HUMAN HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM ROUNDUP RESIDUES IN OUR FOOD AND WATER

HUMAN HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM ROUNDUP RESIDUES IN OUR FOOD AND WATER

The WHO-FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - the arm of the WHO that determines and sets the so-called "safe" level of pesticide residues allowed on our food, water, etc. - has declared that glyphosate/Roundup is unlikely to cause cancer through pesticide residues in our food. The summary report from the JMPR is available at this link:http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
Source: http://www.reuters.com/…/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y…

Monsanto and regulatory agencies in the US (EPA), EU (EFSA) and in Canada (Health Canada) are attempting to discredit and to dismiss the recent WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) credible and alarming classification of glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen” by arguing that a health hazard is not a health risk, because - they erroneously argue - a health risk is based on the level of human exposure to glyphosate/Roundup.

However, both glyphosate, Roundup and each one of its "secret" co-formulants have alarmingly been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which are extremely toxic to human health at low doses.

As the following paper explains:

" The endocrine disrupting effect of glyphosate and its commercial formulations (i.e. Roundup) is their most insidious and worrying toxic effect. This is because EDC's do not function like normal poisons, where a higher dose gives greater toxicity. Often, endocrine disruptive effects are seen at lower doses but not at higher doses. The studies conducted by industry for regulatory purposes use relatively high doses and are not able to detect these effects.

Endocrine disruption in humans is thought to contribute to some cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems such as infertility, and developmental problems in foetuses, babies, and children.

Under European law, pesticides that disrupt hormones (“endocrine disrupting chemicals” or EDCs) are not allowed to be marketed. Governments recognize the threat posed by endocrine disruption, which are believed to be implicated in serious diseases, such as cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and birth defects. These effects are thought to result from very low doses over a long period of exposure or from exposures in critical windows of development, such as foetal development in the womb.

Source: http://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/hormone-hacking/

Alarmingly, professor Gilles-Éric Séralini and his team of researchers have recently found both glyphosate, Roundup as well as their "secret" co-formulants to be Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC).

Excerpts:

" A new study shows that the acceptable daily intake (ADI), the supposedly safe level, for glyphosate is unreliable in terms of assessing the risks of the complete commercial formulations that we are actually exposed to. The co-formulants were shown in the new study to have a far more powerful endocrine-disrupting effect at lower doses than the isolated active ingredient, glyphosate. The complete formulations (i.e Roundup) were also found to have much greater endocrine disrupting effects at lower doses than glyphosate alone.

The research shows that the ADI should be calculated from toxicity tests on the commercial formulations as sold and used. The new study is the first ever demonstration that the endocrine disrupting effects of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) are not only attributable to glyphosate, the declared active ingredient, but above all to the co-formulants."
Link to the study: http://www.gmoseralini.org/new-research-shows-regulatory-s…/

As the following paper further explains:

" The so-called safe levels of glyphosate exposure have never been tested directly to determine if indeed they are really safe to consume over the long term. Instead the “safe” levels are extrapolated from higher doses tested in industry studies.

Industry toxicity study protocols are out of date. All toxicity tests conducted by industry for regulatory purposes are based on the old adage: “The dose makes the poison” – that is, the higher the dose, the greater the degree of toxicity. However, in some cases, low doses corresponding to human exposures can be more toxic than the higher doses tested in laboratory animals in industry studies.

This is especially true for chemicals that disrupt the hormonal system (endocrine disruptors). Safe levels of these chemicals cannot be extrapolated from effects at higher doses. Evidence from in vitro and animal experiments shows that glyphosate may be an endocrine disruptor at levels permitted in tap water in the EU.

Findings that glyphosate and its commercial formulations may be endocrine disruptors imply that the standard industry long-term animal studies are inadequate. These studies are conducted on adult animals, and fail to test the effects of exposure during important windows of development, such as foetal development.

Yet hormones are vital regulators of development. A subtle hormonal effect during early life can modify organ morphology and function for the rest of the life, as well as potentially leading to chronic diseases such as cancer and reproductive dysfunction in adults.

The complete glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used contain additives (adjuvants), which are toxic in their own right and/or increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Safety limits are set for the isolated ingredient glyphosate, but the whole formulations, which are generally more toxic, are never tested to determine long-term toxic effects.

