gmo pros and cons essay

GMOs – Top 3 Pros and Cons

• Pro/Con Arguments
• Did You Know?

Discussion Questions

Take Action

Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. The earliest form of selective breeding were simple and have persisted: farmers save and plant only the seeds of plants that produced the most tasty or largest (or otherwise preferable) results. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered and developed the basics of DNA by crossbreeding peas. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 53 ] [ 55 ]

To create a GMO plant, scientists follow these basic steps over several years:

• Identify the desired trait and find an animal or plant with that trait. For example, scientists were looking to make corn more insect-resistant. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium ( Bacillus thuringiensis , or Bt), that naturally produces an insecticide commonly used in organic agriculture.
• Copy the specific gene for the desired trait.
• Insert the specific gene into the DNA of the plant scientists want to change. In the above example, the insecticide gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was inserted into corn.
• Grow the new plant and perform tests for safety and the desired trait. [ 55 ]

According to the Genetic Literacy Project , “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops, allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GMO. [ 58 ]

In the United States, the health and environmental safety standards for GM crops are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Between 1985 and Sep. 2013, the USDA approved over 17,000 different GM crops for field trials, including varieties of corn, soybean, potato, tomato, wheat, canola, and rice, with various genetic modifications such as herbicide tolerance; insect, fungal, and drought resistance; and flavor or nutrition enhancement. [ 44 ] [ 45 ]

In 1994, the “FLAVR SAVR” tomato became the first genetically modified food to be approved for public consumption by the FDA. The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life. [ 51 ]

Recently, the term “bioengineered” food has come into popularity, under the argument that almost all food has been “genetically modified” via selective breeding or other basic growing methods. Bioengineered food refers specifically to food that has undergone modification using rDNA technology, but does not include food genetically modified by basic cross-breeding or selective breeding. As of Jan. 10, 2022, the USDA listed 12 bioengineered products available in the US: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet. [ 56 ] [ 57 ]

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard established mandatory national standards for labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. The Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 and compliance became mandatory on Jan. 1, 2022. [ 46 ]

49% of US adults believe that eating GMO foods are “worse” for one’s health, 44% say they are “neither better nor worse,” and 5% believe they are “better,” according to a 2018 Pew Research Center report. [ 9 ]

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown?

Pro 1 Genetically modified (GM) crops have been proven safe through testing and use, and can even increase the safety of common foods. As  astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explained, “Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food. There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows… We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It’s called artificial selection.” [ 54 ] A single health risk associated with GMO consumption has not been discovered in over 30 years of lab testing and over 15 years of field research. Martina Newell-McGoughlin, Director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program, said that “GMOs are more thoroughly tested than any product produced in the history of agriculture.” [ 8 ] Over 2,000 global studies have affirmed the safety of GM crops. Trillions of meals containing GMO ingredients have been eaten by humans, with zero verified cases of illness related to the food being genetically altered. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] GM crops can even be engineered to reduce natural allergens and toxins, making them safer and healthier. Molecular biologist Hortense Dodo, genetically engineered a hypoallergenic peanut by suppressing the protein that can lead to a deadly reaction in people with peanut allergies. [ 12 ] Read More

Pro 2 GMO crops lower the price of food and increase nutritional content, helping to alleviate world hunger. The World Food Programme, a humanitarian organization, between 720 and 811 million people face hunger globally. Population growth, climate change, over-farming, and water shortages all contribute to food scarcity. GMOs can help address those problems with genetic engineering to improve crop yields and help farmers grow food in drought regions or on depleted soil, thereby lowering food prices and feeding more people. [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ] David Zilberman, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Berkeley, said that GMO crops have “raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.” [ 17 ] To combat Vitamin A deficiency, the main cause of childhood blindness in developing countries, researchers developed a GMO ‘Golden Rice’ that produces high levels of beta-carotene. A report by Australia and New Zealand’s food safety regulator found that Golden Rice “is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional rice.” [ 18 ] [ 19 ] [ 20 ] Read More

Pro 3 Growing GMO crops leads to environmental benefits such as reduced pesticide use, less water waste, and lower carbon emissions. The two main types of GMO crops in use are bioengineered to either produce their own pesticides or to be herbicide-tolerant. More than 80% of corn grown in the US is GMO Bt corn, which produces its own Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticide. This has reduced the need for spraying insecticides over corn fields by 35%, and dozens of studies have shown there are no environmental or health concerns with Bt corn. [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 59 ] Drought-tolerant varieties of GMO corn have been shown to reduce transpiration (evaporation of water off of plants) by up to 17.5%, resulting in less water waste. [ 24 ] Herbicide-tolerant (Ht) GMO soy crops have reduced the need to till the soil to remove weeds. Tilling is a process that involves breaking up the soil, which brings carbon to the surface. When that carbon mixes with oxygen in the atmosphere, it becomes carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming. Reduced tilling preserves topsoil, reduces soil erosion and water runoff (keeping fertilizers out of the water supply), and lowers carbon emissions. The decreased use of fuel and tilling as a result of growing GM crops can lower greenhouse gas emissions as much as removing 12 million cars from the roads each year. [ 25 ] [ 26 ] [ 27 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] The global population is expected to increase by two billion by 2050. Andrew Allan, a plant biologist at the University of Auckland, explained, “So where’s that extra food going to come from? It can’t come from using more land, because if we use more land, then we’ve got to deforest more, and the [global] temperature goes up even more. So what we really need is more productivity. And that, in all likelihood, will require G.M.O.s.” [ 59 ] Read More

Con 1 Genetically modified (GM) crops have not been proven safe for human consumption through human clinical trials. Scientists still don’t know what the long-term effects of significant GMO consumption could be. Robert Gould, pathologist at the UC San Francisco School of Medicine, said, “the contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime.” [ 33 ] Genetically modified ingredients are in 70-80% of food eaten in the United States, even though there haven’t been any long term clinical trials on humans to determine whether GMO foods are safe. [ 31 ] [ 32 ] According to the Center for Food Safety, a US-based nonprofit organization, “Each genetic insertion creates the added possibility that formerly nontoxic elements in the food could become toxic.” The group says that resistance to antibiotics, cancer, and suppressed immune function are among potential risks of genetic modification using viral DNA. [ 34 ] Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, explained, “Anyone who knows about genetics knows that there’s a lot we don’t understand. We’re always discovering new things or finding out that things we believed aren’t actually right.” Because of the lack of testing, we may not have found the particular dangers in GMO foods yet, but that doesn’t make them safe to consume. [ 59 ] Read More

Con 2 Tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants may result in changes to the food supply that introduce toxins or trigger allergic reactions. An article in Food Science and Human Welfare said, “Three major health risks potentially associated with GM foods are: toxicity, allergenicity and genetic hazards.” The authors raised concerns that the GMO process could disrupt a plant’s genetic integrity, with the potential to activate toxins or change metabolic toxin levels in a ripple effect beyond detection. [ 35 ] A joint commission of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) identified two potential unintended effects of genetic modification of food sources: higher levels of allergens in a host plant that contains known allergenic properties, and new proteins created by the gene insertion that could cause allergic reactions. [ 36 ] The insertion of a gene to modify a plant can cause problems in the resulting food. After StarLink corn was genetically altered to be insect-resistant, there were several reported cases of allergic reactions in consumers. The reactions ranged from abdominal pain and diarrhea to skin rashes to life-threatening issues. [ 37 ] Read More

Con 3 Certain GM crops harm the environment through the increased use of toxic herbicides and pesticides. An “epidemic of super-weeds” has developed resistance to the herbicides that GM crops were designed to tolerate since herbicide-resistant GM crop varieties were developed in 1996. Those weeds choke crops on over 60 million acres of US croplands, and the solution being presented to farmers is to use more herbicides. This has led to a tenfold increase in the use of the weed killer Roundup, which is made by Monsanto, the largest GMO seed producer. [ 33 ] [ 38 ] The increased use of the weed killer glyphosate (created by Monsanto) to kill the weeds that compete with crops can harm pollinating insects. Scientists blame Roundup (the active ingredient of which is glyphosate) for a 90% decrease in the US monarch butterfly population. The weed killer potentially create health risks for humans who ingest traces of herbicides used on GM crops. When glyphosate is used near rivers, local wildlife is impacted, including a higher mortality rates among amphibians.  [ 38 ] [ 41 ] [ 42 ] A report from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network found that “Herbicide-tolerant crops reduce weed diversity in and around fields, which in turn reduces habitat and food for other important species.” [ 43 ] Melissa Waddell, Editor of Living Non-GMO, explained, “Most GMO crops are engineered for herbicide resistance, so fields can be sprayed liberally with weedkillers that eliminate everything but the cash crop. Weeds are a huge problem for farmers — they compete with cash crops for nutrients, water and light. But diverse plant life also protects the soil from erosion and nutrient loss. It supports the pollinators and other beneficial insects that do so much of our agricultural labor. While ‘welcoming the weeds’ isn’t a practical solution, neither is wiping out plant life with toxic chemicals. Between herbicide tolerance and built-in pesticides, GMOs are a double-decker biodiversity-wrecker.” [ 60 ] Read More

1.Should GMOs be grown and used in foods? Why or why not?

2. Should food labels include whether GMO plants have been included in the products? Why or why not?

3. What other ways can world hunger be alleviated if not via GMOs? Explain your answers.

1. Consider Megan L. Norris’ answer to the question “ Will GMOs Hurt My Body? ”

2. Discover “ Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes ” according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

3. Explore Farm Aid’s argument to change the GMO status quo .

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Pro and Con: GMOs

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be grown, go to ProCon.org .

Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. The earliest form of selective breeding were simple and have persisted: farmers save and plant only the seeds of plants that produced the most tasty or largest (or otherwise preferable) results. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered and developed the basics of DNA by crossbreeding peas. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

To create a GMO plant, scientists follow these basic steps over several years:

1. Identify the desired trait and find an animal or plant with that trait. For example, scientists were looking to make corn more insect-resistant. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt), that naturally produces an insecticide commonly used in organic agriculture.

2. Copy the specific gene for the desired trait.

3. Insert the specific gene into the DNA of the plant scientists want to change. In the above example, the insecticide gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was inserted into corn.

4. Grow the new plant and perform tests for safety and the desired trait.

According to the  Genetic Literacy Project , “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops, allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GMO.

In the United States, the health and environmental safety standards for GM crops are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Between 1985 and Sep. 2013, the USDA approved over 17,000 different GM crops for field trials, including varieties of corn, soybean, potato, tomato, wheat, canola, and rice, with various genetic modifications such as herbicide tolerance; insect, fungal, and drought resistance; and flavor or nutrition enhancement.

In 1994, the “FLAVR SAVR” tomato became the first genetically modified food to be approved for public consumption by the FDA. The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life.

Recently, the term “bioengineered” food has come into popularity, under the argument that almost all food has been “genetically modified” via selective breeding or other basic growing methods. Bioengineered food refers specifically to food that has undergone modification using rDNA technology, but does not include food genetically modified by basic cross-breeding or selective breeding. As of Jan. 10, 2022, the  USDA  listed 12 bioengineered products available in the US: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet.

The  National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard  established mandatory national standards for labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. The Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 and compliance became mandatory on Jan. 1, 2022.

49% of US adults believe that eating GMO foods are “worse” for one’s health, 44% say they are “neither better nor worse,” and 5% believe they are “better,” according to a 2018 Pew Research Center report.

• Genetically modified (GM) crops have been proven safe through testing and use, and can even increase the safety of common foods.
• GMO crops lower the price of food and increase nutritional content, helping to alleviate world hunger.
• Growing GMO crops leads to environmental benefits such as reduced pesticide use, less water waste, and lower carbon emissions.
• Genetically modified (GM) crops have not been proven safe for human consumption through human clinical trials.
• Tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants may result in changes to the food supply that introduce toxins or trigger allergic reactions.
• Certain GM crops harm the environment through the increased use of toxic herbicides and pesticides.

This article was published on January 10, 2022, at Britannica’s ProCon.org , a nonpartisan issue-information source.

