rice) and two have GM varieties still in development (rye, triticale). Many of these crops have hybridisation potential with wild and weedy relatives in the European flora (bread wheat, barley, oilseed rape, durum wheat, oats, sugar beet and grapes), with escapes (sunflower); and all have potential to cross-pollinate fields non-GM crops. Several fodder crops, forestry trees, grasses and ornamentals have varieties in field trials and these too may hybridise with wild relatives in the European flora (alfalfa, clover, lupin, silver birch, sweet chestnut, Norway spruce, Scots pine, poplar, elm, Agrostis canina, A. stolonifera, Festuca arundinacea, Lolium perenne, L. multiflorum, statice and rose). All these crops will require containment strategies to be in place if it is deemed necessary to prevent transgene movement to wild relatives and non-GM crops. Current Containment Strategies A wide variety of GM containment strategies are currently under development, with a particular focus on crops expressing pharmaceutical products. Physical containment in greenhouses and growth rooms is suitable for some crops (tomatoes, lettuce) and for research purposes. Aquatic bioreactors of some non-crop species (algae, moss, and duckweed) expressing pharmaceutical products have been adopted by some biotechnology companies. There are obvious limitations of the scale of physical containment strategies, addressed in part by the development of large underground facilities in the US and Canada. The additional resources required to grow plants underground incurs high costs that in the long term may negate any advantage of GM for commercial productioNatural genetic containment has been adopted by some companies through the selection of either non-food/feed crops (algae, moss, duckweed) as bio-pharming platforms or organisms with no wild relatives present in the local flora (safflower in the Americas). The expression of pharmaceutical products in leafy crops (tobacco, alfalfa, lettuce, spinach) enables growth and harvesting prior to and in the absence of flowering. Transgenically controlled containment strategies range in their approach and degree of development. Plastid transformation is relatively well developed but is not suited to all traits or crops and does not offer complete containment. Male sterility is well developed across a range of plants but has limitations in its application for fruit/seed bearing crops. It has been adopted in some commercial lines of oilseed rape despite not preventing escape via seed. Conditional lethality can be used to prevent flowering or seed development following the application of a chemical inducer, but requires 100% induction of the trait and sufficient application of the inducer to all plants. Equally, inducible expression of the GM trait requires equally stringent application conditions. Such a method will contain the trait but will allow the escape of a non-functioning transgene. Seed lethality (‘terminator’ technology) is the only strategy at present that prevents transgene movement via seed, but due to public opinion against the concept it has never been trialled in the field and is no longer under commercial development. Methods to control flowering and fruit development such as apomixis and cleistogamy will prevent crop-to-wild and wild-to-crop pollination, but in nature both of these strategies are complex and leaky. None of the genes controlling these traits have as yet been identified or characterised and therefore have not been transgenically introduced into crop species. Neither of these strategies will prevent transgene escape via seed and any feral apomicts that form are arguably more likely to become invasives. Transgene mitigation reduces the fitness of initial hybrids and so prevents stable introgression of transgenes into wild populations. However, it does not prevent initial formation of hybrids or spread to non-GM crops. Such strategies could be detrimental to wild populations and have not yet been demonstrated in the field. Similarly, auxotrophy prevents persistence of escapes and hybrids containing the transgene in an uncontrolled environment, but does not prevent transgene movement from the crop. Recoverable block of function, intein trans-splicing and transgene excision all use recombinases to modify the transgene in planta either to induce expression or to prevent it. All require optimal conditions and 100% accuracy to function and none have been tested under field conditions as yet. All will contain the GM trait but all will allow some non-native DNA to escape to wild populations or to non-GM crops. There are particular issues with GM trees and grasses as both are largely undomesticated, wind pollinated and perennial, thus providing many opportunities for hybridisation. Some species of both trees and grass are also capable of vegetative propagation without sexual reproduction. There are additional concerns regarding the weedy nature of many grass species and the long-term stability of GM traits across the life span of trees. Transgene stability and conferred sterility are difficult to trial in trees as most field trials are only conducted during the juvenile phase of tree growth. Bio-pharming of pharmaceutical and industrial compounds in plants Bio-pharming of pharmaceutical and industrial compounds in plants offers an attractive alternative to mammalian-based pharmaceutical and vaccine production. Several plantbased products are already on the market (Prodigene’s avidin, β-glucuronidase, trypsin generated in GM maize; Ventria’s lactoferrin generated in GM rice). Numerous products are in clinical trials (collagen, antibodies against tooth decay and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from tobacco; human gastric lipase, therapeutic enzymes, dietary supplements from maize; Hepatitis B and Norwalk virus vaccines from potato; rabies vaccines from spinach; dietary supplements from Arabidopsis). The initial production platforms for plant-based pharmaceuticals were selected from conventional crops, largely because an established knowledge base already existed. Tobacco and other leafy crops such as alfalfa, lettuce and spinach are widely used as leaves can be harvested and no flowering is required. Many of these crops can be grown in contained greenhouses. Potato is also widely used and can also be grown in contained conditions. The introduction of morphological markers may aid in the recognition and traceability of crops expressing pharmaceutical products. Plant cells or plant parts may be transformed and maintained in culture to produce recombinant products in a contained environment. Plant cells in suspension or in vitro, roots, root cells and guttation fluid from leaves may be engineered to secrete proteins that may be harvested in a continuous, non-destructive manner. Most strategies in this category remain developmental and have not been commercially adopted at present. Transient expression produces GM compounds from non-GM plants via the utilisation of bacterial or viral vectors. These vectors introduce the trait into specific tissues of whole plants or plant parts, but do not insert them into the heritable genome. There are some limitations of scale and the field release of such crops will require the regulation of the vector. However, several companies have several transiently expressed products in clinical and pre-clinical trials from crops raised in physical containment.