This limitation of the regulatory process applies to all pesticides in all countries worldwide. Studies in rats confirm that the complete glyphosate herbicide formulations are toxic at levels deemed safe by regulators for the isolated ingredient glyphosate. Other feeding studies in pigs and rats directly comparing the toxicity of formulations with glyphosate alone found that the formulations were far more toxic.

Even glyphosate alone may not be as safe as claimed. Industry tests on glyphosate alone revealed toxic effects, notably birth defects, below the levels that regulators claimed showed no toxic effect – but these results were ignored or dismissed by regulators in setting the supposedly safe ADI

Independent studies have found toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations at environmentally realistic levels, which have never been tested by regulators. Effects include oxidative stress on liver and kidneys and endocrine disrupting effects.

These findings, taken as a whole, suggest that the levels of Roundup we are exposed to may not be safe over the long term."

Link to the paper with references: http://detoxproject.org/…/how-safe-are-safe-levels-of-roun…/

Several other studies have also found both glyphosate and Roundup to be EDCs:
http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/…/tedx-l…/chemicalsearch…

Moreover, a Scientific Consensus Statement recently published by a number of prominent and eminent scientists states:

Abstract:

" Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards.

We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. (emphasis is mine)

We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities.

We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Link to the Scientific Consensus Statement:http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/…/10.1…/s12940-016-0117-0

The Endocrine Society has also recently published an alarming (2nd) Scientific Statement on the toxicity of EDC's:

Excerpts:

This Executive Summary to the Endocrine Society's second Scientific Statement on environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) provides a synthesis of the key points of the complete statement. The full Scientific Statement represents a comprehensive review of the literature (1300 studies) on seven topics for which there is strong mechanistic, experimental, animal, and epidemiological evidence for endocrine disruption, namely: obesity and diabetes, female reproduction, male reproduction, hormone-sensitive cancers in females, prostate cancer, thyroid, and neurodevelopment and neuroendocrine systems.

Scientific advances over the past 5 years (encompassing 1300 studies) reveal numerous EDC effects on obesity, diabetes, male and female reproduction (including cancer), the prostate and thyroid glands, and neurodevelopment. The past 5 years represent a leap forward in our understanding of EDC actions on endocrine health and disease."
Link to the complete Scientific Statement:http://www.healthandenvironment.org/partnership_calls/18015

Glyphosate Risk Assessment: Health Hazard vs Health Risk

Furthermore, the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup carried out by regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed for the reasons briefly explained below.

1) “The dose makes the poison”

The health hazards vs health risks assessment used by all regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed and invalid because regulators erroneously believe and argue that the “dose makes the poison.” However, toxicology peer-reviewed and published scientific research has shown that this belief is in many cases inaccurate and quite often the opposite is true (i.e. linear vs nonmonotonic dose-response curves) Study link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778

2) Active Principle (glyphosate) vs Formulation/product (Roundup)

Regulatory agencies only review the toxicity of the Active Principle alone (i.e. glyphosate) and not the whole product formulation (i.e Roundup) which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants. However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed and published study has alarmingly found Roundup and other pesticide formulations to be 125-1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle. The authors of the study alarmingly found and write:

“We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines[...] Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.”
Study Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/

EPA and EFSA recognize the toxicity of GBH formulations

Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have publicly recognized the toxicity of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) formulations.

In its own risk assessment, the EPA publicly admits and states that it evaluated only the "human carcinogenic potential for the active ingredient," not that of "glyphosate-based pesticide formulations." The EPA acknowledges that the formulations may be more toxic than glyphosate and expresses the need to evaluate the toxicity of the entire formulation i.e. Roundup. The EPA is developing a “research plan” with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to “evaluate the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity.”

Similarly, EFSA's risk assessment was based purely on the toxicity of glyphosate alone, not on the complete formulation; although EFSA acknowledged that one common ingredient in glyphosate based herbicides - POE-tallowamine - is more toxic than glyphosate itself, EFSA publicly admits and writes that the carcinogenic potential of GBH formulations "should be further considered and addressed."

3) Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

The WHO-FAO/JMPR and regulatory agencies worldwide determine and set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) based exclusively on the Active Principle alone (AP) (i.e. glyphosate) and not on the product formulation (i.e. Roundup).

However, the actual product that is approved by regulatory agencies and copiously sprayed on our food crops, soil, water, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP) but the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup). This constitutes a flagrant flaw in the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and a serious hazard to public health .

Roundup residues in food and water

Roundup residues have alarmingly been found in various common food items i.e. flour, bread, cereals, dairy, eggs, fruits, vegetables, wine, beers, etc., as well as in human urine, blood and breastmilk!
http://beyondpesticides.org/…/glyphosate-residues-found-in…/

Roundup is truly ubiquitous in our daily food supply, as the following recent investigative articles alarmingly reveal: http://www.truth-out.org/…/35919-not-just-for-corn-and-soy-…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b…

In fact, Roundup is not only used on GMO crops; it is also widely used as a dessicant to dry and kill non-GMO grain crops such as wheat, oats, barley, flax, etc. a few weeks before harvest; it is also copiously sprayed on nuts, lentils, peas, beans, potatoes, fruits and vegetables.

“A preharvest weed control application is an excellent management strategy to not only control perennial weeds, but to facilitate harvest management and get a head start on next year’s crop,” according to a Monsanto “pre-harvest staging guide.” https://usrtk.org/…/Monsanto-application-guide-for-preharve…

Roundup is also present in our daily drinking water supply. A recently published study also found ultra-low dose exposure to Roundup in drinking water to adverse impacts on rat livers and kidneys:http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/…/10.1…/s12940-015-0056-1

Monsanto of course denies that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water supply are dangerous to our health. "According to physicians and other food safety experts, the mere presence of a chemical itself is not a human health hazard. It is the amount, or dose, that matters," Monsanto senior toxicologist Kimberly Hodge-Bell said in the Monsanto blog; "trace amounts are not unsafe".
Source: http://www.reuters.com/…/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idU…

This statement by Kimberly Hodge-Bell and Monsanto is not supported by scientific evidence and is contradicted by the science of toxicology and endocrinology, as I have argued and demonstrated in this paper.

Therefore, it is fair to conclude that both the Risk Assessment and the ADI for glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) such as Monsanto's Roundup - as well as Monsanto's Xtend which combines both glyphosate and dicamba and Dow's Enlist Duo which combines both glyphosate and 2,4-D - are scientifically flawed and extremely hazardous to both our health and our lives since they expose us to high doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) and other "secret" toxic chemical formulations present in the form of high pesticide residues in our food, water, soil, air, environment and bodies which seriously endangers both our health and our lives.

Toxic Food For Thought.

Arya Vrilya
National Health Federation (NHF)
Canada Representative

‪#‎Roundup‬ ‪#‎Glyphosate‬ ‪#‎Monsanto‬ ‪#‎GMO‬ ‪#‎FAO‬ ‪#‎WHO‬ ‪#‎JMPR‬‪#‎pesticides‬ ‪#‎EPA‬ ‪#‎EFSA‬ ‪#‎HealthCanada‬ ‪#‎Dow‬ ‪#‎Syngenta‬ ‪#‎BASF‬‪#‎BAYER‬

FLAWED & HAZARDOUS RISK ASSESSMENT OF GLYPHOSATE & MONSANTO's ROUNDUP

THE WHO-FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR) held their meeting this week (9-13 May) in Geneva to determine and set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of glyphosate/Roundup (i.e. the so-called "safe" amount of glyphosate/Roundup residues allowed on our food, water, etc.)

Monsanto and regulatory agencies in the US (EPA), EU (EFSA) and in Canada (Health Canada) are trying to discredit and dismiss the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recent and alarming classification of glyphosate as a "probable" human carcinogen by fraudulently arguing that a health hazard is not a health risk, because - they erroneously argue - a health risk is based on the level of human exposure (i.e. residues of glyphosate/Roundup on our food, water, soil, air, etc.) However, toxicology research has alarmingly found that glyphosate has an inverse dose-toxicity relationship 

(i.e. a low dose = high toxicity)

Please find enclosed a letter I have written to the WHO-FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) (the arm of the WHO that determines and sets the so-called "safe" levels of pesticides allowed on our food, water, environment, etc.) regarding the scientifically flawed and extremely hazardous Risk Assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and other untested, unregulated toxic/poisonous pesticides copiously sprayed on our food, water, soil, air and environment.

