1. Robert Wager Vancouver Island University

2. A billion people experience hunger and another billion lack essential vitamins and minerals in their diet The global population is predicted to be 9 billion by 2050 FAO 2010

3.  >90% Soy  70% Corn  98% Sugar beet  95% Canola

4. The environmental and human health benefits from adopting Bt cotton have also been extensively documented.  24% increase in cotton yield per acre  50% gain in cotton profit among smallholders  Triple yield from 2002 (first year of Bt cotton)  Over 90% of all Indian cotton is Bt today

5. Bollgard II® accounts for up to 95% of cotton planted in Australia and its adoption has resulted in a decrease of 85% in the amount of conventional insecticides used during cotton production

6. *Values are for biotech crop areas only, not total global cropping area – GM crops account for ~10% of total global cropping area Source: Brookes and Barfoot (2011) GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 1996-2009. PG Economics, Dorchester UK 20091996 8.7%17.1%

7.  17 million farmers  15 are in Developing  World Grow 400 Million acres  Developing world  Grows 52% of All GE crops  20 of 28 countries that  Grow GE crops in  Developing World   grows 52%  17million farmers of which 15 are in developing world  52% of all GM crops grown in developing world  20/28 countries are in developing world

8. PRSV still can cause severe damage 2011: Transgenic papaya about 85% of production NonTransgenic Transgenic

10. “The WHO, the AMA, the U.S. NAS, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”  (AAAS 2012)

11. Controversies about the impact of genetically modified (GM) crops have too often been based on contested science EASAC 2013

12.  “The reported work from the Rowett is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it.”  “Found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes.”

13.  Health Canada  Canadian Food Inspection Agency  European Food Safety Authority  Food Standards Australia New Zealand  German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment  German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food safety  France- ANSES (Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety)  France- HCB (High Counsel for Biotechnology)-  Six Academies of Science (France)  Denmark- DTU National Food Institute  Netherlands- Bureau for Risk Assessment (Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority)  Brazil- CTNBio (Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety)-  Belgium- BAC (Biotechnology Advisory Council)  Romania (Food Safety Authority)  Belgium- VIB (Life Sciences Institute)  French Society of Toxicological Pathologists (SFPT)  European Federation of Biotechnology  AFBV (French Association for Biotechnology Vegetables)  ABNE (African Biosafety Network of Expertise)  ACB (African Center for Biosafety)  European Society of Toxicological Pathology

14. Fig. 1. Mortality of rats fed GMO treated or not with Roundup. Rats were fed with NK603 GM maize at three different doses (11, 22, 33% in their diet: thin, medium and bold lines, respectively) compared to the substantially equivalent closest isogenic non-GM maize (control, dotted line). Lifespan during the experiment for the control group is represented by the vertical bar ± SEM (grey area). In bar histograms, the causes of mortality before the grey area are detailed in comparison to the controls (0). In black are represented the necessary euthanasia because of suffering in accordance with ethical rules (tumors over 25% body weight, more than 25% weight loss, hemorrhagic bleeding, etc.); and in hatched areas, spontaneous mortality. Diet with maize (transgenic vs. conventional isogenic) In some cases high doses seems to be protecting. In other cases, they are less harmful than lower doses! Control group

15. Swiss NSF (2012), reviewing more than 2000 studies, No health or environmental risks Italian Study (2013) reviewed 1783 studies No health or environmental risks

16. There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding. EASAC 2013

17. 17 years, >3,000,000,000,000 meals containing ingredients from GE crops Zero documented cases of harm

18. Countries not Corporations Brazil, China and India  Over 70 countries have active Biotechnology R&D programs

19.  Micro-nutrient enhanced Iron, Zinc, Vitamin A  Fungal resistance-wheat, potato, banana  Viral resistance-many crops  Bacterial resistance-banana, grapes, orange  Enhanced Nitrogen efficiency  Drought tolerance  Salt tolerance  Frost tolerance  Pharma crops

21.  Micro-nutrient enhanced Iron, Zinc, Vitamin A  Fungal resistance-wheat, potato, banana  Viral resistance-many crops  Bacterial resistance-banana, grapes, orange  Enhanced Nitrogen efficiency  Drought tolerance  Salt tolerance  Frost tolerance  Pharma crops

22. Black Sigatoka Fungus Virus Diseases of Cassava

24. “There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.” EASAC 2013

25. GE crops are part of a more Sustainable Future