THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Gene Edited Farm Animals Will Threaten Human, Animal and Environmental Safety
Many genetically engineered farm animals are currently in development, funded by private companies or governments and enabled by new gene editing technologies such as CRISPR. Examples include super-muscly cows and pigs, hornless cattle, chickens and pigs made to resist certain diseases, cows with human genes, and other genetic experiments.
A new report, compiling evidence from peer-reviewed scientific studies, reveals that the use of gene editing in farm animals poses risks to human health, the environment and animal welfare. The key findings are as follows: (1) Studies show that, far from being “precise,” gene editing can cause genetic errors; (2) Common gene editing traits, such as hornless cows, will perpetuate poor animal management, such as the cramped and filthy conditions common in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); (3) Genetic engineering of animals often involves cloning, which leads to birth defects, spontaneous abortions and early postnatal death; (4) Unexpected effects include the production of abnormal proteins in gene-edited animals which could create new food allergies; (5) Although still at the hypothetical stage, gene drive systems could drive a specific trait through a herd or population of farm animals and could accidentally spread to the natural population, potentially affecting biodiversity and even an entire ecosystem; (6) Feeding the nearly 10 billion animals raised annually in U.S. factory farms requires a staggering amount of land, genetically engineered seed and toxic pesticides, fertilizer, fuel and water. Livestock farming contributes 16.5% to global greenhouse gas emissions. Routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistance, a pressing public health problem.
The report recommends that rather than creating genetically engineered animals to fit into factory farming systems, it is critical to develop sustainable and ecological animal agriculture systems that support animal welfare, preservation and restoration of biodiversity and public health. Small and mid-scale, high welfare, diversified, ecologically regenerative and organic livestock production systems avoid many public health, animal welfare and environmental problems inherent in industrial animal agriculture. In addition, they have been shown to generate important ecological benefits, including carbon sequestration, soil fertility, water savings and reduced dependence on pesticides and fossil fuels.
Furthermore, the report recommends that all genetic engineering techniques should fall within the scope of government regulatory oversight of genetic engineering, including gene editing, using the Precautionary Principle to protect human health and the environment. Products of all genetic engineering should be traceable and clearly labeled as GMOs.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.twn.my/and http://www.biosafety-info.net/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
—————————————————————————————————————————
Item 1
PRESS RELEASE
GENE-EDITED ANIMALS WILL INTENSIFY FACTORY FARMING AND THE CLIMATE CRISIS, COULD HARM HUMAN HEALTH
Friends of the Earth US
17 September 2019
https://foe.org/news/gene-edited-animals-will-intensify-factory-farming-climate-crisis-harm-human-health/
New report highlights urgent need for safety assessments, oversight
WASHINGTON — A new report from Friends of the Earth and Logos Environmental reveals that the use of gene editing in farm animals poses risks to human health, the environment and animal welfare. The report comes on the heels of research by the FDA showing that gene-edited hornless cattle have unexpected antibiotic resistant genes, despite researchers’ original claims that they did not contain any genetic errors. This new report sheds light on the unintended consequences of gene editing and considers the implications for U.S. regulations.
Many genetically engineered farm animals are currently in development, funded by private companies or governments and enabled by new gene editing technologies such as CRISPR. Examples include super-muscly cows and pigs, hornless cattle, chickens and pigs made to resist certain diseases, cows with human genes, and other genetic experiments. Production of these gene-edited farm animals is often done with little public awareness or input.
“The scientific evidence shows that gene editing, particularly in animals, is far from ‘precise’. Instead, it can produce unintended changes to genetic material and disrupt genetic processes. Such effects could have far reaching consequences for food safety, so these applications will require a rigorous assessment if they are to be used in agriculture,” said co-author Dr. Janet Cotter of Logos Environmental.
“Corporate profits are a major motivation behind these genetic experiments, and we should be wary of proposals for gene-edited farm animals,” said Dana Perls, report co-author and senior food and technology campaigner with Friends of the Earth. “The types of genetically engineered animals being developed will exacerbate the polluting factory farm model of agriculture and put more money in the hands of climate-destroying Big Ag. We need sustainable and ecological agriculture systems that support the health of animals, preserve and restore biodiversity and protect public health.”