Pros and cons of GMOs: An evidence-based comparison of genetically modified foods

• GMO foods are designed to be healthier and cheaper to produce.
• Advantages of GMO foods include added nutrients, fewer pesticides, and cheaper prices.
• Disadvantages of GMO foods can be allergic reactions or increased antibiotic resistance.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms that have had their genes altered in some way — also called "bioengineering." 

GMOs can be animals or bacteria, but most often they are crops like corn or potatoes that have been tweaked in a lab to increase the amount or quality of food they produce. 

There are many advantages of GMO crops, but some groups have raised concerns that GMOs may have negative health effects. Here's what you need to know about the pros and cons of GMO foods and whether you should avoid them.

What are GMOs?

Humans have been altering the genetics of plants for thousands of years through the slow process of cross-breeding between crops. Today, scientists can take a shortcut to modify plants by editing their DNA in a lab setting.

Chances are, you've eaten GMO foods without even realizing it – in 2018, around 92% of corn and 94% of soybeans grown in the US came from genetically modified seeds.

The process of creating a GMO plant is complex, but it follows these basic steps :

1. Researchers identify the genes in a plant that cause specific traits, such as resistance to insects.

2. They then make copies of these insect resistance genes in a lab.

3. Scientists next insert the gene copies into the DNA of another plant's cells.

4. These modified cells are then used to grow new, insect-resistant plants that will go through various reviews and tests before they are sold to farmers.

Pros of GMOs

"GMOs are designed to be extra — extra healthy, extra fast-growing, and extra resistant to weather or pests," says Megan L. Norris, PhD , a biomedical researcher at the UT Southwestern Medical Center.

Because scientists can select the most ideal traits to include in GMO crops, there are many advantages of modified foods, including:

GMOs may have fewer pesticides 

Many GMO crops have been altered to be less vulnerable to insects and other pests. For example, Bt-corn is a GMO crop that has a gene added from Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil bacteria. 

This gene causes the corn to produce a protein that kills many pests and insects, helping to protect the corn from damage. "Instead of having to be sprayed with a complex pesticide, these crops come with an innate 'pesticide'," Norris says.

This means that farmers don't need to use as much pesticide on crops like Bt-corn – a 2020 study found that farmers with GMO crops reduced their pesticide use by 775.4 million kilograms (8.3%) between 1996 and 2018. 

GMOs are usually cheaper 

GMO crops are bred to grow efficiently – this means that farmers can produce the same amount of food using less land, less water, and fewer pesticides than conventional crops.

Because they can save on resources, food producers can also charge lower prices for GMO foods. In some cases, the costs of foods like corn, beets, and soybeans may be cut by 15% to 30% .

GMOs may have more nutrients 

Certain GMO crops are designed to provide more nutrients like vitamins or minerals. For example, researchers have been able to create a modified form of African corn that contains: 

• 2 times as much folate when compared to traditional crops
• 6 times as much vitamin C when compared to traditional crops
• 169 times more beta-carotene than traditional crops

Cons of GMOs

GMO crops can offer many advantages in costs and nutrition, but some experts worry that they carry health risks, as well.

GMOs may cause allergic reactions

Because GMO foods contain DNA from other organisms, it's possible that the new DNA can trigger allergies in people who wouldn't normally be allergic to the food. 

In one instance, a GMO soybean crop created using DNA from a Brazil nut was unsafe for people with nut allergies and couldn't be released to the public.

However, GMO foods go through extensive allergen testing, so they shouldn't necessarily be riskier than conventional crops.

GMOs may increase antibiotic resistance

When GMO scientists insert new DNA into plant cells, they will often add in an additional gene that makes the modified cells resistant to antibiotics . They can then use an antibiotic to kill off any plant cells that didn't successfully take in the new DNA.

However, researchers are finding that these antibiotic-resistant genes don't always go away once you digest GMO foods, but can actually be passed through your feces into sewage systems. Some experts worry that these genes may be absorbed into harmful bacteria found in sewers or your gut that can cause serious illnesses like staph infections . This means that the usual antibiotic treatments would be powerless against these new super-bacteria.

Not all experts agree on this concern, however – some scientists argue that this type of gene transfer is very unlikely and there is little risk to humans.

Insider's takeaway

GMO crops have many advantages for your health, such as greater nutritional value and fewer pesticides. They may also be cheaper for farmers to grow, allowing for lower food prices.

Though there are possible risks, major agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency tightly regulate GMO foods and ensure that they are safe for people to eat. "I consume GMO products and feed them to my family without hesitation," Norris says.

• Main content

• How We Eat and Drink Now

Are GMOs Safe? Breaking Down the Science of Science-ified Foods

T hirty years after tomatoes became the first genetically modified produce sold in the U.S., lots of people remain skeptical of science-ified foods. In a 2020 Pew Research Center survey , just 27% of Americans said they felt genetically modified foods are safe to eat, while 38% said they’re unsafe and 33% weren’t sure.

That’s not only a U.S. phenomenon. In the Philippines, for example, activists have been protesting the production of Golden Rice , a type of genetically modified rice harvested at scale for the first time last year . Unlike regular rice, Golden Rice is engineered to contain beta carotene, an addition meant to counter vitamin A deficiency and resulting vision loss. But opponents argue the rice has not been through adequate testing and that there are safer and healthier ways for people to consume vitamin A. “Golden Rice is simply not the solution to the wide, gaping wound of hunger and poverty,” a representative from MASIPAG, a Philippines-based, farmer-led group that opposes Golden Rice, told TIME in a statement.

Golden Rice is only the latest example in a long history of anti-genetically modified organism (GMO) sentiment. Over the years, protesters have torn up fields where genetically modified crops were planted and marched in the streets to criticize companies that produce GMOs. Much of the public’s concern seems to stem from fears that gene editing could introduce new toxicity into old foods; make foods more allergenic; or lead to disease-causing genetic mutations in the humans who eat these altered plants or animals. Since-debunked animal research from the 1990s also caused some people to believe that eating genetically modified food leads to organ damage.

Even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture , and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency —which work together to regulate GMOs and make sure they meet food-safety standards—say they are safe, many people remain wary of these science-enhanced foods. “Technophobia is a very common problem,” says Trey Malone, an agricultural economist at the University of Arkansas. “It’s this rosy retrospection that assumes that things used to be better back when. That leads to this belief system that creates pushback against gene-edited and GMO foods.”

What many people don’t realize, Malone says, is that humans have tinkered with their food for a very long time. Even thousands of years ago, farmers would save the best seeds from their harvests and use them to optimize future yields, sometimes breeding them with other plants to create even more desirable crops in years to come. Modern corn wouldn’t exist without this kind of selective breeding; nor would bananas, apples, and broccoli as we know them today. Many of the produce varieties currently available in grocery stores, like pluots and broccolini, are also a result of cross-breeding two species to create a new one.

More From TIME

Genetic modification is a related but more scientifically advanced process that involves making targeted tweaks to a plant or animal’s DNA to change or create specific traits. This process can be used to alter a food’s flavor, nutritional content, appearance, or defenses against pests like crop-killing insects, and has given rise to foods including Fresh Del Monte’s pink pineapples and non-browning Arctic apples . But while these flashy products grab lots of headlines, the truth is they make up only a fraction of the GMOs sold in the U.S. 

Want to learn more about how we eat and drink now? Get guidance from experts:

• 9 Food Trends to Ditch in 2024
• How to Reduce Food Waste and Save Money
• How to Be a Healthier Drinker
• The Food Trends to Get Excited About in 2024
• How Food Can Improve Your Mood

Fred Gould, a professor of agriculture at North Carolina State University who chaired a 2016 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on genetically engineered crops, often leads educational sessions on GMOs. He likes to show a photograph of a supermarket produce section and ask how many of the vegetables in the picture are genetically modified. He gets lots of guesses as high as 90%—but the right answer is zero.

There are a handful of genetically modified fruits and veggies on the market, including summer squash, papayas, and the aforementioned pineapples and apples. And within the past decade, the FDA has approved genetically modified salmon (which grows faster than regular fish) and pork free of a specific allergen. But in the U.S., GMOs are much more likely to show up in processed foods like cooking oils, soy products, sweeteners, and snack foods. Almost all of the soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola planted in the U.S. are genetically modified, mainly for resistance against insects or pesticides. These crops are then used to make many of the packaged foods most Americans eat every day .

By eating these foods, the average American has for decades been part of a “natural experiment,” Gould says. People in the U.S. and Canada have been eating GMOs for decades, whereas they’re consumed less frequently overseas. If GMOs were linked to serious health problems, researchers would expect to see them reflected in comparisons of the health of North Americans relative to Europeans. But “when we look at the data,” Gould says, “we don’t see any signs.” Indeed, researchers have found no evidence of GMO-related increases in cancer, obesity, kidney disease, gastrointestinal issues, autism, or food allergies in the U.S. and Canada versus Europe. Research in animals has also shown no evidence that consuming GMOs causes genetic mutations, organ damage, or fertility problems.

“We’re very careful about saying there are no effects. We haven’t found any effects,” Gould says. There’s always a chance new risks could come to light with time, he says, but he feels that’s unlikely based on what the science has shown so far. 

Malone agrees that, based on the available research, there’s no clear reason to fear genetically modified foods and plenty of reasons to embrace them. Gene-editing can not only make foods more nutritious, but also streamline their production processes to improve sustainability, he says. Planting genetically modified crops, research suggests , may increase yields and allow farmers to produce more food on less land, while simultaneously cutting down on chemical pesticide use. Meanwhile, fast-growing genetically modified salmon theoretically requires fewer resources to raise compared to conventional fish.

As Malone sees it, innovations like these are the strongest reason for people to embrace GMOs, particularly as it becomes clear that the status quo isn’t serving the planet or its people. “Production systems across the planet are realizing that we are going to have to confront climate change. We are going to have to adapt,” Malone says. “Agriculture can be part of the solution.” 

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Joe Biden Leads
• TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2024
• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Sealed Trump’s Fate : Column
• Are Walking Pads Worth It?
• 15 LGBTQ+ Books to Read for Pride
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Jamie Ducharme at [email protected]

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Pros and cons of gmo crop farming.

• Rene Van Acker , Rene Van Acker University of Guelph
• M. Motior Rahman M. Motior Rahman University of Guelph
•  and  S. Zahra H. Cici S. Zahra H. Cici University of Guelph
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.217
• Published online: 26 October 2017

The global area sown to genetically modified (GM) varieties of leading commercial crops (soybean, maize, canola, and cotton) has expanded over 100-fold over two decades. Thirty countries are producing GM crops and just five countries (United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India) account for almost 90% of the GM production. Only four crops account for 99% of worldwide GM crop area. Almost 100% of GM crops on the market are genetically engineered with herbicide tolerance (HT), and insect resistance (IR) traits. Approximately 70% of cultivated GM crops are HT, and GM HT crops have been credited with facilitating no-tillage and conservation tillage practices that conserve soil moisture and control soil erosion, and that also support carbon sequestration and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Crop production and productivity increased significantly during the era of the adoption of GM crops; some of this increase can be attributed to GM technology and the yield protection traits that it has made possible even if the GM traits implemented to-date are not yield traits per se . GM crops have also been credited with helping to improve farm incomes and reduce pesticide use. Practical concerns around GM crops include the rise of insect pests and weeds that are resistant to pesticides. Other concerns around GM crops include broad seed variety access for farmers and rising seed costs as well as increased dependency on multinational seed companies. Citizens in many countries and especially in European countries are opposed to GM crops and have voiced concerns about possible impacts on human and environmental health. Nonetheless, proponents of GM crops argue that they are needed to enhance worldwide food production. The novelty of the technology and its potential to bring almost any trait into crops mean that there needs to remain dedicated diligence on the part of regulators to ensure that no GM crops are deregulated that may in fact pose risks to human health or the environment. The same will be true for the next wave of new breeding technologies, which include gene editing technologies.