As you will see, we are all literally being poisoned by glyphosate/Roundup and other toxic/poisonous untested and unregulated pesticides copiously sprayed on both GMO and conventional crops and allowed and present as extremely high and lethal residues in our food, water, soil, air, and environment. Thank you for widely sharing this letter to raise public awareness about this deadly issue (pun intended).

28 July, 2015

TO: Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
Geneva, Switzerland
jmpr@who.int

cc:

Ms. Rona Ambrose
Minister of Health
Health Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Richard Aucoin
Executive Director
Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Dr. Christopher Wild
Director
WHO/IARC
Lyon, France
com@iarc.fr

Ms. Adcock Catherine
Expert on JMPR Taskforce
Head of the Toxicological Evaluation Section 2
PMRA, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

To the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR),

I am writing to you with regards to the Risk Assessment of glyphosate and other toxic pesticides copiously sprayed on our food, soil, water, air and environment. As you know, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recently found and classified glyphosate as a “probable” human carcinogen.

However, Health Canada has recently favourably re-evaluated the importation, use and sale of glyphosate and entirely dismissed the credible and alarming findings of the IARC by (erroneously) arguing that a health hazard is not a health risk because a health risk is associated with the level of human exposure (i.e. Acceptable Daily Intake)

Health Canada writes that: "The World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently assigned a hazard classification for glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans". It is important to note that a hazard classification is not a health risk assessment. The level of human exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken into account by WHO (IARC). Pesticides are registered for use in Canada only if the level of exposure to Canadians does not cause any harmful effects, including cancer." Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/…/…/_prvd2015-01/prvd2015-01-eng.php…

Glyphosate Risk Assessment: Health Hazard vs Health Risk

Personal observations:

1) “The dose makes the poison”

The health hazards vs health risks assessment used by Health Canada/PMRA (and all regulatory agencies) is scientifically flawed and invalid because Health Canada erroneously believes and argues that the “dose makes the poison.” In fact toxicology peer reviewed and published scientific research and evidence (please see copy below) has shown that this belief is in many cases inaccurate and quite often the opposite is true (i.e. linear vs nonmonotonic dose-response curves)
Study links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778

2) Active Principle (glyphosate) vs Formulation/product (Roundup)

Health Canada (and all regulatory agencies) only reviews the toxicity of the Active Principle alone (i.e. glyphosate) and not the whole product formulation (i.e Roundup) which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants.

However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed and published study (see copy below) has alarmingly found Roundup and other pesticide formulations to be 125 to over 1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle. The authors of the study alarmingly found and write:

“We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines[...] Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.”

Study Links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/

3) Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

Health Canada/PMRA (and all regulatory agencies) determines and sets the ADI based exclusively on the Active Principle alone (i.e. glyphosate) and not on the product formulation (i.e. Roundup.) However, the actual product that is approved by Health Canada and used copiously on our food supply, soil, water, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP) but the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup.)

In view of the above, I think that it is fair to conclude that both the Risk Assessment and the ADI set by Health Canada/PMRA (and all regulatory agencies) are scientifically flawed and extremely dangerous to both our health and our lives since they expose us to extremely high doses of toxic chemical formulations (i.e. Monsanto's Roundup, Dow's Enlist Duo, etc.) which seriously endangers both our health and our lives.

I therefore hereby request the Joint FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) to meticulously study and take into account the above observations while Revisiting the International Estimate of Short-Term Intake (IESTI) in Geneva on 7-9 September for glyphosate/Roundup/Enlist Duo and other highly toxic pesticides copiously sprayed on our food, soil, water, air and environment.
________________________________________________

Note: A coalition of health and environmental organizations have written a letter to the WHO-FAO/JMPR complaining about flagrant conflict of interests among members of the JMPR panel. The following recent investigative article provides a good summary overview of the issue.

WHO-FAO/JMPR DECISION (16 May, 2016): 

The panel has concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer to humans through exposure of glyphosate/Roundup residues in the food. The JMPR summary report can be read at this link.   