Updated empirical model of genetically-modified maize grain production practices to achieve European Union labeling thresholds

An updated empirical approach is proposed for specifying coexistence requirements for genetically modified (GM) maize (Zea mays L.) production to ensure compliance with the 0.9% labeling threshold for food and feed in the European Union. The model improves on a previously published (Gustafson et al., 2006) empirical model by adding recent data sources to supplement the original database and including the following additional cases: (i) more than one GM maize source field adjacent to the conventional or organic field, (ii) the possibility of so-called “stacked” varieties with more than one GM trait, and (iii) lower pollen shed in the non-GM receptor field. These additional factors lead to the possibility for somewhat wider combinations of isolation distance and border rows than required in the original version of the empirical model. For instance, in the very conservative case of a 1-ha square non-GM maize field surrounded on all four sides by homozygous GM maize with 12 m isolation (the effective isolation distance for a single GM field), non-GM border rows of 12 m are required to be 95% confident of gene flow less than 0.9% in the non-GM field (with adventitious presence of 0.3%). Stacked traits of higher GM mass fraction and receptor fields of lower pollen shed would require a greater number of border rows to comply with the 0.9% threshold, and an updated extension to the model is provided to quantify these effects.

Effect of feeding cows genetically modified maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen

Rumen-cannulated cows (n = 4) were fed successively silage made from either conventional or genetically modified (GM) maize. Results revealed no effects of GM maize on the dynamics of six ruminal bacterial strains (investigated by real-time PCR) compared to the conventional maize silage.

Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA fragments in the blood, tissues, and digesta of broilers

The aim was to determine the fate of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA fragments in the blood, tissues, and digesta of broilers. Male broiler chicks (n = 24) were allocated at 1 day old to each of four treatment diets designated T1-T4. T1 and T2 contained the near isogenic nongenetically modified (GM) maize grain, whereas T3 and T4 contained GM maize grain [cry1a(b) gene]; T1 and T3 also contained the near isogenic non-GM soybean meal, whereas T2 and T4 contained GM soybean meal (cp4epsps gene). Four days prior to slaughter at 39-42 days old, 50% of the broilers on T2-T4 had the source(s) of GM ingredients replaced by their non-GM counterparts. Detection of specific DNA sequences in feed, tissue, and digesta samples was completed by polymerase chain reaction analysis. Seven primer pairs were used to amplify fragments (similar to 200 bp) from single copy genes (maize high mobility protein, soya lectin, and transgenes in the GM feeds) and multicopy genes (poultry mitochondrial cytochrome b, maize, and soya rubisco). There was no effect of treatment on the measured growth performance parameters. Except for a single detection of lectin (nontransgenic single copy gene; unsubstantiated) in the extracted DNA from one bursa tissue sample, there was no positive detection of any endogenous or transgenic single copy genes in either blood or tissue DNA samples. However, the multicopy rubisco gene was detected in a proportion of samples from all tissue types (23% of total across all tissues studied) and in low numbers in blood. Feed-derived DNA was found to survive complete degradation up to the large intestine. Transgenic DNA was detected in gizzard digesta but not in intestinal digesta 96 h after the last feeding of treatment diets containing a source of GM maize and/or soybean meal.