• genetically modified
• herbicide tolerance
• insect resistance

Introduction

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) result from recombinant DNA technology that allows for DNA to be transferred from one organism to another (transgenesis) without the genetic transfer limits of species to species barriers and with successful expression of transferred genes in the receiving organism (Gray, 2001 ). Four crops, maize, canola, soybean, and cotton, constitute the vast majority of GM crop production (James, 2015a ), and GM crops have been grown commercially since 1995 (Bagavathiannan, Julier, Barre, Gulden, & Van Acker, 2010 ). The acceptance of GM crops by farmers has been rapid, with the global GM production area growing from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications [ISAAA], 2015 ) to 182 million hectares in 2014 (James, 2014 ). Just 10 countries represent almost 98% of the GM hectares worldwide. The top GM producing countries are the United States (73.1 million ha), Brazil (42.2 million ha), Argentina (24.3 million ha), Canada (11.6 million ha), and India (11.6 million ha) (James, 2014 ). GM soybean is the most popular GM crop and almost 50% of global soybean acres are now GM soybean (James, 2015b ). For corn and cotton the global proportion of GM is 30% and 14%, respectively (James, 2015b ). GM canola occupies only 5% of the global canola hectares (James, 2015b ). GM crops are grown on only 3.7% of the world’s total agricultural land, by less than one percent of the world’s farmers. Almost 100% of GM crops on the market are either herbicide tolerant (HT) or insect resistant or have both of these two traits (Dill, CaJacob, & Padgette, 2008 ).

The production of GM crops is not equal across the world and in some jurisdictions there is little or no production. Countries in the European Union (EU) are a notable example in this regard. The near complete moratorium on the production of GM crops in the EU is based on common public view and political decisions rather than GM food safety assessment (Fischer, Ekener-Petersen, Rydhmer, & Edvardsson Björnberg, 2015 ). This is also true for Switzerland, where, for example, since 2005 GM foods and crops have been banned because of strong negative views on the part of both Swiss farmers and citizens (Mann, 2015 ). Five EU countries (Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania) accounted for 116,870 hectares of Bt maize cultivation in 2015 , down 18% from the 143,016 hectares in 2014 . The leading EU producer is Spain, with 107,749 hectares of Bt maize in 2015 , down 18% from the 131,538 hectares in 2014 (James, 2015a ). Russia is the world's largest GM-free zone (James, 2015a ). Despite the claimed benefits over risks, and the wide adoption of biotech-improved crop varieties in many parts of the world, Europe and Africa still remain largely GM-free in terms of production (Paarlberg, 2008 ). This may be due in part to the relative absence of reliable public scientific studies on the long-term risks of GM crops and foods and the seed monopoly that is linked to GM technology development (Paarlberg, 2008 ). In Asia, four countries, including Turkey, have banned GM crops. The GM concerns in Europe have also slowed down the approval of GM crops in many developing countries because of impacts on agricultural exports (Inghelbrecht, Dessein, & Huylenbroeck, 2014 ). Many African governments have been slow to approve, or have sometimes even banned GM crops, in order not to lose export markets and to maintain positive relations with the EU, especially given implications for development aid (Wafula, Waithaka, Komen, & Karembu, 2012 ). In addition, a few African nations have banned GM cultivation over fears of losing European markets (ISAAA, 2015 ). Public concerns over GM crops and foods have also had an impact on production of GM crops in North America. The withdrawal of the GM Bt potato (NewLeaf™) varieties from the North American market due to the concerns of two of the largest buyers of processing potatoes (Frito-Lay and McDonalds) was the result of feared consumer rejection (Kynda & Moeltner, 2006 ).

The extensive adaptation of GM crops does, however, also have some drawbacks. The occurrence of outcrossing with non-GM crops, gene flow, and the adventitious presence of GM crops on organic farms has sparked concerns among various stakeholders, including farmers who are growing GM crops (Ellstrand, 2003 ; Marvier & Van Acker, 2005 ). Public concern over GM crops is centered in three areas: human health, environmental safety, and trade impacts (Van Acker, Cici, Michael, Ryan, & Sachs, 2015 ). GM biosafety is also forcing both agriculture and food companies to appreciate GM safety in their marketing decisions (Blaine & Powell, 2001 ; Rotolo et al., 2015 ). The adoption of GM crops in a given jurisdiction is a function of public GM acceptance as well as the level of public trust of regulatory authorities (Vigani & Olper, 2013 ). Examples of these include feeding the world, consumer choice, and seed ownership (Van Acker & Cici, 2014 ). Opponents of GM crops have questioned their necessity in terms of agricultural productivity to feed the world (Gilbert, 2013 ). They point to studies that have shown that current agricultural output far exceeds global calorie needs and that distribution, access, and waste are the key limitations to feeding those who are hungry and not gross production per se (Altieri, 2005 ).

The novelty of GM technology has been both an asset and a challenge for those companies producing GM seeds. Supporters of GM crops have asserted that GM is merely an evolution of conventional breeding approaches (Herdt, 2006 ). They have insisted that humans have been genetically modifying crops for millennia and that GM technology has been an extension and facilitation of natural breeding. At the same time, however, GM crops are patentable, emphasizing that the process is truly novel and different from the natural breeding (Boucher, 1999 ). In addition, expert technical assessments acknowledge the unique and novel nature of GM crops (Taylor, 2007 ). This situation highlights the conundrum and challenge of not only introducing disruptive new technologies into society but having such technologies accepted by society (Van Acker et al., 2015 ). The socioeconomic nature of most risks along with the continuing farm income crisis in North America has led some to argue for the adoption of a more comprehensive approach to risk assessment of GM crops and all new agricultural technologies (Mauro et al., 2009 ).

The Green Revolution was driven by global hunger, and some argue that the next agricultural production revolution, which is perhaps being sparked by the introduction of GM crops, would be driven by other global needs including sustainability and the needs of individuals (Lipton & Longhurst, 2011 ). The green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s depended on the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation methods to initiate favorable conditions in which high-yielding modern varieties could thrive. Between 1970 and 1990 , fertilizer use in developing countries rose by 360% while pesticide use increased by 7 to 8% annually. The environmental impacts, of the adoption of these technologies did in some cases override their benefits. These impacts included polluted land, water, and air, and the development of resistant strains of pests. GM crops could be used to sustain or grow production levels while diminishing environmental impacts yet despite the rapid adoption of GM crops many of the problems associated with the green revolution remain (Macnaghten & Carro-Ripalda, 2015 ). The pros and cons of GM crops are many and diverse but there is little argument over the ambiguous consequences of this comparatively new technology, and numerous critics noted the potential pros and cons of GM crops as soon as they were launched in the early 1990s (Mannion, 1995a , 1995b , 1995c ).

Pros of GMO Crop Farming

The world population has exceeded 7 billion people and is forecasted to reach beyond 11 billion by 2100 (United Nations, 2017 ). The provision of an adequate food supply for this booming population is an ongoing and tremendous challenge. The companies that develop GM seeds point to this challenge as the key rationale for their need, and they explain that GM seeds will help to meet the “feeding the world” challenge in a number of ways.

Productivity of GM Crops

GM seed companies promised to raise productivity and profitability levels for farmers around the world (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1999 ). GM seed companies had expected GM crops to be adopted by farmers because the traits they were incorporating provided direct operational benefits for farmers that could be linked to increased profits for farmers (Hatfield et al., 2014 ). The proponents of GM crops have argued that the application of GM technology would fundamentally improve the efficiency, resiliency, and profitability of farming (Apel, 2010 ). In addition GM seed companies argue that the adoption of GM crops helps to reduce the application of pesticides, which has a direct impact on the sustainability of the cropping systems (Lal, 2004 ) as well as profitability for farmers (Morse, Mannion, & Evans, 2011 ). Some have even suggested that the production of GM crops creates a halo effect for nearby non-GM crops by reducing pest pressures within regions that are primarily sown to GM crops (Mannion & Morse, 2013 ).

There is an expectation widely held by those in agriculture that GM seeds increase yields, or at least protect yield potential. GM crops with resistance to insects and herbicides can substantially simplify crop management and reduce crop losses, leading to increased yields (Pray, Jikun Huang, Hu, & Rozelle, 2002 ; Pray, Nagarajan, Huang, Hu, & Ramaswami, 2011 ; Nickson, 2005 ). GM varieties of soybean, cotton, and maize produced 20%, 15%, and 7% higher yield, respectively, than non-GM varieties (Mannion & Morse, 2013 ). The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) noticed a significant relationship between increased crop yields and increased adoption of herbicide- and pesticide-tolerant GM crop seeds, and the USDA reported significantly increased yields when farmers adopted herbicide-tolerant cotton and Bt cotton (USDA, 2009 ). India cultivated a record 11.6 million hectares of Bt cotton planted by 7.7 million small farmers in 2014 , with an adoption rate of 95%, up from 11.0 million hectares in 2013 . The increase from 50,000 hectares in 2002 to 11.6 million hectares in 2014 represents an unprecedented 230-fold increase in 13 years (James, 2014 ). This rapid adoption has been attributed to the increased yields farmers in this region experienced because of the efficacy of the GM seeds on cotton bollworm and the additional income farmers received as a result (James, 2014 ; Morse & Mannion, 2009 ). Similarly, the benefits that were obtained by resource-poor cotton farmers in South Africa have led many smallholders in South Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa to accept GM cotton (Hillocks, 2009 ). Similar benefits were also obtained by resource-poor farmers growing Bt maize in the Philippines (James, 2010 ).

Tillage Systems

The adoption of no tillage and minimum tillage practices in agriculture started in the 1980s. In fact, the largest extension of both no tillage and conservation tillage and the concomitant declines in soil erosion significantly predates the release of the first HT varieties of maize and soybean in 1996 (National Research Council [NRC], 2010 ). However, farmers in the United States who adopted HT crops were more likely to practice conservation tillage and vice versa (NRC, 2010 ). There was an increase in HT crops and conservation tillage in the United States during the period of rapid GM crop adoption from 1997–2002 (Fernandez-Cornejo, Hallahan, Nehring, Wechsler, & Grube, 2012 ). Soybeans genetically engineered with HT traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GM crop in the United States, followed by HT cotton. Adoption of HT soybeans increased from 17% of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68% in 2001 and 93% in 2010 . Plantings of HT cotton expanded from about 10% of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56% in 2001 and 78% in 2010 (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2012 ). Some argue that the adoption of GM HT varieties resulted in farmers’ deciding to use conservation tillage, or farmers who were practicing conservation tillage may have adopted GM HT crops more readily (Mauro & McLachlan, 2008 ). Adoption of HT soybean has a positive and highly significant impact on the adoption of conservation tillage in the United States (Carpenter, 2010 ). Technologies that promote conservation tillage practices decrease soil erosion in the long term and fundamentally promote soil conservation (Montogomery, 2007 ), while reducing nutrient and carbon loss (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014 ; Giller, Witter, Corbeels, & Pablo, 2009 ; Mannion & Morse, 2013 ; Powlson et al., 2014 ). Adopting HT soybean has decreased the number of tillage operations between 25% and 58% in the United States and in Argentina (Carpenter, 2010 ). The introduction of HT soybean has been cited as an important factor in the rapid increase of no tillage practices in Argentina, and the adoption of no tillage practices in this region has allowed for wheat to be double cropped with soybean which has led to a fundamental increase in farm productivity (Trigo, Cap, Malach, & Villareal, 2009 ). Substantial growth in no tillage production linked to the adoption of GM HT crops has also been noted in Canada. Several authors have reported a positive correlation between the adoption of GM HT canola and the adoption of zero-tillage systems in western Canada (Phillips, 2003 ; Beckie et al., 2006 ; Kleter et al., 2007 ). The no tillage canola production area in western Canada increased from 0.8 million hectares to 2.6 million hectares from 1996 to 2005 . This area covers about half the total canola area in Canada (Qaim & Traxler, 2005 ). In addition, tillage passes among farmers growing HT canola in Canada dropped by more than 70% in this same period (Smyth, Gusta, Belcher, Phillips, & Castle, 2011 ). Fields planted with HT crops in this region require less tillage between crops to manage weeds (Fawcett & Towery, 2003 ; Nickson, 2005 ).