The new report compiles evidence from peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating research gaps and unknown and unintended consequences of gene editing in animals. For example, published studies have found enlarged tongues in engineered rabbits and extra vertebrae in pigs, as the Wall Street Journal reported in 2018. Recent cell studies linked CRISPR to DNA damage and cancer concerns.
Key Findings:
- Studies show that, far from being “precise,” gene editing can cause genetic errors, even if only a genetic “tweak” is intended. Genes can be changed at additional locations and gene editing can interfere with gene regulation.
- Common gene editing traits, such as hornless cows and disease resistance, will perpetuate the poor animal management, such as crowding, often found in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This will magnify the current ethical, health and welfare concerns for animals housed in CAFOs.
- Genetic engineering of animals often involves cloning, which leads to birth defects, spontaneous abortions and early postnatal death. Genetic errors can lead to unexpected effects in gene-edited animals, such as enlarged tongues in rabbits and extra vertebrae in pigs. These raise concerns for animal health, welfare and consumer safety.
- Unexpected effects include the production of abnormal proteins in gene-edited animals. Allergens are proteins, so abnormal proteins could create new food allergies and have significant implications for food safety.
- There are significant gaps in research about how genetic errors at the cellular level manifest as unexpected effects and how these unexpected effects may impact the animal’s health, interact with complex environmental factors and affect food safety.
- Although still at the hypothetical stage, gene drive systems could drive a specific trait through a herd or population of farm animals and could accidentally spread to the natural population, potentially affecting biodiversity and even an entire ecosystem.
Recommendations:
- Rather than creating genetically engineered animals to fit into factory farming systems, it is critical to develop sustainable and ecological animal agriculture systems that support animal welfare, preservation and restoration of biodiversity and public health.
- All genetic engineering techniques should fall within the scope of government regulatory oversight of genetic engineering, including gene editing, using the Precautionary Principle to protect human health and the environment.
- Oversight and regulations for GMOs, including gene-edited animals, should include independent assessment for environmental and food safety and long-term impacts before entering the market or environment. Products of all genetic engineering should be traceable and clearly labeled as GMOs.
Expert contacts:
Janet Cotter, (+44) 781 217 4783, jcotter11@gmail.com
Dana Perls, (510) 978-4425, dperls@foe.org
Communications contact:
Erin Jensen, (202) 222-0722, ejensen@foe.org
———————————————————————————————————
Item 2
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS – FROM LAB TO FACTORY FARM
Friends of the Earth US
September 2019
Full report: https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOE_GManimalsReport_Final-Print-1.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the face of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss from industrial agriculture, it is critical to transition to sustainable and ecological farming systems.1 But a new wave of research on genetically engineered animals is leading us in the opposite direction — by designing animals to better fit within industrial systems rather than addressing the underlying health, animal welfare and environmental problems associated with these systems.2 A growing body of scientific evidence is finding that genetically engineered animals may present even more food safety, environmental and animal welfare issues for an already problematic industrial animal farming system.
The AquAdvantage salmon was the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption. Since its approval in 2015, concerns about engineering animals have only deepened. Emerging scientific literature reveals that genetic engineering techniques, including new gene editing techniques like clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPR, are not as precise or predictable as initially thought, and can result in unintended physical and genetic mutations that may be inhumane, risky for the health of animals and consumers and environmentally unsustainable. Gene editing techniques may be subject to little to no regulatory oversight or safety assessment.
This report provides insight on health, environmental, ethical and consumer concerns raised by the proliferation of research on genetically engineered animals. We highlight potential risks related to gene editing applications in livestock agriculture as reported in peer-reviewed scientific studies. We emphasize gaps in research and data analysis about how unintended genetic errors resulting from gene editing may impact animal welfare, human health and the environment. We also raise questions about whether gene-edited livestock are necessary, and what a more sustainable, ethical and healthy path for our food system could look like.