HUMAN GENE EDITING: A summary overview of the science, research, regulations, ethics and hazards of Gene Editing/CRISPR

An International Summit on Human Gene Editing hosted by the US National Academy of Sciences, the US National Academy of Medicine, the UK Royal Society and the Chinese Academy of Sciences took place on December 1-3, 2015 in Washington to discuss the scientific, ethical, legal and regulatory issues associated with "Gene Editing" human DNA for both research, clinical and personal "enhancement" applications. A summary of the Summit is available at the following link.  Following the Summit, the Organizing Committee Members issued the following Summit Statement on Gene Editing human DNA for research and its potential applications.

A "Committee of Experts" has also been selected and mandated to "perform its own independent and in-depth review of the science and policy of human gene editing by reviewing the literature and holding data-gathering meetings in the U.S. and abroad to solicit broad input from researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and the public. The committee will also monitor in real-time the latest scientific achievements of importance in this rapidly developing field. Finally, while informed by the statement issued by the organizing committee for the international summit, the study committee will have broad discretion to arrive at its own findings and conclusions, which will be released in a peer-reviewed consensus report. Expected to be completed in late 2016, the report will represent the official views of NAS and NAM." Source:  http://nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/consensus-study/index.htm 

The Committee held its first meeting in February 2015 in Washington to discuss the scientific, medical, legal, regulatory and ethical issues surrounding Gene Editing of human DNA. The Committee also organized both a workshop in Paris in April 2015 hosted by the Federation of European Academies of Medicine to "focus on the state of the science and international regulatory landscape regarding human gene editing," as well as a meeting at the French National Academy of Medicine in Paris "focused on the principles underlying human gene editing governance and policy." You can view both events at this link and you can watch a video of the Paris meeting at the following link. Details about the Committee's work and study is available at this link. 

Science, Research, Regulations, Ethics and Hazards of Gene Editing/CRISPR 

Gene "editing" human DNA - the sacrosanct essence and blueprint of Life - poses a myriad of extremely alarming issues and irreversible hazards to the very essence, nature and future survival of humanity and of all Life on this planet. As the Committee members of the Summit themselves admit and write in the Summit Statement: 

"Gene editing might also be used, in principle, to make genetic alterations in gametes or embryos, which will be carried by all of the cells of a resulting child and will be passed on to subsequent generations as part of the human gene pool. Examples that have been proposed range from avoidance of severe inherited diseases to ‘enhancement’ of human capabilities. Such modifications of human genomes might include the introduction of naturally occurring variants or totally novel genetic changes thought to be beneficial. 

Germline editing poses many important issues, including: (i) the risks of inaccurate editing (such as off-target mutations) and incomplete editing of the cells of early-stage embryos (mosaicism); (ii) the difficulty of predicting harmful effects that genetic changes may have under the wide range of circumstances experienced by the human population, including interactions with other genetic variants and with the environment; (iii) the obligation to consider implications for both the individual and the future generations who will carry the genetic alterations; (iv) the fact that, once introduced into the human population, genetic alterations would be difficult to remove and would not remain within any single community or country; (v) the possibility that permanent genetic ‘enhancements’ to subsets of the population could exacerbate social inequities or be used coercively; and (vi) the moral and ethical considerations in purposefully altering human evolution using this technology." 

Earlier in 2015, several American scientists including two Nobel Prize winners called for a debate on the genetic engineering of humans, warning that the technology able to change the DNA of future generations is now “imminent.” Meanwhile, Another group of scientists published a statement in which they said that it was “irresponsible” to create genetically modified babies/humans at this point in time without ruling out the possibility and desire to do so in the future: " Almost everyone says it’s premature for clinical use and there should be a delay, but it doesn’t mean it should be ruled out forever; it’s like stem-cell research. It needs to be regulated but without too much constraint or endangering the whole enterprise.” said Richard Hynes, the MIT cancer biologist who co-chairs the Human Gene Editing study. A separate group of scientists working within the biotech industry have also published a statement warning that “scientists should agree not to modify the DNA of human reproductive cells” because it raises safety and ethical risks including the danger of “unpredictable effects on future generations.” 