Reductions in tillage and pesticide application have great benefits because they minimize inputs of fossil fuels in farming systems and in doing so, they reduce the carbon footprint of crop production (Baker, Ochsner, Venterea, & Griffis, 2007 ). The mitigation of soil erosion is important with respect to environmental conservation and the conservation of productivity potential. The adoption of no tillage practices would also save on the use of diesel fuel, and it enriches carbon sequestration in soils (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014 ). Brookes and Barfoot ( 2008 ) suggested that the fuel reduction because of GM crop cultivation resulted in a carbon dioxide emissions savings of 1215 × 10 6 Kg. This corresponds to taking more than 500,000 cars off the road. In addition, a further 13.5 × 10 9 Kg of carbon dioxide could be saved through carbon sequestration, which is equivalent to taking 6 million cars off the road. The impact of GM crops on the carbon flows in agriculture may be considered as a positive impact of GM crops on the environment (Knox et al., 2006 ).

Herbicide Tolerance and Pest Management

Herbicide tolerance in GM crops is achieved by the introduction of novel genes. The control of weeds by physical means or by using selective herbicides is time-consuming and expensive (Roller & Harlander, 1998 ). The most widely adopted HT crops are glyphosate tolerant (Dill, CaJabob, & Padgette, 2008 ) colloquially (and commercially for Monsanto) known as “Roundup Ready” crops. Herbicide tolerant GM crops have provided farmers with operational benefits. The main benefits associated with HT canola, for example, were easier and better weed control (Mauro & McLachlan, 2008 ). The development of GM HT canola varieties has also been linked to incremental gains in weed control and canola yield (Harker, Blackshaw, Kirkland, Derksen, & Wall, 2000 ). Despite all of the weed management options available in traditional canola, significant incentives remained for the development of HT canola. The most apparent incentives were special weed problems such as false cleavers ( Galium aparine ) and stork’s bill ( Erodium cicutarium ), and the lack of low-cost herbicide treatments for perennials such as quackgrass ( Agropyron repens ) and Canada thistle ( Cirsium arvense ). Mixtures of herbicides can control many of the common annual and perennial weeds in western Canada but they are expensive and not necessarily reliable (Blackshaw & Harker, 1992 ). In addition, some tank-mixtures led to significant canola injury and yield loss (Harker, Blackshaw, & Kirkland, 1995 ). Thus, canola producers welcomed the prospect of applying a single nonselective herbicide for all weed problems with little concern for specific weed spectrums, growth stages, tank mixture interactions (i.e., antagonism or crop injury) and/or extensive consultations. Two major GM HT canola options are widely used in western Canada. Canola tolerant to glufosinate was the first transgenic crop to be registered in Canada (Oelck et al., 1995 ). Canola tolerant to glyphosate (Roundup Ready) followed shortly thereafter. The GM HT canola offers the possibility of improved weed management in canola via a broader spectrum of weed control and/or greater efficacy on specific weeds (Harker et al., 2000 ). The greatest gains in yield attributed to the adoption of GM HT crops has been for soybean in the United States and Argentina and for GM HT canola in Canada (Brookes & Barfoot, 2008 ).

The reduction of pesticide applications is a major direct benefit of GM crop cultivation: reducing farmers’ exposure to chemicals (Hossain et al., 2004 ; Huang, Hu, Rozelle, & Pray, 2005 ) and lowering pesticide residues in food and feed crops, while also releasing fewer chemicals into the environment and potentially increasing on-farm diversity in insects and pollinators (Nickson, 2005 ). Additionally, improved pest management can reduce the level of mycotoxins in food and feed crops (Wu, 2006 ). Insect resistance in GM crops has been conferred by transferring the gene for toxin creation from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into crops like maize. This toxin is naturally occurring in Bt and is presently used as a traditional insecticide in agriculture, including certified organic agriculture, and is considered safe to use on food and feed crops (Roh, Choi, Li, Jin, & Je, 2007 ). GM crops that produce this toxin have been shown to require little or no additional pesticide application even when pest pressure is high (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013 ). As of the end of the 21st century , insect resistant GM crops were available via three systems (Bt variants). Monsanto and Dow Agrosciences have developed SmartStax maize, which has three pest management attributes, including protection against both above-ground and below-ground insect pests, and herbicide tolerance, which facilitates weed control (Monsanto, 2009 ). SmartStax maize GM varieties were first approved for release in the United States in 2009 and combine traits that were originally intended to be used individually in GM crops (Mannion & Morse, 2013 ). Significant reductions in pesticide use is reported by adoption of Bt maize in Canada, South Africa, and Spain, as well as Bt cotton, notably in China (Pemsl, Waibel, & Gutierrez, 2005 ), India (Qiam, 2003 ), Australia, and the United States (Mannion & Morse, 2013 ).

Human Health

GM crops may have a positive influence on human health by reducing exposure to insecticides (Brimner, Gallivan, & Stephenson, 2005 ; Knox, Vadakuttu, Gordon, Lardner, & Hicks, 2006 ) and by substantially altering herbicide use patterns toward glyphosate, which is considered to be a relatively benign herbicide in this respect (Munkvold, Hellmich, & Rice, 1999 ). However these claims are mostly based on assumption rather than real experimental data. There is generally a lack of public studies on the potential human health impacts of the consumption of food or feed derived from GM crops (Domingo, 2016 ; Wolt et al., 2010 ) and any public work that has been done to date has garnered skepticism and criticism, including, for example, the work by Seralini et al. ( 2013 ). However, the GM crops that are commercialized pass regulatory approval as being safe for human consumption by august competent authorities including the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the European Food Safety Authority in Europe. Improvement of GM crops that will have a direct influence on health such as decreased allergens (Chu et al., 2008 ), superior levels of protein and carbohydrates (Newell-McGloughlin, 2008 ), greater levels of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals including, multivitamin corn (Naqvi et al., 2009 ; Zhu et al., 2008 ), and maximum zeaxanthin corn (Naqvi et al., 2011 ) hold much promise but have yet to be commercialized. Malnutrition is very common in developing countries where poor people rely heavily on single food sources such as rice for their diet (Gómez-Galera et al., 2010 ). Rice does not contain sufficient quantities of all essential nutrients to prevent malnutrition and GM crops may offer means for supplying more nutritional benefits through single food sources such as rice (White & Broadley, 2009 ). This not only supports people to get the nutrition they require, but also plays a potential role in fighting malnutrition in developing nations (Sakakibara & Saito, 2006 ; Sauter, Poletti, Zhang, & Gruissem, 2006 ). Golden rice is one the most known examples of a bio-fortified GM crop (Potrykus, 2010 ). Vitamin A deficiency renders susceptibility to blindness and affects between 250,000 and 500,000 children annually and is very common in parts of Africa and Asia (Golden Rice Project, 2009 ). A crop like Golden rice could help to overcome the problem of vitamin A deficiency by at least 50% at moderate expense (Stein, Sachdev, & Qaim, 2008 ), yet its adoption has been hampered by activist campaigns (Potrykus, 2012 ).

Environmental Benefits

For currently commercialized GM crops the environmental benefits as previously pointed out are primarily linked to reductions in pesticide use and to reductions in tillage (Christou & Twyman, 2004 ; Wesseler, Scatasta, & El Hadji, 2011 ). Reductions in pesticide use can lead to a greater conservation of beneficial insects and help to protect other non-target species (Aktar, Sengupta, & Chowdhury, 2009 ). Reduced tillage helps to mitigate soil erosion and environmental pollution (Wesseler et al., 2011 ; Brookes & Barfoot, 2008 ) and can lead to indirect environmental benefits including reductions in water pollution via pesticide and fertilizer runoff (Christos & Ilias, 2011 ). It has been claimed that growing Bt maize could help to significantly reduce the use of chemical pesticides and lower the cost of production to some extent (Gewin, 2003 ). The deregulation process for GM crops includes the assessment of potential environmental risks including unintentional effects that could result from the insertion of the new gene (Prakash, Sonika, Ranjana, & Tiwary, 2011 ). Development of GM technology to introduce genes conferring tolerance to abiotic stresses such as drought or inundation, extremes of heat or cold, salinity, aluminum, and heavy metals are likely to enable marginal land to become more productive and may facilitate the remediation of polluted soils (Czako, Feng, He, Liang, & Marton, 2005 ; Uchida et al., 2005 ). The multiplication of GM crop varieties carrying such traits may increase farmers’ capacities to cope with these and other environmental problems (Dunwell & Ford, 2005 ; Sexton & Zilberman, 2011 ). Therefore, GM technology may hold out further hope of increasing the productivity of agricultural land with even less environmental impact (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2004 ).

Some proponents of GM crops have argued that because they increase productivity they facilitate more sustainable farming practices and can lead to “greener” agriculture. Mannion and Morse ( 2013 ), for example, argue that GM crops require less energy investment in farming because the reduced application of insecticide lowers energy input levels, thereby reducing the carbon footprint. It has been suggested by other authors that the adoption of GM crops may have the potential to reduce inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Bennett, Ismael, Morse, & Shankar, 2004 ; Bennett, Phipps, Strange, & Grey, 2004 ). Others note that higher crop yields facilitated by GM crops could offset greenhouse gas emissions at scales similar to those attributed to wind and solar energy (Wise et al., 2009 ). Greenhouse gas emissions from intensive agriculture are also offset by the conservation of non-farmed lands. While untilled forest soils and savannas, for example, act as carbon stores, farmed land is often a carbon source (Burney, Davis, & Lobell, 2010 ).

The Economy

GM crops are sold into a market and are subject to the market in terms of providing a realized value proposition for farmers and value through the food chain in terms of reduced costs of production (Lucht, 2015 ). Currently the GM crops on the market are targeted to farmers and have a value proposition based on economic benefits to farmers via operational benefits (Mauro, McLachlan, & Van Acker, 2009 ). Due to higher yield and lower production cost of GM crops, farmers will get more economic return and produce more food at affordable prices, which can potentially provide benefits to consumers including the poor (Lucht, 2015 ; Lemaux, 2009 ). The most significant economic benefits attributed to GM crop cultivation have been higher gross margins due to lower costs of pest management for farmers (Klümper & Qaim, 2014 ; Qaim, 2010 ). GM varieties have provided a financial benefit for many farmers (Andreasen, 2014 ). In some regions, GM crops have led to reduced labor costs for farmers (Bennett et al., 2005 ). Whether GM crops have helped to better feed the poor and alleviate global poverty is not yet proven (Yuan et al., 2011 ).

Cons of GMO Crop Farming

The intensive cultivation of GM crops has raised a wide range of concerns with respect to food safety, environmental effects, and socioeconomic issues. The major cons are explored for cross-pollination, pest resistance, human health, the environment, the economy, and productivity.

Cross-Pollination

The out crossing of GM crops to non-GM crops or related wild type species and the adventitious mixing of GM and non-GM crops has led to a variety of issues. Because of the asynchrony of the deregulation of GM crops around the world, the unintended presence of GM crops in food and feed trade channels can cause serious trade and economic issues. One example is “LibertyLink” rice, a GM variety of rice developed by Bayer Crop Science, traces of which were found in commercial food streams even before it was deregulated for production in the United States. The economic impact on U.S. rice farmers and millers when rice exports from the United States were halted amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars (Bloomberg News, 2011 ). A more recent example is Agrisure Viptera corn, which was approved for cultivation in the United States in 2009 but had not yet been deregulated in China. Exports of U.S. corn to China contained levels of Viptera corn, and China closed its borders to U.S. corn imports for a period. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) had encouraged Syngenta to stop selling Viptera because of losses U.S. farmers were facing, and there is an ongoing class-action lawsuit in the United States against Syngenta (U.S. District Court, 2017 ). Concerns over the safety of GM food have played a role in decisions by Chinese officials to move away from GM production. Cross-pollination can result in difficulty in maintaining the GM-free status of organic crops and threaten markets for organic farmers (Ellstrand, Prentice, & Hancock, 1999 ; Van Acker, McLean, & Martin, 2007 ). The EU has adopted a GM and non-GM crop coexistence directive that has allowed nation-states to enact coexistence legislation that aims to mitigate economic issues related to adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops (Van Acker et al., 2007 ).