Engineering Animals for Factory Farms
The multitude of problems associated with factory farming are unlikely to be addressed and may be exacerbated by the use of genetically engineered farm animals in these systems. In response to the problems created by concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, and instigated by the availability of new genetic engineering techniques such as CRISPR, researchers are developing a new generation of genetically engineered farm animals. The goals of these experiments generally fall into three categories: increased yield (e.g., “super-muscly” animals), increased cost-effectiveness in raising animals (e.g., disease resistance) and changes in the composition of the milk, meat or eggs (e.g., nutrition).
Examples of genetically engineered animals in development include “super-muscly” cows, sheep and pigs;3 pigs resistant to the respiratory disease PRRSV;4 and gene-edited chickens engineered to potentially produce non-allergenic eggs.5 Some scientists argue that genetically engineered animals, such as pigs engineered to resist certain diseases, can improve animal welfare, however, the impetus is to design animals that will more easily survive in the cramped and filthy conditions common in CAFOs.
Other research explores the potential of gene drives for farm animals, a genetic engineering technology being developed to drive a desired trait though a herd or population. Although no gene drive system has yet been field tested or deployed,6 studies suggest that — like previous impacts from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs — organisms might evolve to be resistant to gene drives,7 and the technology could give rise to off-target effects, which may have severe health, welfare and ecological implications for animals or ecosystems.8
Feeding the nearly 10 billion animals raised annually in U.S. factory farms requires a staggering amount of land, genetically engineered seed and toxic pesticides, fertilizer, fuel and water.9 Industrial animal agriculture is a leading cause of climate change, accounting for 16.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.10 Raising billions of animals in confinement also generates massive amounts of noxious manure that pollute our air and water — especially in nearby communities. Routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture that allow animals to survive the unsanitary conditions common in factory farms contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistance, one of our most pressing public health problems.
Gene Editing and Unintended Consequences
Scientific studies have shown that the genetic engineering of animals via gene editing techniques like CRISPR and other new technologies can create unintended consequences and potentially harmful effects on animal health, from enlarged tongues to induced tumors. Yet development of genetically engineered animals is moving forward, funded by private companies or government grants, but with little public awareness.
Scientists from the Wellcome Sanger Institute in the UK published a study in Nature Biotechnology that found new genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR may cause “genetic havoc” in cells. Researchers found large deletions and rearrangements of DNA near the target site that were not intended by researchers.11 Chinese scientists at Nanjing Agricultural University found that gene editing resulted in rabbits having enlarged tongues. And Dr. Kui Li, a scientist from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, found some geneedited pigs had an extra spinal vertebra.12
These studies are just a few of the growing body of science demonstrating that gene editing techniques like CRISPR may not be as “precise” in their outcomes as researchers hope. For example, gene editing could cause genes not meant to be targeted to malfunction, and this could lead to health problems or other unintended outcomes in the genetically engineered animal.13
Food Safety Implications
Animal genomes are complex. Any genetic errors created by altering DNA could disrupt how genes function. This could potentially produce altered or novel proteins, which in turn could impact food safety. Indeed, one scientific study by Kapahnke and others, published in Cell in 2016, used a laboratory culture of human cells and found an altered protein produced in error from the gene editing process.14 Because food allergens are mostly proteins, unintentionally altered proteins could have significant implications for food safety.
Animal Health and Welfare
Implications Genetic engineering of animals could magnify ethical and welfare concerns related to how animals are bred and the conditions in which they are raised.15 As part of the genetic engineering process, animals are often cloned.16 Cloning can lead to birth defects, spontaneous abortions and early postnatal death.17 Even if cloning is not involved, the genetic engineering process raises welfare issues because the animals may suffer from genetic abnormalities that could cause genes to malfunction and create subsequent health problems in the animal.18 Health problems may arise in response to mutations at the cellular level as well. Two independent studies, one by the biotech company Novartis and the other by the Karolinska Institute, published in Nature Medicine in 2018 described that cells genetically engineered with CRISPR “have the potential to seed tumors,” or may initiate tumorigenic mutations.19 There is further concern that gene editing for certain traits can perpetuate problematic animal management practices. For example, a frequently-reported trait of geneedited animals is resistance to various diseases, which could encourage keeping even larger numbers of animals in the close confinement and unsanitary, inhumane conditions that perpetuate disease in the first place.