Gene Editing precise, accurate and efficient ?

Dr. Jonathan Latham - a prominent scientific expert on biotechnology - debunks the myths surrounding the incessantly repeated misleading and fraudulent claims of the purported "precision," "accuracy" and "efficiency" of Gene Editing/CRISPR. 

Dr. Latham alarmingly writes that Gene Editing “can induce mutations at sites that differ by as many as five nucleotides from the intended target”, i.e. CRISPR may act at unknown sites in the genome where it is not wanted (u et al., 2014).  So far, it is technically not possible to make a single (and only a single) genetic change to a genome using CRISPR and be sure one has done so (Fichtner et al., 2014). As Fichtner noted “in mammalian systems Cas9 causes a high degree of off-target effects”. And at least until modified versions come into use, this will limit the safety, and hopefully limit the application, of CRISPR and related biotechnologies. There is, furthermore, no guarantee that more precise versions of CRISPR are even biologically possible. Technically therefore, precision is a myth: no form of genome editing can do what is currently being claimed. 

The second key error of CRISPR boosters is to assume that, even if we had complete precision, this would allow control over the consequences for the resulting organism. A classic example of how DNA can still reveal unexpected functions decades after discovery is the CaMV 35S promoter, a DNA sequence used in commercialised GMO plants for almost twenty years. The CaMV 35S DNA is described in every application for commercial use as a simple DNA “promoter” (an “on” switch for gene expression). 

In 1999, however, the CaMV 35S “promoter” was found to encode a recombinational hotspot (Kohli et al., 1999). In 2011 it was found to produce massive quantities of small RNAs. These RNAs probably function as decoys to neutralise the plant immune system (Blevins et al., 2011). One year later still, regulators found it to contain an overlapping viral gene whose functions are still being elucidated (Podevin and du Jardin 2012).  Will we ever know enough about any DNA sequence to accurately describe changing it as “editing”? 

The third error of CRISPR advocates is to imply that changes to gene functions can be presumed to be discrete and constrained. The concept of the precise editing of a genome leading to a precise biological outcome depends heavily on the conception that genes give rise to simple outputs. This is the genetic paradigm taught in schools. It is also the paradigm presented to the public and that even plays a large role in the thinking of molecular genetic researchers.

However, a defined, discrete or simple pathway from gene to trait probably never exists. Most gene function is mediated murkily through highly complex biochemical and other networks that depend on many conditional factors, such as the presence of other genes and their variants, on the environment, on the age of the organism, on chance, and so forth. Geneticists and molecular biologists, however, since the time of Gregor Mendel, have striven to find or create artificial experimental systems in which environmental or any other sources of variation are minimised so as not to distract from the more “important” business of genetic discovery. 

But by discarding organisms or traits that do not follow their expectations, geneticists and molecular biologists have built themselves a circular argument in favour of a naive deterministic account of gene function. Their paradigm habitually downplays the enormous complexities by which information passes (in both directions) between organisms and their genomes. It has created an immense and mostly unexamined bias in the default public understanding of genes and DNA. This is not my argument. It belongs to Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, probably the most famous geneticist of our time." Source: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/gods-red-pencil-crispr-and-the-three-myths-of-precise-genome-editing/ 

Several other prominent scientists and researchers have also debunked the myths regarding the oft-repeated misleading claims of precision and accuracy of Gene Editing/CRISPR.  

Gene Editing Research

China 

Chinese scientists were the first researchers in the world to edit the genomes of "non viable" human embryos.  The Chinese researchers unsuccessfully attempted to modify the gene responsible for β-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder, using a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9. However, in a published paper, the researchers explain and admit that their experiments were a total failure and they reveal serious obstacles to using Gene Editing/CRISPR in medical applications. 

"The scientist injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”

The researchers also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding Germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” Huang alarmingly admits. 

"I believe this is the first report of CRISPR/Cas9 applied to human pre-implantation embryos and as such the study is a landmark, as well as a cautionary tale," says George Daley, a stem-cell biologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. "Their study should be a stern warning to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes." Source: http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378

Other scientists have also warned about the dangers of Gene Editing DNA in human embryos:
"In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications." 