GM crops have also been criticized for promoting the development of pesticide-resistant pests (Dale, Clarke, & Fontes, 2002 ). The development of resistant pests is most due to the overuse of a limited range of pesticides and overreliance on one pesticide. This would be especially true for glyphosate because prior to the development of Roundup Ready crops glyphosate use was very limited and since the advent of Roundup Ready crops there has been an explosion of glyphosate-resistant weed species (Owen, 2009 ). The development of resistant pests via cross-pollination to wild types (weeds) is often cited as a major issue (Friedrich & Kassam, 2012 ) but it is much less of a concern because it is very unlikely (Owen et al., 2011 ; Ellstrand, 2003 ). There are, however, issues when genes transfer from GM to non-GM crops creating unexpected herbicide resistant volunteer crops, which can create challenges and costs for farmers (Van Acker, Brule-Babel, & Friesen, 2004 ; Owen, 2008 ; Mallory-Smith & Zapiola, 2008 ).

Some critics of GM crops express concerns about how certain GM traits may provide substantive advantages to wild type species if the traits are successfully transferred to these wild types. This is not the case for GM HT traits, which would offer no advantage in non-cropped areas where the herbicides are not used, but could be an issue for traits such as drought tolerance (Buiatti, Christou, & Pastore, 2013 ). This situation would be detrimental because the GM crops would grow faster and reproduce more often, allowing them to become invasive (FAO, 2015 ). This has sometime been referred to as genetic pollution (Reichman et al., 2006 ). There are also some concerns that insects may develop resistance to the pesticides after ingesting GM pollen (Christou, Capell, Kohli, Gatehouse, & Gatehouse, 2006 ). The potential impact of genetic pollution of this type is unclear but could have dramatic effects on the ecosystem (Stewart et al., 2003 ).

Pest Resistance

Repeated use of a single pesticide over time leads to the development of resistance in populations of the target species. The extensive use of a limited number of pesticides facilitated by GM crops does accelerate the evolution of resistant pest populations (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013 ). Resistance evolution is a function of selection pressure from use of the pesticide and as such it is not directly a function of GM HT crops for example, but GM HT crops have accelerated the development of glyphosate resistant weeds because they have promoted a tremendous increase in the use of glyphosate (Owen, 2009 ). Farmers have had to adjust to this new problem and in some cases this had added costs for farmers (Mauro, McLachlan, & Van Acker, 2009 ; Mannion & Morse, 2013 ). The management of GM HT volunteers has also produced challenges for some farmers. These are not resistant weeds as they are not wild type species, but for farmers they are herbicide-resistant weeds in an operational sense (Knispel, McLachlan, & Van Acker, 2008 ; Liu et al., 2015 ). Pink bollworm has become resistant to the first generation GM Bt cotton in India (Bagla, 2010 ). Similar pest resistance was also later identified in Australia, China, Spain, and the United States (Tabashnik et al., 2013 ). In 2012 , army worms were found resistant to Dupont-Dow’s Bt corn in Florida (Kaskey, 2012 ), and the European corn borer is also capable of developing resistance to Bt maize (Christou et al., 2006 ).

Although the deregulation of GM crops includes extensive assessments of possible human health impacts by competent authorities there are still many who hold concerns about the potential risks to human health of GM crops. For some this is related to whether transgenesis itself causes unintended consequences (Domingo, 2016 ), while for others it is concerns around the traits that are possible using GM (Herman, 2003 ). Some criticize the use of antibiotic resistance as markers in the transgenesis procedure and that this can facilitate antibiotic resistance development in pathogens that are a threat to human health (Key, Ma, & Drake, 2008 ). Many critics of GM crops express concerns about allergenicity (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005 ). Genetic modification often adds or mixes proteins that were not native to the original plant, which might cause new allergic reactions in the human body (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005 ). Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material unfavorably influences human health, but the probability of this occurring is remote. Other concerns include the possibility of GM crops somehow inducing mutations in human genes (Ezeonu, Tagbo, Anike, Oje, & Onwurah, 2012 ) or other unintended consequences (Yanagisawa, 2004 ; Lemaux, 2009 ; Gay & Gillespie, 2005 ; Wesseler, Scatasta, & El Hadji, 2011 ) but commentary by these authors is speculative and is not based on experimentation with current GM crops.

Environment

For currently commercialized GM crops the potential environmental impacts are mostly related to how these crops impact farming systems. Some argue that because crops like Roundup Ready soybean greatly simplify weed management they facilitate simple farming systems including monocultures (Dunwell & Ford, 2005 ). The negative impact of monocultures on the environment is well documented and so this might be considered an indirect environmental effect of GM crops (Nazarko, Van Acker, & Entz, 2005 ; Buiatti, Christou, & Pastore, 2013 ). Other concerns that have been raised regarding GM crops include the effects of transgenic on the natural landscape, significance of gene flow, impact on non-target organisms, progression of pest resistance, and impacts on biodiversity (Prakash et al., 2011 ). Again, many of these concerns may be more a function of the impacts of simple and broad-scale farming practices facilitated by GM crops rather than GM crops per se. However, there has been considerable concern over the environmental impact of Bt GM crops highlighted by studies that showed the potential impact on monarch butterfly populations (Dively et al., 2004 ). This begged questions then about what other broader effects there may be on nontarget organisms both direct and indirect (Daniell, 2002 ). In addition, there may be indirect effects associated with how GM crops facilitate the evolution of pesticide resistant pests in that the follow-on control of these pest populations may require the use of more pesticides and often older chemistries that may be more toxic to the environment in the end (Nazarko et al., 2005 ).

Bringing a GM crop to market can be both expensive and time consuming, and agricultural bio-technology companies can only develop products that will provide a return on their investment (Ramaswami, Pray, & Lalitha, 2012 ). For these companies, patent infringement is a big issue. The price of GM seeds is high and it may not be affordable to small farmers (Ramaswami et al., 2012 ; Qaim, 2009 ). A considerable range of problems has been associated with GM crops, including debt and increased dependence on multinational seed companies, but these can also be combined with other agricultural technologies to some extent (Kloppenburg, 1990 ; Finger et al., 2011 ). The majority of seed sales for the world’s major crops are controlled by a few seed companies. The issues of private industry control and their intellectual property rights over seeds have been considered problematic for many farmers and in particular small farmers and vulnerable farmers (Fischer, Ekener-Petersen, Rydhmer, & Edvardsson Björnberg, 2015 ; Mosher & Hurburgh, 2010 ). In addition, efforts by GM seed companies to protect their patented seeds through court actions have created financial and social challenges for many farmers (Marvier & Van Acker, 2005 ; Semal, 2007 ). There is considerable debate about the extent to which GM crops bring additional value to small and vulnerable farmers with strong opinions on both sides (Park, McFarlane, Phipps, & Ceddia, 2011 ; Brookes & Barfoot, 2010 ; James, 2010 ; Smale et al., 2009 ; Subramanian & Qaim, 2010 ). As the reliance on GM seeds extends, concerns grow about control over the food supply via seed ownership and the impacts on the diversity of seed sources, which can impact the resilience of farming systems across a region (Key et al., 2008 ). The risk of GM crops to the world economy can be significant. Global food production is dominated by a few seed companies, and they have increased the dependence of developing countries on industrialized nations (Van Acker, Cici, Michael, Ryan, & Sachs, 2015 ).

Productivity

Justification for GM crops on the basis of the need to feed the world is often used by proponents of the technology, but the connection between GM crops and feeding the world is not direct. GM crops are used by farmers and are sold primarily on the basis of their direct operational benefits to farmers, including the facilitation of production and/or more production (Mauro et al., 2009 ). Farmers realize these benefits in terms of cost savings or increased production or both and are looking to increase their margins by using the technology. Companies producing GM seeds can be very successful if they are able to capture a greater share of a seed market because they supply farmers with operational benefits such as simplified weed management (Blackshaw & Harker, 1992 ) even if there are no productivity gains. In addition, the traits in GM crops on the market as of the early part of the 21st century are not yield traits per se but are yield potential protection traits that may or may not result in greater productivity.

Conclusions

Genetic modification via recombinant DNA technology is compelling because it does provide a means for bringing truly novel traits into crops and the adoption of GM crops has been rapid in a range of countries around the world. Only a very limited number of traits have been incorporated to date into GM crops, the two primary traits being herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance. Nonetheless, farmers who have adopted GM crops have benefited from the operational benefits they provide, and current GM crops have facilitated the adoption of more sustainable farming practices, in particular, reduced tillage. The ongoing asynchronous approvals of GM crops around the world mean that there will always be issues related to the adventitious presence of GM crops in crop shipments and trade disruptions. Pollen mediated gene flow from crop to crop, and seed admixtures are challenges of GM crop farming and agricultural marketing as a result. The adoption of GM HT crops has also accelerated the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds, which has created additional operational challenges and costs for farmers. The GM crops commercialized to date have all been deregulated and deemed to be safe to the environment and safe in terms of human health by competent authorities around the world, including the European Food Safety Association. There remain, however, critics of the technology who point to a lack of public research on the potential risks of GM and GM crops. GM crops will continue to be developed because they provide real operational benefits for farmers, who are the ones who purchase the seeds. The novelty of the technology and its potential to bring almost any trait into crops mean that there needs to remain dedicated diligence on the part of regulators to ensure that no GM crops are deregulated that may in fact pose risks to human health or the environment, but there will also remain the promise of the value of novel inventions that bring benefits to consumers and the environment. The same will be true for the next wave of new breeding technologies, which include gene editing technologies such as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) (Cong et al., 2013 ). These new technologies have even greater potential for modifying crops than GM technology and they avoid some of the characteristics of GM technology that have underpinned criticisms including, for example, the presence of foreign DNA.