Environmental Implications
Industrial animal agriculture contributes to significant levels of air, water and soil contamination. It is also a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. There is an urgent need to shift to models of animal farming that have inherently fewer environmental and health impacts.20 However, instead of instigating this shift, the advent of genetically engineered farm animals will likely further entrench the paradigm of unsustainable, industrial agriculture and may exacerbate environmental problems associated with factory farms. In addition, genetically engineered animals may raise concerns about potential escape and crossbreeding with nongenetically engineered animals. Animals like pigs, goats, horses and rabbits may become feral when they escape from captivity,21 leading to wild populations of genetically engineered animals.
Consumer Rejection
Societal concerns such as animal welfare suggest that many people are likely to have even more concerns about genetically engineered animals than genetically engineered crops. This suggests that they are likely to reject genetically engineered animals on ethical and welfare grounds, regardless of their trust in the regulatory system to address food safety and environmental concerns. A recent poll found that a majority of U.S. adults believe that engineering animals “to increase protein production” is “taking technology too far.”22 Partially in response to consumer concerns, more than 80 U.S. grocery store chains have committed to not selling genetically engineered salmon, the first genetically engineered animal to enter the U.S. market and approved for human consumption.23
Lack of Adequate Oversight and Assessment
Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the food safety aspects of genetically engineered animals,24 but there are no specific regulations or guidance that cover related environmental impacts.25 The U.S. has approved one genetically engineered animal for human consumption, the genetically engineered salmon, and regulates it as an “animal drug.” It was approved despite many scientists and environmental groups raising serious concerns regarding the risks of escape of the genetically engineered salmon, potential negative impacts on wild salmon populations and concerns regarding food safety. One concern is that geneedited animals could evade regulatory oversight in the U.S under enforcement discretion and follow the lead of Australia, which allows some gene editing techniques to be used in plants and animals and marketed as food without government regulation.26
Change the Farm, Not the Animal
A growing body of science is demonstrating that genetic engineering of animals may lead to unintended consequences for food safety, animal health and welfare and the environment. Many of the “solutions” offered by genetically engineered (including gene-edited) animals are in response to problems caused by current industrial livestock farming systems. However, genetically engineering animals will not address the root problems associated with factory farming, and in fact may entrench an unsustainable and inhumane model of livestock production.
While proponents claim there may be welfare and ecological benefits associated with some of the engineered traits, such as disease resistance or hornless cattle, these potential benefits are within the frame of intensive animal farming practices. However, small and mid-scale, high welfare, diversified, ecologically regenerative and organic livestock production systems avoid many public health, animal welfare and environmental problems inherent in industrial animal agriculture. In addition, they have been shown to generate important ecological benefits, including carbon sequestration, soil fertility, water savings and reduced dependence on pesticides and fossil fuels.27
Recent reports by the United Nations warn that to avoid ecological catastrophe, we need to rapidly transition away from industrial agriculture and reduce consumption of factory farmed meat and dairy.28 Based on the studies which exemplify the uncertainty and risks from gene editing, U.S. FDA regulations need to effectively regulate all gene-edited animals to ensure the safety of animals, consumers and the environment. Rather than creating genetically engineered animals to fit into factory farms, it is critical to develop sustainable and ecological animal agriculture systems that support animal welfare, preservation and restoration of biodiversity and public health.
References
1 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2019). Global biodiversity assessment. Summary for policymakers. Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/ gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en.pdf; International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (2009) Global report. McIntyre, B.D. (ed.) Island Press, Washington D.C. Retrieved from https://www.weltagrarbericht.de/reports/ Global_Report/Global_content.html
2 Lebacq, T., Baret, P.V. & Stilmant, D. (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 311–327; Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S. & Walker, P. (2002) How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 445-56.