However, despite the alarming findings and dismal failure of the first Chinese experiment editing "non-viable" human embryos and the warnings of other researchers about the hazards of Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR, another team of researchers in China have alarmingly recently reported "editing" the genes of "non viable" human embryos to try to make them resistant to HIV infection. Their published paper is the second published claim of gene editing human embryos using CRISPR. 

UK

In February 2016, research scientists in London/UK have alarmingly been granted permission by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to "edit" the genomes of "viable" human embryos for research. The approval by the UK HFEA represents the world's first regulatory approval of Gene Editing using CRISPR on "viable" human embryos for research. 

Japan

On April 22, 2016 a Japanese government bioethics panel approved gene modifications of fertilized human eggs for research purposes.

Regulatory Framework
EU
The EU law regulating GMO's defines a GMO as: "Any organism, with the exception of humans, in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination”. Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:303dd4fa-07a8-4d20-86a8-0baaf0518d22.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

According to a recent expert legal opinion published by EU legal experts Tade Spranger and Ludwig Krämer, animals, plants and other living organisms whose genes have been "edited" using Gene Editing/CRISPR fall under the EU definition of GMO's and should therefore be regulated under the EU law regulating GMO's. 

However, both the industry and the US administration are lobbying regulatory agencies in both the EU i.e. European Commission and in the US to deregulate Gene Editing/CRISPR by fraudulently arguing that living organisms i.e. animals, plants, etc. whose genes have been "edited" do not contain foreign DNA and therefore should not be regulated as a GMO. The following document provides an overview of US pressure to deregulate Gene Editing in the EU. 
USA
In the US, the USDA has approved and deregulated a gene-edited corn from Dupont and deregulated and approved a Gene Edited mushroom: “APHIS does not consider CRISPR/Cas9-edited white button mushrooms as described in your October 30, 2015 letter to be regulated,” the agency wrote in a April 13 letter to the applicant. 
However, the federal US National Institute of Health (NHI) has stated that it will not provide funding for Germline editing; in a published letter, the NHI stated: " NIH will not fund any use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos. The concept of altering the human germline in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed. Advances in technology have given us an elegant new way of carrying out genome editing, but the strong arguments against engaging in this activity remain. These include the serious and unquantifiable safety issues, ethical issues presented by altering the germline in a way that affects the next generation without their consent, and a current lack of compelling medical applications justifying the use of CRISPR/Cas9 in embryos."   

Ethics

Not only is the science primitive, deeply flawed and extremely hazardous, but it is also highly unethical. In fact, DNA is the sacrosanct essence and blueprint of human life and of all Life on this planet. Therefore, it is both highly unethical and extremely hazardous to allow mad and morally bankrupt pseudo-scientists suffering from severe megalomania to play God and Lego with our DNA and by extension with the DNA of countless yet unborn future generations. 

Eugenics

Moreover, Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR can and will be misused for eugenics purposes. 
Eugenics was embraced and infamously practiced by Hitler and the NAZI's during WW2 to sterilize and kill hundreds of millions of so-called “inferior” members of the human race i.e. Jews, the crippled, the feeble-minded, etc. under the NAZI's racial purification theory and program (i.e. Holocaust) and the purported and proclaimed superiority of the so-called “Aryan” master race. 

However, eugenism as an offshoot of the Darwinian theory of evolution and racial superiority (i.e. Survival of the fittest) took roots both in the UK and in the US well before the rise to power of Hitler; in fact eugenics was embraced, preached, financed and practiced by a large majority of the Darwinian ruling and moneyed so-called "elite" in the US in the early twentieth century. 

Unfortunately eugenism has not died with Hitler; in fact, it has been resurrected and is covertly practiced throughout the world through scientific and technologically more advanced tools and means i.e. through the forceful and mandatory administration of sterilizing/poisonous vaccines, fluoridated water, toxic GMO's, poisonous chemicals copiously sprayed on our food crops, soil, water, air and environment, by many of the same ruling and moneyed families and corporations that embraced, preached, financed and practiced eugenism both in the US and in Nazi Germany. 