• Aktar, W. M. , Sengupta, D. , & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology , 2 (1), 1–12.
• Altieri, M. A. (2005). The myth of coexistence: Why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society , 25 , 1–11.
• Andreasen, M. (2014). GM food in the public mind—facts are not what they used to be. Nature Biotechnology , 32 , 25.
• Apel, A. (2010). The costly benefits of opposing agricultural biotechnology. New Biotechnology , 27 , 635–640.
• Bagavathiannan, M. V. , Julier, B. , Barre, P. , Gulden, R. H. , & Van Acker, R. C. (2010). Genetic diversity of feral alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) populations occurring in Manitoba, Canada, and comparison with alfalfa cultivars: An analysis using SSR markers and phenotypic traits. Euphytica , 173 , 419–432.
• Bagla, P. (2010). Hardy cotton-munching pests are latest blow to GM crops. Science , 327 , 1439.
• Baker, J. M. , Ochsner, T. E. , Venterea, R. T. , & Griffis, T. J. (2007). Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 118 , 1–5.
• Bawa, A. S. , & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology , 50 (6), 1035–1046.
• Beckie, H. J. , Harker, K. N. , Hall, L. M. , Warwick, S. I. , Légère, A. , Sikkema, P. H. , . . . Simard, M. J. (2006). A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science , 86 , 1243–1264.
• Bennett, R. M. , Ismael, Y. , & Morse, S. (2005). Explaining contradictory evidence regarding impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries: Varietal performance of transgenic cotton in India. Journal of Agricultural Science , 143 , 35–41.
• Bennett, R. , Ismael, Y. , Morse, S. , & Shankar, B. (2004). Reductions in insecticide use from adoption of Bt cotton in South Africa: Impacts on economic performances and toxic load to the environment. Journal of Agricultural Sciences , 142 , 665–674.
• Bennett, R. , Phipps, R. , Strange, A. , & Grey, P. (2004). Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide tolerant sugar beet: A life-cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnology Journal , 2 , 273–278.
• Blackshaw, R. E. , & Harker, K. N. (1992). Combined postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in canola ( Brassica napus ). Weed Technology , 6 , 892–897.
• Blaine, K. , & Powell, D. (2001). Communication of food-related risks. AgBioForum , 4 , 179–185.
• Bloomberg News . (2011). Bayer Settles With Farmers Over Modified Rice Seeds . New York Times .
• Boucher, D. H. (1999). The paradox of plenty: Hunger in bountiful world . Oakland, CA: Food First Books.
• Brimner, T. A. , Gallivan, G. J. , & Stephenson, G. R. (2005). Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management . Pest Management Science , 61 , 47–52.
• Brookes, G. , & Barfoot, P. (2008). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AgBioForum , 11 , 21–38.
• Brookes, G. , & Barfoot, P. (2010). GM crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2008 . Dorchester, U.K.: PG Economics.
• Brookes, G. , & Barfoot, P. (2014). Key global economic and environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2012. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agricultural and the Food Chain , 5 , 149–160.
• Buiatti, M. , Christou, P. , & Pastore, G. (2013). The application of GMOs in agriculture and in food production for a better nutrition: Two different scientific points of view. Genes Nutrition , 8 (3), 255–270.
• Burney, J. A. , Davis, S. J. , & Lobell, D. B. (2010). Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 107 (26), 12052–12057.
• Carpenter, J. E. (2010). Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nature Biotechnology , 28 , 219–221.
• Chikelu, M. B. A. , Elcio, P. G. , & Kakoli, G. (2012). Re-orienting crop improvement for the changing climatic conditions of the 21st century . Agriculture and Food Security , 1 (1), 1–17.
• Christos A. D. , & Ilias, G. E. (2011). Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 8 (5), 1402–1419.
• Christou, P. , Capell, T. , Kohli, A. , Gatehouse, J. A. , & Gatehouse, A. M. R. (2006). Recent developments and future prospects in insect pest control in transgenic crops . Trends Plant Science , 11 , 302–308.
• Christou, P. , & Twyman, R. M. (2004) The potential of genetically enhanced plants to address food insecurity . Nutrition Research Reviews , 17 , 23–42.
• Chu, Y. , Faustinelli, P. , Ramos, M. L. , Hajduch, M. , Stevenson, S. , Thelen, J. J. , et al. (2008). Reduction of IgE binding and nonpromotion of Aspergillus flavus fungal growth by simultaneously silencing Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 in peanut . Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry , 56 , 11225–11233.
• Cong, L. , Ran, F. A. , Cox, D. , Lin, S. , Barretto, R. , Habib, N. , . . . Zhang, F. (2013). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science , 339 , 819–823.
• Czako, M. , Feng, X. , He, Y. , Liang, D. , & Marton, L. (2005). Genetic modification of wetland grasses for phytoremediation. Zeitschrift fu¨r Naturforschung , 60c , 285–291.
• Dale, P. J. , Clarke, B. , & Fontes, E. M. G. (2002). Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnology , 20 (6), 567–574.
• Daniell, H. (2002). Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnology , 20 , 581–586.
• Dill, G. M. , CaJacob, C. A. , & Padgette, S. R. (2008). Glyphosate-resistant crops: Adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Management Science , 64 , 326–331.
• Dively, G. P. , Rose, R. , Sears, M. K. , Hellmich, R. L. , Stanley-Horn, D. E. , Calvin, D. D. , . . . Anderson, P. L. (2004). Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous exposure to Cry1Ab-expressing corn during anthesis. Environmental Entomology , 33 (4), 1116–1125.
• Domingo J. L. (2016). Safety assessment of GM plants: An updated review of the scientific literature. Food and Chemical Toxicology , 95 , 12–18.
• Dunwell, J. M. , & Ford, C. S. (2005). Technologies for biological containment of GM and non-GM crops . Defra Contract CPEC 47. London: DEFRA.
• Ellstrand, N. (2003). Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: Implications for transgenic flow. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science , 358 (1434), 1163–1170.
• Ellstrand, N. C. , Prentice, H. C. , & Hancock, J. F. (1999). Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 30 , 539–563.
• Ezeonu, C. S. , Tagbo, R. , Anike, E. N. , Oje, O. A. , & Onwurah, I. N. E. O. (2012). Biotechnological tools for environmental sustainability: Prospects and challenges for environments in Nigeria—a standard review . Biotechnology Research International , 1 , 1–26.
• Fawcett, R. , & Towery, D. (2003). Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow . West Lafayette, IN: Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), Purdue University.
• Fernandez-Cornejo, J. , Hallahan, C. , Nehring, R. , Wechsler, S. , & Grube, A. (2012). Conservation tillage, herbicide use, and genetically engineered crops in the United States: The case of soybeans. AgBioForum , 15 , 231–241.
• Fernandez-Cornejo, J. , Wechsler, S. J. , Livingston, M. , & Mitchell, L. (2014). Genetically engineered crops in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture—Economic Research Service.
• Finger, R. , El Benni, N. , Kaphengst, T. , Evans, C. , Herbert, S. , Lehmann, B. , . . . Stupak, N. (2011). A meta-analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops. Sustainability , 3 (5), 743–762.
• Fischer, K. , Ekener-Petersen, E. , Rydhmer, L. , & Edvardsson Björnberg, K. (2015). Social impacts of GM crops in agriculture: A systematic literature review . Sustainability , 7 , 8598–8620.
• Food and Agriculture Organization . (2004). Agricultural biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor? The state of food and agriculture 2003–04 . Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
• Food and Agriculture Organization . (2015). FAO statistical pocketbook 2015: World food and agriculture . Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
• Friedrich, T. , & Kassam, A. (2012). No-till farming and the environment: Do no-till systems require more chemicals? Outlooks on Pest Management , 23 (4), 153–157.
• Gay, P. B. , & Gillespie, S. H. (2005). Antibiotic resistance markers in genetically modified plants: A risk to human health? Lancet Infect Disease , 5 (10), 637–646.
• Gewin, V. (2003). Genetically modified corn—environmental benefits and risks . PLoS Biology , 1 (1), e8.
• Gilbert, N. (2013). A hard look at GM crops. Nature , 497 , 24–26.
• Giller, K. E. , Witter, E. , Corbeels, M. , & Pablo, T. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research , 114 , 23–34.
• Golden Rice Project . (2009). Golden Rice is part of the solution ..
• Gómez-Galera, S. , Rojas, E. , Sudhakar, D. , Zhu, C. , Pelacho, A. M. , Capell, T. , & Christou, P. (2010). Critical evaluation of strategies for mineral fortification of staple food crops . Transgenic Research , 19 , 165–180.
• Gray, R. (2001). Introduction. In M. Fulton , H. Furtan , D. Gosnell , R. Gray , J. Hobbs , J. Holzman , et al. (Eds.), Transforming agriculture: The benefits and costs of genetically modified crops . Ottawa, ON: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.
• Gunther, M. (2007, July 2). Attack of the mutant rice . Fortune .
• Harker, K. N. , Blackshaw, R. E. , & Kirkland, K. J. (1995). Ethametsulfuron interactions with grass herbicides on canola ( Brassica napus , B. rapa ). Weed Technology , 9 , 91–98.
• Harker, K. N. , Blackshaw, R. E. , Kirkland, K. J. , Derksen, D. A. , & Wall, D. (2000). Herbicide-tolerant canola: Weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science , 80 (3), 647–654.
• Hatfield, J. , Takle, G. , Grotjahn, R. , Holden, P. , Izaurralde, R. C. , Mader, T. , (2014). Agriculture. In J. M. Melillo , T. C. R. Terese , & G. W. Yohe (Eds.), Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment (pp. 150–174). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Herdt, R. W. (2006). Biotechnology in agriculture. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 31 , 265–295.
• Herman, E. M. (2003). Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies. Journal of Experimental Botany , 54 , 1317–1319.
• Hillocks, R. J. (2009). GM cotton for Africa. Outlook on Agriculture , 38 , 311–316.
• Hossain, F. , Pray, C. E. , Lu, Y. , Huang, J. , Fan, C. , & Hu, R. (2004). Genetically modified cotton and farmers’ health in China. International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health , 10 , 296–303.
• Huang, J. , Hu, R. , Rozelle, S. , & Pray, C. (2005). Insect-resistance GM rice in farmers’ fields: Assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science , 308 , 688–690.
• Inghelbrecht, L. , Dessein, J. , & Huylenbroeck, G. V. (2014). The non-GM crop regime in the EU: How do industries deal with this wicked problem? Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences , 70 , 103–112.
• International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications [ISAAA] . (2015). Annual report executive summary, 20th anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the global commercialization of biotech crops: Highlights in 2015 . ISAAA Brief No. 51. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
• James, C. (2010). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010 . ISAAA Brief No. 42. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
• James, C. (2014). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2013 . ISAAA Brief No. 49. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
• James, C. (2015a). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014 . ISAAA Brief No. 49. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
• James, C. (2015b). 20th Anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the global commercialization of biotech crops: Highlights in 2015 . ISAAA Brief No. 51. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
• Kaskey, J. (2012, November 16). DuPont-Dow corn defeated by armyworms in Florida: Study. Bloomberg News .
• Key, S. , Ma, J. K.-C. , & Drake, P. M. W. (2008). Genetically modified plants and human health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 101 (6), 290–298.
• Kleter, G. A. , Bhula, R. , Bodnaruk, K. , Carazo, E. , Felsot, A. S. , Harris, C. A. , . . . Wong, S.-S. (2007). Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Management Science , 63 (11), 1107–1115.
• Kloppenburg, J. R. (1990). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Klümper, W. , & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops . PLoS ONE , 9 (11), e111629.
• Knispel, A. L. , McLachlan, S. M. , Van Acker, R. C. , & Friesen, L. F. (2008). Gene flow and multiple herbicide resistance in escaped canola populations. Weed Science , 56 , 72–80.
• Knox, O. G. G. , Vadakattu, G. V. S. R. , Gordon, K. , Lardner, R. , & Hicks, M. (2006). Environmental impact of conventional and Bt insecticidal cotton expressing one and two Cry genes in Australia . Australian Journal of Agricultural Research , 57 , 501–509.
• Kynda R. C. , & Moeltner, K. (2006). Genetically modified food market participation and consumer risk perceptions: A cross-country comparison. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics , 54 , 289–310.
• Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science , 304 (5677), 1623–1627.
• Lehrer, S. B. , & Bannon, G. A. (2005). Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: Perception and reality. Allergy , 60 (5), 559–564.
• Lemaux, P. G. (2009). Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part II). Annual Review Plant Biology , 60 , 511–559.
• Lipton, M. , & Longhurst, V. (2011). New seeds and poor people . Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
• Liu, Y. B. , Darmency, H. , Stewart, C. N. , Wei, W., Jr. , Tang, Z. X. , & Ma, K. P. (2015). The effect of Bt-transgene introgression on plant growth and reproduction in wild Brassica juncea. Transgenic Research , 24 , 537–547.
• Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses , 7 (8), 4254–4281.
• Macnaghten, P. , & Carro-Ripalda, S. (2015). Governing agricultural sustainability: Global lessons from GM crops . London: Routledge.
• Mallory-Smith, C. , & Zapiola, M. (2008). Gene flow from glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Management Science , 64 , 428–440.
• Mann, S. (2015). Is “GMO free” an additional “organic”? On the economics of chain segregation. AgBioForum , 18 , 26–33.
• Mannion, A. M. (1995a). Biotechnology and environmental quality. Progress in Physical Geography , 19 , 192–215.
• Mannion, A. M. (1995b). Agriculture and environmental change: Temporal and spatial dimensions . Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