An evidence-based review on the likely economic and environmental impact of genetically modified cereals and oilseeds for UK agriculture

An evidence-based review of the potential impact that the introduction of genetically-modified (GM) cereal and oilseed crops could have for the UK was carried out. The inter-disciplinary research project addressed the key research questions using scenarios for the uptake, or not, of GM technologies. This was followed by an extensive literature review, stakeholder consultation and financial modelling. The world area of canola, oilseed rape (OSR) low in both erucic acid in the oil and glucosinolates in the meal, was 34M ha in 2012 of which 27% was GM; Canada is the lead producer but it is also grown in the USA, Australia and Chile. Farm level effects of adopting GM OSR include: lower production costs; higher yields and profits; and ease of farm management. Growing GM OSR instead of conventional OSR reduces both herbicide usage and environmental impact. Some 170M ha of maize was grown in the world in 2011 of which 28% was GM; the main producers are the USA, China and Brazil. Spain is the main EU producer of GM maize although it is also grown widely in Portugal. Insect resistant (IR) and herbicide tolerant (HT) are the GM maize traits currently available commercially. Farm level benefits of adopting GM maize are lower costs of production through reduced use of pesticides and higher profits. GM maize adoption results in less pesticide usage than on conventional counterpart crops leading to less residues in food and animal feed and allowing increasing diversity of bees and other pollinators. In the EU, well-tried coexistence measures for growing GM crops in the proximity of conventional crops have avoided gene flow issues. Scientific evidence so far seems to indicate that there has been no environmental damage from growing GM crops. They may possibly even be beneficial to the environment as they result in less pesticides and herbicides being applied and improved carbon sequestration from less tillage. A review of work on GM cereals relevant for the UK found input trait work on: herbicide and pathogen tolerance; abiotic stress such as from drought or salinity; and yield traits under different field conditions. For output traits, work has mainly focussed on modifying the nutritional components of cereals and in connection with various enzymes, diagnostics and vaccines. Scrutiny of applications submitted for field trial testing of GM cereals found around 9000 applications in the USA, 15 in Australia and 10 in the EU since 1996. There have also been many patent applications and granted patents for GM cereals in the USA for both input and output traits;an indication of the scale of such work is the fact that in a 6 week period in the spring of 2013, 12 patents were granted relating to GM cereals. A dynamic financial model has enabled us to better understand and examine the likely performance of Bt maize and HT OSR for the south of the UK, if cultivation is permitted in the future. It was found that for continuous growing of Bt maize and HT OSR, unless there was pest pressure for the former and weed pressure for the latter, the seed premia and likely coexistence costs for a buffer zone between other crops would reduce the financial returns for the GM crops compared with their conventional counterparts. When modelling HT OSR in a four crop rotation, it was found that gross margins increased significantly at the higher levels of such pest or weed pressure, particularly for farm businesses with larger fields where coexistence costs would be scaled down. The impact of the supply of UK-produced GM crops on the wider supply chain was examined through an extensive literature review and widespread stakeholder consultation with the feed supply chain. The animal feed sector would benefit from cheaper supplies of raw materials if GM crops were grown and, in the future, they might also benefit from crops with enhanced nutritional profile (such as having higher protein levels) becoming available. This would also be beneficial to livestock producers enabling lower production costs and higher margins. Whilst coexistence measures would result in increased costs, it is unlikely that these would cause substantial changes in the feed chain structure. Retailers were not concerned about a future increase in the amount of animal feed coming from GM crops. To conclude, we (the project team) feel that the adoption of currently available and appropriate GM crops in the UK in the years ahead would benefit farmers, consumers and the feed chain without causing environmental damage. Furthermore, unless British farmers are allowed to grow GM crops in the future, the competitiveness of farming in the UK is likely to decline relative to that globally.