3 Wang, X., Niu, Y., Zhou, J. et al. (2016) Multiplex gene editing via CRISPR/ Cas9 exhibits 4 desirable muscle hypertrophy without detectable off-target effects in sheep. Scientific Reports 6: 32271. Retrieved from https://www.doi.org/10.1038/srep32271; Crispo, M., Mulet, A.P., Tesson, L. et al. (2015) Efficient generation of myostatin knock-out sheep using CRISPR/Cas9 technology and microinjection into zygotes, PLoS One 10: e0136690. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136690; Retrieved from Cyranoski, D. (2015) Super-muscly pigs created by small genetic tweak. Nature (news) Retrieved from 523: 13-14; Proudfoot, C., Carlson, D.F., Huddart, R. et al. (2015) Genome edited sheep and cattle. Transgenic Research 24: 147-53.
4 Burkard, C., Opriessnig, T. Mileham, A.J., Stadejek, T., Ait-Ali, T., Lillico, S.G., Whitelaw, C.B.A. & Archibald, A.L. (2018) Pigs lacking the scavenger receptor cysteine-rich domain 5 of CD163 are resistant to PRRSV-1 infection. Journal of Virology 92: e00415. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00415-18; Burkard C, Lillico SG, Reid E, Jackson B, Mileham AJ, Ait-Ali T, Whitelaw, C.B.A. & Archibald, A.L. (2017) Precision engineering for PRRSV resistance in pigs: macrophages from genome edited pigs lacking CD163 SRCR5 domain are fully resistant to both PRRSV genotypes while maintaining biological function. PLoS Pathogens 13: e1006206. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006206; Whitworth, K.M., Rowland, R.R., Ewen, C.L., Trible, B.R., Kerrigan, M.A., Cino-Ozuna, A.G., Samuel, M.S. Lightner, J.E., McLaren, D.G., Mileham, A.J., Wells, K.D. & Prather, R.S. (2016) Gene-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Nature Biotechnology 34: 20-22.
5 Oishi, I., Yoshii, K., Miyahara, D., Kagami, H. & Tagami, T. (2016) Targeted mutagenesis in chicken using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Scientific Reports.6: 23980. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23980; Park, T.S., Lee, H.J., Kim, K.H., Kim, J.S. & Han, J.Y. (2014). Targeted gene knockout in chickens mediated by TALENs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 12716-12721.
6 Baltzegar, J., Cavin Barnes, J. Elsensohn, J.E., Gutzmann, N., Jones, M.S., King, S. & Sudweeks, J. (2018) Anticipating complexity in the deployment of gene drive insects in agriculture. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5: S81S97. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1 080/23299460.2017.1407910
7 Unckless, R.L., Clark, A.G. & Messer, P.W. (2017) Evolution of resistance against CRISPR/Cas9 gene drive. Genetics. 205: 827-841.
8 Taning, C.N.T., Van Eynde, B., Yu, N., Ma. S. & Smagghe, G. (2017) CRISPR/Cas9 in insects: applications, best practices and biosafety concerns. Journal of Insect Physiology 98: 245–257; Courtier-Orgogozo, V., Morizot, B. & Boëte, C. (2017) Agricultural pest control with CRISPR based gene drive: time for public debate. EMBO Reports 18: 878-880; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/download/23405; Esvelt, K.M. & Gemmell, N.J. (2017) Conservation demands safe gene drive. PLoS Biology 15: e2003850. DeFrancesco, L. 2015. Gene drive overdrive. Nature Biotechnology 33: 1019-1021; ETC Group (2018) Forcing the farm: how gene drive organisms could entrench industrial agriculture and threaten food sovereignty. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/forcing-farm.
9 Lebacq, T., Baret, P.V. & Stilmant, D. (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 311–327; Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S. & Walker, P. (2002) How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 445-56.
10 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (2018) Global livestock environmental assessment model. Version 2.0, revision 5. http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/
11 Begley, S. (2018) Potential DNA damage from CRISPR “seriously underestimated,” study finds. Scientific American July 16. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/potential-dna-damage-from-crispr-seriously-underestimated-studyfinds/; Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. (2018) Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature Biotechnology 36: 765-771.