• Mannion, A. M. (1995c). The three Bs: Biodiversity, biotechnology and business. Environmental Conservation , 22 , 201–210.
• Mannion, A. M. , & Morse, S. (2013). GM crops 1996–2012: A review of agronomic, environmental and socio-economic impacts . University of Reading, Geographical Paper No. 195. Retrieved from http://www.reading.ac.uk/geographyandenvironmentalscience/Research/ges-resGeogPapers.aspx
• Marvier, M. , & Van Acker, R. C. (2005). Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Frontier Ecology Environment , 3 , 99–106.
• Mauro, I. J. , & McLachlan, S. M. (2008). Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: Post release evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Analysis , 28 (2), 463–476.
• Mauro, I. J. , McLachlan, S. M. , & Van Acker, R. C. (2009). Farmer knowledge and a priori risk analysis: Pre-release evaluation of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat across the Canadian prairies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 16 , 689–701.
• Monsanto . (2009). SmartStax corn receives Japanese import approval .
• Montgomery, D. R. (2007). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States , 104 , 13268–13272.
• Morse, S. , & Mannion, A. M. (2009). Can genetically-modified cotton contribute to sustainable development in Africa? Progress in Development Studies , 9 , 225–247.
• Morse, S. , Mannion, A. M. , & Evans, C. (2011). Location, location, location: Presenting evidence for genetically modified crops. Applied Geography , 34 (2), 274–280.
• Mosher, G. , & Hurburgh, C. (2010). Transgenic plant risk: Coexistence and economy. Encyclopedia of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food , 1 , 639–642.
• Munkvold, G. P. , Hellmich, R. L. , & Rice, L. G. (1999). Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernels of transgenic Bt corn hybrids and non-transgenic hybrids . Plant Disease , 81 , 556–565.
• Naqvi, S. , Zhu, C. , Farre, G. , Ramessar, K. , Bassie, L. , Breitenbach, J. , . . . Christou, P. (2009). Transgenic multivitamin corn through biofortification of endosperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways . Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, USA , 106 , 7762–7767.
• Naqvi, S. , Zhu, C. , Farre, G. , Sandmann, G. , Capell, T. , & Christou, P. (2011). Synergistic metabolism in hybrid corn indicates bottlenecks in the carotenoid pathway and leads to the accumulation of extraordinary levels of the nutritionally important carotenoid zeaxanthin . Plant Biotechnology Journal , 9 , 384–393.
• National Research Council . (2010). The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Nazarko, O. M. , Van Acker, R. C. , & Entz, M. H. (2005). Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: A review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science , 85 , 457–479.
• Newell-McGloughlin, M. (2008). Nutritionally improved agricultural crops . Plant Physiology , 147 , 939–953.
• Nickson, T. E. (2005). Crop biotechnology—the state of play. In G. M. Poppy & M. J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Gene flow from GM plants (pp. 12–42). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Oelck, M. M. , MacDonald, R. , Belyk, M. , Ripley, V. , Weston, B. , Bennett, C. , et al. (1995, July 4–7). Registration, safety assessment and agronomic performance of transgenic canola cv. “Innovator” in Canada. In D. J. Murphy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Rapeseed Congress (Vol. 4, pp. 1420–1432). Cambridge, U.K.: Organising Committee of the Ninth International Rapeseed Congress.
• Oerke, E. C. (2006). Crop losses to pests, centenary review. Journal of Agricultural Science , 144 , 31–43.
• Owen, M. D. K. (2008). Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Management Science , 64 , 377–387.
• Owen, M. D. K. (2009). Herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops: Resistance management. In N. Ferry & A. M. R. Gatehouse (Eds.), Environmental impact of genetically modified crops (pp. 115–164). Wallingford, U.K.: CABI.
• Owen, M. D. K. , Young, B. G. , Shaw, D. R. , Wilson, R. G. , Jordan, D. L. , Dixon, P. M. , & Weller, S. C. (2011). Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Part 2: Perspectives. Pest Management Science , 67 , 747–757.
• Paarlberg, R. (2008). Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Park, R. J. , McFarlane, I. , Phipps, R. H. , & Ceddia, G. (2011). The role of transgenic crops in sustainable development . Plant Biotechnology Journal , 9 , 2–21.
• Pemsl, D. , Waibel, H. , & Gutierrez, A. P. (2005). Why do some Bt-cotton farmers in China continue to use high levels of pesticide? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 3 , 44–56.
• Phillips, P. W. B. (2003). The economic impact of herbicide tolerant canola in Canada. In N. Kalaitzandonakes (Ed.), The economic and environmental impacts of Agbiotech: A global perspective (pp. 119–140). New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Pimentel, D. , Hunter, M. S. , Lagro, J. A. , Efroymson, R. A. , Landers, J. C. , Mervis, F. T. , et al. (1989). Benefits and risks of genetic engineering in agriculture. BioScience , 39 (9), 606–614.
• Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology, trade, and the developing countries. AgBioForum , 2 , 215–217.
• Potrykus, I. (2010). Lessons from the “Humanitarian Golden Rice” project: Regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. Nature Biotechnology , 27 , 466–472.
• Potrykus, I. (2012). “Golden Rice,” a GMO-product for public good, and the consequences of GE-regulation. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology , 21 , 68–75.
• Powlson, D. S. , Stirling, C. M. , Jat, M. L. , Gerard, B. G. , Palm, C. A. , Sanchez, P. A. , & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change , 4 , 678–683.
• Prakash, D. , Sonika, V. , Ranjana, B. , & Tiwary, B. N. (2011). Risks and precautions of genetically modified organisms . ISRN Ecology, ID 369573.
• Pray, C. E. , Huang, J. , Hu, R. , & Rozelle, S. (2002). Five years of Bt cotton in China—the benefits continue. Plant Journal , 31 (4), 423–430.
• Pray, C. E. , Nagarajan, L. , Huang, J. , Hu, R. , & Ramaswami, B. (2011). Impact of Bt cotton, the potential future benefits from biotechnology in China and India. In C. Carter , G. Moschini , & I. Sheldon (Eds.), Genetically modified food and global welfare (pp. 83–114). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
• Qaim, M. (2003). Bt cotton in India: Field trial results and economic projections. World Development , 31 , 2115–2127.
• Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review Resource Economics , 1 , 665–693.
• Qaim, M. (2010). Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: Household income, nutrition and health. New Biotechnology , 27 , 552–557.
• Qaim, M. , & Traxler, G. (2005). Roundup ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Agricultural Economics , 32 , 73–86.
• Ramaswami, B. , Pray, C. E. , & Lalitha, N. (2012). The spread of illegal transgenic cotton varieties in India: Biosafety regulation, monopoly, and enforcement. World Development , 40 (1), 177–188.
• Reichman, J. R. , Watrud, L. S. , Lee, E. H. , Burdick, C. A. , Bollman, M. A. , Storm, M. J. , . . . Mallory-Smith, C. (2006). Establishment of transgenic herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) in nonagronomic habitats. Molecular Ecology , 15 , 4243–4255.
• Roh, J. Y. , Choi, J. Y. , Li, M. S. , Jin, B. R. , & Je, Y. H. (2007). Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control. Journal of Microbial Biotechnology , 17 (4), 547–559.
• Roller, S. , & Harlander, S. (1998). Genetic modifications in the food industry: A strategy for food quality improvement . London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
• Rotolo, G. C. , Francis, C. , Craviotto, R. M. , Viglia, S. , Pereyra, A. , & Ulgiati, S. (2015). Time to rethink the GMO revolution in agriculture. Ecological Informatics , 26 , 35–49.
• Sakakibara, K. , & Saiko, K. (2006). Review: Genetically modified plants for the promotion of human health. Biotechnology Letters , 28 , 1983–1991.
• Sauter, C. , Poletti, S. , Zhang, P. , & Gruissem, W. (2006). Biofortification of essential natural compounds and trace elements in rice and cassava. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , 65 , 153–159.
• Semal, J. (2007). Patentability of living organisms: From biopatent to bio-big-bang. Chairs Agricultures , 16 , 41–48.
• Seralini, G. E. , Mesnage, R. , Defarge, N. , Gress, S. , Hennequin, D. , Clair, E. , . . . de Vendômois, J. S. (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food Chemistry Toxicology , 53 , 476–483.
• Sexton, S. , & Zilberman, D. (2011). Biotechnology and biofuel. In C. Carter , G. Moschini , & I. Sheldon (Eds.), Genetically modified food and global welfare (pp. 225–242). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
• Smale, M. , Zambrano, P. , Gruère, G. , Falck-Zepeda, J. , Matuschke, I. , Horna, D. , . . . Jones, H. (2009). Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade . Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
• Smyth, S. J. , Gusta, M. , Belcher, K. , Phillips, P. W. B. , & Castle, D. (2011). Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada. Agricultural Systems , 104 , 403–410.
• Stein, A. J. , Sachdev, H. P. S. , & Qaim, M. (2008). Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public health in India. World Development , 36 , 144–158.
• Stewart Jr, C. N. , Halfhill, M. D. , & Warwick, S. I. (2003). Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Nature Reviews Genetics , 4 , 806.
• Subramanian, A. , & Qaim, M. (2010). The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India . Journal of Development Studies , 46 , 295–311..
• Tabashnik, B. E. , Brevault, T. , & Carriere, Y. (2013). Insect resistance in Bt crops: Lessons from the first billion acres. Nature Biotechnology , 31 , 510–521.
• Taylor I. E. P. (2007). Genetically engineered crops: Interim policies, uncertain legislation . New York: Haworth.
• Trigo, E. , Cap, E. , Malach, V. , & Villareal, F. (2009). The case of zero-tillage technology in Argentina . Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
• Uchida, E. , Ouchi, T. , Suzuki, Y. , Yoshida, T. , Habe, H. , Yamaguchi, I. , … Nojiri, H. (2005). Secretion of bacterial xenobiotic degrading enzymes from transgenic plants by an apoplastic expressional system: An applicability for phytoremediation. Environmental Science and Technology , 39 , 7671–7677.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division . (2017). World population prospects: The 2017 revision, key findings and advance tables .
• United States Department of Agriculture . (2009). US Department of Agriculture GAIN report: EU-27 biotechnology: GE plants and animals . Washington, DC, USDA.
• U.S. District Court, Kansas . (2017). Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation , 14-md-2591. Retrieved from http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/syngenta-ag-mir162-corn-litigation/
• Van Acker, R. C. , Brule-Babel, A. L. , & Friesen, L. F. (2004). Intraspecific gene movement can create environmental risk: The example of Roundup Ready® wheat in western Canada. In B. Breckling & R. Verhoeven (Eds.), Risk, hazard, damage—specification of criteria to assess environmental impact of genetically modified organisms (pp. 37–47). Bonn, Germany: Naturschutz und Biolische Viefalt.
• Van Acker, R. C. , & Cici, S. Z. H. (2014). Coexistence in the case of a perennial species complex: The potential challenges of coexistence between GM and non-GM Prunus species. AgBioForum , 17 , 70–74.
• Van Acker, R. C. , Cici, S. Z. H. , Michael, L. , Ryan, C. , & Sachs, E. (2015, November 17–20). Gaining societal acceptance of biotechnology: The case for societal engagement. In Seventh International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and Non-GM Based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC-15) . Amsterdam.
• Van Acker, R. C. , McLean, N. , & Martin, R. C. (2007). Development of quality assurance protocols to prevent GM-contamination of organic crops. In J. Cooper , U. Niggli , & C. Leifert (Eds.), Handbook of organic food safety and quality (pp. 466–489). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
• Verma, S. R. (2013). Genetically modified plants: Public and scientific perceptions . ISRN Biotechnology , 2013 , 820671.
• Vigani, M. , & Olper, A. (2013). GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy , 43 , 32–43.
• Wafula, D. , Waithaka, M. , Komen, J. , & Karembu, M. (2012). Biosafety legislation and biotechnology development gains momentum in Africa . GM Crops Food , 3 (1), 72–77.
• Wesseler, J. , Scatasta, S. , & El Hadji, F. (2011). The environmental benefits and costs of genetically modified (GM) crops. In C. Carter , G. Moschini , & I. Sheldon (Eds.), Genetically modified food and global welfare (pp. 173–199). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
• White, P. J. , & Broadley, M. R. (2009). Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human diets: Iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium, selenium and iodine. New Phytologist , 182 , 49–84.
• Wise, M. , Calvin, K. , Thomson, A. , Clarke, L. , Bond-Lamberty, B. , Sands, R. , … Edmonds, J. (2009). Implications of limiting CO 2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science , 324 , 1183–1186.
• Wolt, J. D. , Keese, P. , Raybould, A. , Fitzpatrick, J. W , Burachik, M. , Gray, A. , … Wu, F. (2010). Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Research , 19 , 425–436.
• Wu, F. (2006). Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: Potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Research , 15 , 277–289.
• Yanagisawa, S. (2004). Improved nitrogen assimilation using transcription factors. Plant Research , 2004 , 1–4.
• You, C. B. , Song, W. , Lin, M. , Hai, W. L. , Li, P. , & Wang, Y. T. (2012). Allergens host plant interaction. In C. B. You , Z. I. Chen , & Y. Ding (Eds.), Biotechnology in agriculture: Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology, Beijing, China, 20–24 August 1992 (pp. 468–473). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Yuan, D. , Bassie, L. , Sabalza, M. , Miralpeix, B. , Dashevskaya, S. , Farre, G. , … Christou, P. (2011). The potential impact of plant biotechnology on the millennium development goals . Plant Cell Reports , 30 , 249–265.
• Zhu, C. , Naqvi, S. , Breitenbach, J. , Sandmann, G. , Christou, P. , & Capell, T. (2008). Combinatorial genetic transformation generates a library of metabolic phenotypes for the carotenoid pathway in corn . Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA , 105 , 18232–18237.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