The methods have changed but the actors and the objectives remain unchanged. In fact, many of the same ruling and moneyed so-called "elite" families that embraced eugenism in the US in the early 20^th century are today major funders and shareholders of the biotech/chemical/pharmaceutical industry. And many of the biotech/chemical/pharmaceutical corporations that today manufacturer toxic vaccines, genetically modify our food crops and copiously spray their poisonous chemicals on our food supply, soil, water, air and environment are remnants and offshoots of the infamous IG Farben – the Nazi petrochemical industrial conglomerate. Toxic food for thought...

Suffice it here to predict and to warn that Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR will also – like GMO's - be patented, exploited and misused by profit-oriented corporations, corrupt and criminal fascist governments, the Military Industrial Complex and the Darwinian ruling and moneyed “elite” for profit, power, control, eugenics, war and other malevolent purposes and destructive ends. 

Several books  could be written on the links between biotechnology and eugenics. It is infantile, primitive and beyond stupid for the proponents and advocates of eugenics to claim and to believe that they can produce a race of “supermen” using Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR. You cannot simply delete “stupid” genes and replace them with “intelligent” ones; or “cut” so-called “undesirable” or “faulty” genes and “copy” and “paste” desirable ones for good health, intelligence, wisdom, integrity, etc. Instead of creating a class of so-called “supermen,” the mad scientists and their sponsors will create monstrous human chimeras and irreversibly alter and destroy human DNA in the process...

Legal issues:

There are also crucial legal issues that need to be addressed and answered; for instance, corporations and governments can and will patent, exploit and misuse the Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR technology. What would be the resulting legal consequences on the lives of humans and their offsprings who had their genes “edited” ? What would be the legal definition and the legal rights of a genetically modified embryo and human being...? And who would own the resulting genetically modified embryo and human being...? 

Conclusion 

To summarize and to conclude, the science is not only primitive, flawed, extremely dangerous and unregulated but also highly unethical. Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR will literally and irreversibly change our DNA and the DNA of all yet unborn future generations - the sacrosanct essence and blueprint of human Life and of all Life on this planet.

We cannot allow mad and morally bankrupt scientists suffering from severe megalomania play God and Lego with our DNA. Corporations, governments and the Industrial Military Complex can and will patent the technology and can and will exploit and misuse the technology for profit, power, control, eugenics, war and other malevolent and destructive ends. Human history is filled with repeated, countless and endless tragic examples of science and technology being misused for profit, power, control, war and other malevolent and destructive ends.

If humanity allows mad and morally bankrupt pseudo-scientists and their sponsors to play God and “edit” their DNA, humanity will open Pandora's box and wake up in a monstrous dystopian world of genetically modified human chimeras and other monstrous chimeras life forms in next 15-30 years...

Gene Editing/CRISPR classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction

Gene/Germline Editing/CRISPR poses a greater threat and danger to the very near future survival of humanity and of all Life on this planet than nuclear weapons and all the Weapons of Mass Destruction devised by “scientists” and used against humanity to this day. In fact, James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, has recently alarmingly added and classified Gene Editing/CRISPR to a list of threats posed by “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation” in his Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. 

“Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications. Research in genome editing conducted by countries with different regulatory or ethical standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products,” the report alarmingly states.

"The intelligence assessment drew specific attention to the possibility of using CRISPR to edit the DNA of human embryos to produce genetic changes in the next generation of people—for example, to remove disease risks. It noted that fast advances in genome editing in 2015 compelled “groups of high-profile U.S. and European biologists to question unregulated editing of the human germ line (cells that are relevant for reproduction), which might create inheritable genetic changes.

So far, the debate over changing the next generation’s genes has been mostly an ethical question, and the report didn’t say how such a development would be considered a WMD, although it’s possible to imagine a virus designed to kill or injure people by altering their genomes," writes Antonio Regalado, senior editor for biomedicine at MIT Technology Review. 
Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600774/top-us-intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing-a-wmd-threat/

Hopefully humanity will wake up from its deadly slumber before it wakes up in a dystopian world of monstrous genetically modified human chimeras... 

Note: I will be updating this post as the issue evolves..

Update (13/05/16)

- Scientists hold private meeting at Harvard to discuss "creating synthetic humans genomes from scratch, by stringing together off-the-shelf DNA letters..."  

- Scientists create first "gene edited" hornless dairy cow.