12 Rana, P. & Craymer, L. (2018) Big tongues and extra vertebrae: the unintended consequences of animal gene editing. The Wall Street Journal, December 14. https://www.wsj.com/articles/deformities-alarm-scientists-racing-to-rewrite-animal-dna11544808779?mod=e2tw; Qian, L., Tang, M., Yang, J. et al. (2015) Targeted mutations in myostatin by zinc-finger nucleases result in double-muscled phenotype in Meishan pigs. Scientific Reports 5: 14435. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14435; Guo, R., Wan, Y., Xu, D. et al. (2016) Generation and evaluation of Myostatin knock-out rabbits and goats using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Scientific Reports 6: 29855 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29855
13 Ishii, T. (2017) Genome-edited livestock: ethics and social acceptance. Animal Frontiers 7: 24–32.
14 Kapahnke, M., Banning, A. & Tikkanen, R. (2016) Random splicing of several exons caused by a single base change in the target exon of CRISPR/Cas9 mediated gene knockout. Cells 5: 45.
15 Ormandy, E.H., Dale, J. & Griffin, G. (2011) Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns. Canadian Veterinary Journal 52: 544-50; Kirkden, R.D. & Broom, D.M. (2012) Welfare of genetically modified and cloned animals used for food. Report commissioned by Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from https://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/cloning-genetics/. See also other reports by Compassion in World Farming on cloning and genetics at https://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/cloninggenetics/.
16 Tan, W., Proudfoot, C., Lillico, S. G., & Whitelaw, C. B. A. (2016) Gene targeting, genome editing: from Dolly to editors. Transgenic Research 25: 273–287.
17 National Institutes of Health (2017) What are the potential drawbacks of cloning animals? National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/25020028/cloning-fact-sheet/#al-6; Van Eenennaam, A.L. (2017) Genetic modification of food animals. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 44: 27-34; Keefer, C.L. (2015) Artificial cloning of domestic animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 8874–8878.
18 Ishii, T. (2017) Genome-edited livestock: ethics and social acceptance. Animal Frontiers 7: 24–32.
19 Begley, S. (2018) CRISPR-edited cells linked to cancer risk in 2 studies. Scientific American June 12. Retrieved from https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/crispr-edited-cells-linked-to-cancer-risk-in-2-studies/; Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B., & Taipale, J. (2018) CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nature Medicine 24: 927–930; Ihry, R.J. Worringer, K.A., Salick, M.R. et al. (2018) p53 inhibits CRISPR–Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nature Medicine 24: 939-946.
20 E.g. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562: 519-525; International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (2016) From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. Retrieved from http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/ UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf; Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A. et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337-42; International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (2009) Global report. McIntyre, B.D. (ed.) Island Press, Washington D.C. Retrieved from https://www.weltagrarbericht.de/reports/Global_Report/Global_ content.html.
21 National Research Council (2002). Environmental concerns. In: Animal biotechnology: science-based concerns. Committee on defining science-based concerns associated with products of animal biotechnology. US National Academies Press, Washington DC. Ch.5
22 Pew Research Center (2018) Most Americans accept genetic engineering of animals that benefits human health, but many oppose other uses. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/08/16/most-americans-accept-genetic-engineering-ofanimals-that-benefits-human-health-but-many-oppose-other-uses/
23 Friends of the Earth U.S. (2017) Companies with policies to not sell genetically engineered seafood. Retrieved from https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/GE-free-seafood-company-policychart_June2017.pdf
24 FDA (2017) Regulation of genetically engineered animals. Draft revised guidance no. 187, pg. 27. Retrieved from: https://www.fda. gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf
25 FDA (2017) Regulation of genetically engineered animals. Draft revised guidance no. 187, pg. 27. Retrieved from: https://www.fda. gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf
26 Mallapaty, S. (2019) Australian gene-editing rules adopt ‘middle ground’. Nature (news) April 23. Retrieved from: https://www. nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01282-8
27 Weber, K. T., & Gokhale, B. S. (2011) Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho. Journal of Arid Environments 75: 464–470. Savory Institute (2015) Climate change, healthy soils and holistic planned grazing: a restoration story. Boulder, Colorado, U.S. Retrieved from https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2015-climate-a-restorationstory.pdf
28 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2019) Global biodiversity assessment. Summary for policymakers. Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) Global Warming 1.5°C. Retrieved from: https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_ spm_final.pdf