Arable crop rotations under abiotic stress: a dynamic economic model

Break crops and multi-crop rotations are common in arable farm management, and the soil quality inherited from a previous crop is one of the parameters that determine the gross margin that is achieved with a given crop from a given parcel of land. In previous work we developed a dynamic economic model to calculate the potential yield and gross margin of a set of crops grown in a selection of typical rotation scenarios, and we reported use of the model to calculate coexistence costs for GM maize grown in a crop rotation. The model predicts economic effects of pest and weed pressures in monthly time steps. Validation of the model in respect of specific traits is proceeding as data from trials with novel crop varieties is published. Alongside this aspect of the validation process, we are able to incorporate data representing the economic impact of abiotic stresses on conventional crops, and then use the model to predict the cumulative gross margin achievable from a sequence of conventional crops grown at varying levels of abiotic stress. We report new progress with this aspect of model validation. In this paper, we report the further development of the model to take account of abiotic stress arising from drought, flood, heat or frost; such stresses being introduced in addition to variable pest and weed pressure. The main purpose is to assess the economic incentive for arable farmers to adopt novel crop varieties having multiple ‘stacked’ traits introduced by means of various biotechnological tools available to crop breeders.

Rentabilidade e Risco da Produção de Milho Safrinha Geneticamente Modificado e Convencional na Região de Guaíra/sp

The objective of this study was to dimension the economic risks and returns on adopters of genetically modified (GM) maize in one of the major corn producing regions of São Paulo state. We performed analysis of variation of the quantities and prices of insecticides used, productivity gains, and variation in the price differentials between GM maize and conventional hybrids seeds, according to account to the maize prices oscillation during the period studied. The net benefits methodology was used, in other words, the economic gains minus the costs of GM technology under risk conditions were calculated. The net benefits was calculated as a function of four critical variables: 1) GM maize productivity; 2) costs of pest control; 3) maize price; 4) GM seeds cost. The probability distribution functions of these critical variables were estimated and included in the net benefit equation. Using the Monte Carlo simulation methodology, the following indicator sets were estimated: central tendency measurements, variability in net benefits (total benefits minus total costs), sensitivity analysis of the net benefits in relation to the critical variables, and finally, a map of the risk to GM technology adopters. These indicators allow one to design economic scenarios associated with their probability of occurring. The results showed probability of 85% to positive gains to the farmers who adopted the transgenic maize seed cultivation. The variable with the greatest impact on the farmers' income was the reduction in productivity loss, that means, as higher is the maize productivity, higher will be the net income. The average gain was US$ 137,41 (R$ 2.45/US$)per hectare with the adoption of transgenic maize seed when compared to conventional maize seed.

Adoção do milho transgênico no Estado de São Paulo: resultados econômicos e de riscos

One of the arguments for the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM0 corn in Brazil is the economic advantage that this technology can offer. Given that its benefits and gains are subject to the conditions of modifications of critical variables, the present work aimed to estimate the economic returns of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn by analyzing variations in quantities and prices of insecticides used, productivity gains, the price of using GM seed compared with non-GM seed, as well as changes in corn prices. It was concluded that the GM technology generated net economic gains of US$ 235.50/ha.

A question of segregation: ‘ GM - free’ maize bread in Portugal

We describe the maize supply chain in Portugal for maize bread, a traditional bread type. As this bread is not labelled as ‘contains genetically modified organisms’ it should not contain more than 0.9 per cent genetically modified ingredients. On the basis of interviews we identify a general lack of documentation of the presence or absence of genetically modified ingredients along the complete supply chain (farmers, traders, mills and bakeries). Part of this deficiency is probably driven by a lack of awareness of the labelling rules at the end of the supply chain.