1. Ayushi Jain 5480611

2. Definition GMO (Genetically modified organism) refers to an organism that has its genetic material altered using genetic engineering techniques.

3. Some papers say : “…GMO crops are safe to consume” Some say : “…not safe because the nutritional value declines by alteration in genome.” http://jonbarron.org/diet-and-nutrition/gmo-food Exposure to environmental hazard http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

4. Genetically modified maize is not as safe and effective as a food source from non-transgenic maize.

5. METHODS Databases used: o Scopus o Science direct o Pub med Keywords: o GMO and organic o GMO maize and rats o GMO nutrition

6. PapersMaize typeCountryYear 1Lysine rich maize China2008 2Herbicide tolerant Maize Paris, France 2009 3Insect resistant Maize China2012 4Pests resistance Maize Chile2009 Study looks at different kind of maize

7. Gene from potato Inserted into maize Increase lysine in maize and also overall protein content Paper 1 - Lysine rich maize

8.  Maize selection - Chinese Agricultural University  Dried, milled, and sterilized before packaging.  Protein higher in GMO compared to non-transgenic maize.

9. Procedure Maize selection1.GMO maize 2.Non GMO control maize 3.Non GMO reference maize Concentration30% - 34% Age4 weeks Mean body weight40 – 60g Number of rats100 Days of experiment90 Acclimatized5 days Groups10/sex/group

10. Constants Temperature22 ± 2°C DistributionRandomized Humidity 40% - 70% Fluorescent light12h light/dark Air exchange15 times per hour Diet supplyNot mentioned

11. Results Body weight – No difference in comparison. Non GMO GMO

12. Food consumption – no significant difference Non GMO GMO

13.  The mean WBC in males with transgenic maize was higher than male rats consuming non transgenic maize.  Not significant - Value was lower than that observed in control group.  Organ weight – no difference

14. Paper 2 – Herbicide tolerant maize  Different techniques are used to check quantities in the diets after they are milled.  Bio analytical services to check for: Nutrients Fiber Minerals Vitamins Fatty acids Secondary metabolites  Opthamological examination was conducted on all rats prior to study to be compared later on.

15. Procedure Maize selection1.GMO maize 2.Non GMO control maize 3.Non GMO reference maize 4.Hybrid but not transformed parents Concentration30% - 76% Age4 weeks Mean body weightNot mentioned Number of rats145 Days of experiment91 - 96 AcclimatizedYes Groups12/sex/group

16. Constants Temperature22 ± 4°C DistributionRandomized Humidity 50% ± 20% Fluorescent light12h light/dark Air exchangeNot mentioned Diet supplyWeekly

17. GMO Non transgenic commercially available reference maize GMO treated with herbicide Control Results  Body weight – no significant difference

18.  Food consumption – No difference

19.  Hematology and coagulation Not all samples could be measured due to natural tendency of blood platelets to clump on damage to blood vessel.  Gross and microscopic findings – no diet related gross observations.

20. Paper 3 - Insect resistance  Maize selection - College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, China agricultural University  Nutritional composition analysis (According to Chinese standards)

21. GMO Non GMO

22. Procedure Maize selection1.GMO maize 2.Non GMO control maize 3.Non GMO reference maize Concentration12.5%, 25%, 50% Age5 weeks Mean body weight80 ± 20g Number of rats140 Days of experiment90 Acclimatized5 days Groups10/sex/group

23. Constants Temperature22 ± 3°C DistributionRandomized Humidity 50% ± 20% Fluorescent light12h light/dark Air exchange15 times a day Diet supplyNot mentioned

24. Results  All animals survived the study  No difference in food consumption and body weight  Organs – No adverse effects 1.Kidney 2.Liver 3.Brain

25. Paper 4 – Pests resistance Similar nutritional concentrations and composition except Cry1F, PAT, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, and PAT These four proteins help against pests resistance and also tolerance to herbicide Fasted 15h before exsanguination (Severe loss of blood)

26. Procedure Maize selection1.GMO maize 2.Non GMO control maize 3.Commercially available non GMO Concentration34% Age6 - 8 weeks Mean body weightNot mentioned Number of rats140 Days of experiment94 Acclimatized5 days Groups12/sex/group

27. Constants Temperature22 ± 3°C DistributionRandomized Humidity 50% ± 20% Fluorescent light12h light/dark Air exchangeNot mentioned Diet supplyWeekly

28. Results  Body weight gain - no significant difference Control GMO Reference maize

29.  Food consumption – no significant difference

30.  Concentration of copper was higher in the control diet. Related to some other dietary ingredient  All rats survived  No difference in organ weight  No lesions  No difference in neural behavior (forelimb and hind limb grip and motor activity)

31. Discussion  All the papers have kept a lot of constants – hard to talk about any confounders  Different concentration of diets given but still no effects observed  Study conducted in rats  Some papers don’t show data for confirmation

32. Conclusion Against my hypothesis GMO as safe as non GMO maize : 1.No difference in body weight 2. No difference in food consumption

33. 3. No difference in organic weight 4. No lesions found in any organ after necropsy 5. No adverse health effects observed in rats 6. All rats survive the period of study

34. References 1.He XY, Tang MZ, Luo YB, Li X, Cao SS, Yu JJ, et al. A 90-day toxicology study of transgenic lysine-rich maize grain (Y642) in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2009;47(2):425-32. 2.Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D, Sykes GP, Malley LA, Delaney B. Subchronic feeding study of grain from herbicide-tolerant maize DP-Ø9814Ø-6 in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2009;47(9):2269-80. 3.Liu P, He X, Chen D, Luo Y, Cao S, Song H, et al. A 90-day subchronic feeding study of genetically modified maize expressing Cry1Ac-M protein in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2012;50(9):3215-21. 4.Appenzeller LM, Malley L, MacKenzie SA, Hoban D, Delaney B. Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran resistant (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2009;47(7):1512-20. 5.David Suzuki Foundation, Understanding GMO. Retrieved from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of- green/faqs/food/understanding-gmo/ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of- 6.Merriam-Webster, Genetically modified organis (GMO). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/ 7.Non GMO project. Genetically modified organisms. Retrieved from http://www.nongmoproject.org/about-gmos-2/ 8.African biosafety network of expertise. A science-based biosafety resource network for African regulators. Process of developing genetically modified (GM) crops. Retrieved from http://www.nepadbiosafety.net/subjects/biotechnology/