September 1, 2013

13 min read

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

Proponents of genetically modified crops say the technology is the only way to feed a warming, increasingly populous world. Critics say we tamper with nature at our peril. Who is right?

By David H. Freedman

Robert Goldberg sags into his desk chair and gestures at the air. “Frankenstein monsters, things crawling out of the lab,” he says. “This the most depressing thing I've ever dealt with.”

Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, is not battling psychosis. He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: “Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago.”

Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology,” he says. “Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this contentiousness is a good thing—that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic basis of the world's food supply. To researchers such as Goldberg, however, the persistence of fears about GM foods is nothing short of exasperating. “In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth,” he says, “and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we've gone back to being ignorant.”

So who is right: advocates of GM or critics? When we look carefully at the evidence for both sides and weigh the risks and benefits, we find a surprisingly clear path out of this dilemma.

Benefits and worries

The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Take it from David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist and one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics. He argues that the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh the health risks, which so far remain theoretical. The use of GM crops “has lowered the price of food,” Zilberman says. “It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”

In the future, Zilberman says, those advantages will become all the more significant. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. Climate change will make much of the world's arable land more difficult to farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides.

Credit: Jen Christiansen

Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods. Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, but only two GM crops, Monsanto's MON810 maize and BASF's Amflora potato, are accepted in the European Union. Ten E.U. nations have banned MON810, and although BASF withdrew Amflora from the market in 2012, four E.U. nations have taken the trouble to ban that, too. Approval of a few new GM corn strains has been proposed there, but so far it has been repeatedly and soundly voted down. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve most GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide. In Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GM foods in spite of their lower costs (the result of higher yields and a reduced need for water and pesticides). Kenya has banned them altogether amid widespread malnutrition. No country has definite plans to grow Golden Rice, a crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A), even though vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world.

Globally, only a tenth of the world's cropland includes GM plants. Four countries—the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina—grow 90 percent of the planet's GM crops. Other Latin American countries are pushing away from the plants. And even in the U.S., voices decrying genetically modified foods are becoming louder. In 2016 the U.S. federal government passed a law requiring labeling of GM ingredients in food products, replacing GM-labeling laws in force or proposed in several dozen states.

The fear fueling all this activity has a long history. The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them. Consumers in Europe became particularly alarmed: a survey conducted in 1997, for example, found that 69 percent of the Austrian public saw serious risks in GM foods, compared with only 14 percent of Americans.

In Europe, skepticism about GM foods has long been bundled with other concerns, such as a resentment of American agribusiness. Whatever it is based on, however, the European attitude reverberates across the world, influencing policy in countries where GM crops could have tremendous benefits. “In Africa, they don't care what us savages in America are doing,” Zilberman says. “They look to Europe and see countries there rejecting GM, so they don't use it.” Forces fighting genetic modification in Europe have rallied support for “the precautionary principle,” which holds that given the kind of catastrophe that would emerge from loosing a toxic, invasive GM crop on the world, GM efforts should be shut down until the technology is proved absolutely safe.

But as medical researchers know, nothing can really be “proved safe.” One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it—as is the case with GM crops.

A clean record

The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using “mutagenic” techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems.

The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it,” Goldberg says. “We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't.”

And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. “When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance,” says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. “Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders,” McHughen says.

Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says.

In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli –infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011.

Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.

Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. “Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment,” he says. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences have all unreservedly backed GM crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view.

Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. For example, a 1998 study by plant biochemist Árpád Pusztai, then at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats fed a GM potato suffered from stunted growth and immune system–related changes. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct.

Similar stories abound. Most recently, a team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a researcher at the University of Caen Lower Normandy in France, found that rats eating a common type of GM corn contracted cancer at an alarmingly high rate. But Séralini has long been an anti-GM campaigner, and critics charged that in his study, he relied on a strain of rat that too easily develops tumors, did not use enough rats, did not include proper control groups and failed to report many details of the experiment, including how the analysis was performed. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. “If GM corn were that toxic, someone would have noticed by now,” McHughen says. “Séralini has been refuted by everyone who has cared to comment.”

Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. “This has nothing to do with science,” Goldberg says. “It's about ideology.” Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He has gone as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd “explicitly an antiscience movement.”

Persistent doubts

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of “insertional mutagenesis,” Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes.

True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. “You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well,” Williams says. “But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?”

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. And even Séralini, the scientist behind the study that found high cancer rates for GM-fed rats, has his defenders. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed. He says that as someone who runs drug-safety studies, he is well versed on what constitutes a good-quality animal toxicology study and that Séralini's makes the grade. He insists that the breed of rat in the study is commonly used in respected drug studies, typically in numbers no greater than in Séralini's study; that the methodology was standard; and that the details of the data analysis are irrelevant because the results were so striking.

Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field. Says Williams: “Whether it's conscious or not, it's in their interest to promote this field, and they're not objective.”

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. “If it doesn't come out the right way,” he says, “you're going to get trashed.”

There is evidence to support that charge. In 2009 Nature detailed the backlash to a reasonably solid study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers from Loyola University Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn. Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct.

A way forward

There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing. “We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether,” he says.

Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. “Ninety percent of the scientists I talk to assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA,” he says. “They absolutely aren't, and they absolutely should be.”

Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. “Even under the current testing standards for GM crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn't have made it to market,” McHughen says. “What's going to happen if we become even more strict?”

That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages.

David H. Freedman is a journalist who has been covering science, business and technology for more than 30 years.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Personal Health

Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?

By Jane E. Brody

• April 23, 2018

It’s human nature, it seems, to resist change and fear the unknown. So it is no surprise that genetic engineering of food and feed crops resulted in their resounding condemnation as “Frankenfoods” by many consumers, who seem as terrified of eating an apple with an added anti-browning gene or a pink pineapple genetically enriched with the antioxidant lycopene as I am of self-driving cars.

Trek down the grocery aisles of any large market and you’ll find many products prominently labeled “No G.M.O.s. ” It’s much harder to spot the small print on many other foods stating “Partially produced with genetic engineering,” a result of a 2016 federal law that mandated uniform labeling of all food products containing genetically engineered ingredients.

The labeling requirement arose in response to public pressure and a confusing array of state rules. But while I endorse the public’s right to know and honest labeling of all products, in an important way it is very misleading. Farmers and agricultural scientists have been genetically engineering the foods we eat for centuries through breeding programs that result in large and largely uncontrolled exchanges of genetic material. What many consumers may not realize: For many decades, in addition to traditional crossbreeding, agricultural scientists have used radiation and chemicals to induce gene mutations in edible crops in attempts to achieve desired characteristics.

Modern genetic engineering differs in two ways: Only one or a few new genes with a known function are introduced into a crop, and sometimes the new genes come from an unrelated species. Thus, a gene meant to instill frost tolerance into, say, spinach, might come from a fish that lives in icy waters.

In the decades since the first genetically modified foods reached the market, no adverse health effects among consumers have been found. This is not to say there are none, but as hard as opponents of the technology have looked, none have yet been definitely identified.

Although about 90 percent of scientists believe G.M.O.s are safe — a view endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization — only slightly more than a third of consumers share this belief.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Food Sci Technol
• v.50(6); 2013 Dec

Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review

Defence Food Research Laboratory, Siddarthanagar, Mysore, 570011 India

K. R. Anilakumar

Genetic modification is a special set of gene technology that alters the genetic machinery of such living organisms as animals, plants or microorganisms. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology and the resulting organism is said to be ‘Genetically modified (GM)’, ‘Genetically engineered’ or ‘Transgenic’. The principal transgenic crops grown commercially in field are herbicide and insecticide resistant soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Other crops grown commercially and/or field-tested are sweet potato resistant to a virus that could destroy most of the African harvest, rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries and a variety of plants that are able to survive weather extremes. There are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. Technologies for genetically modifying foods offer dramatic promise for meeting some areas of greatest challenge for the 21st century. Like all new technologies, they also pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies and public concern surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labelling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction and environmental conservation. With this new technology on gene manipulation what are the risks of “tampering with Mother Nature”?, what effects will this have on the environment?, what are the health concerns that consumers should be aware of? and is recombinant technology really beneficial? This review will also address some major concerns about the safety, environmental and ecological risks and health hazards involved with GM foods and recombinant technology.

Introduction

Scientists first discovered in 1946 that DNA can be transferred between organisms (Clive 2011 ). It is now known that there are several mechanisms for DNA transfer and that these occur in nature on a large scale, for example, it is a major mechanism for antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria. The first genetically modified (GM) plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in the early 1990s with the introduction of virus resistant tobacco. In 1994, the transgenic ‘Flavour Saver tomato’ was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing in the USA. The modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking. In 1995, few transgenic crops received marketing approval. This include canola with modified oil composition (Calgene), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn/maize (Ciba-Geigy), cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil (Calgene), Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes (Monsanto), soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto), virus-resistant squash (Asgrow) and additional delayed ripening tomatoes (DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto) (Clive 2011 ). A total of 35 approvals had been granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and one flower crop of carnations with 8 different traits in 6 countries plus the EU till 1996 (Clive 1996 ). As of 2011, the USA leads a list of multiple countries in the production of GM crops. Currently, there are a number of food species in which a genetically modified version exists (Johnson 2008 ). Some of the foods that are available in the market include cotton, soybean, canola, potatoes, eggplant, strawberries, corn, tomatoes, lettuce, cantaloupe, carrots etc. GM products which are currently in the pipeline include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds and fibres. Locating genes for important traits, such as those conferring insect resistance or desired nutrients-is one of the most limiting steps in the process.

Foods derived from GM crops

At present there are several GM crops used as food sources. As of now there are no GM animals approved for use as food, but a GM salmon has been proposed for FDA approval. In instances, the product is directly consumed as food, but in most of the cases, crops that have been genetically modified are sold as commodities, which are further processed into food ingredients.

Fruits and vegetables

Papaya has been developed by genetic engineering which is ring spot virus resistant and thus enhancing the productivity. This was very much in need as in the early 1990s the Hawaii’s papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ring spot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state’s papaya industry would have collapsed. Today 80 % of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and till now no conventional or organic method is available to control ring spot virus.

The NewLeaf™ potato, a GM food developed using naturally-occurring bacteria found in the soil known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle. This was brought to market by Monsanto in the late 1990s, developed for the fast food market. This was forced to withdraw from the market in 2001as the fast food retailers did not pick it up and thereby the food processors ran into export problems. Reports say that currently no transgenic potatoes are marketed for the purpose of human consumption. However, BASF, one of the leading suppliers of plant biotechnology solutions for agriculture requested for the approval for cultivation and marketing as a food and feed for its ‘Fortuna potato’. This GM potato was made resistant to late blight by adding two resistance genes, blb1 and blb2, which was originated from the Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum . As of 2005, about 13 % of the zucchini grown in the USA is genetically modified to resist three viruses; the zucchini is also grown in Canada (Johnson 2008 ).

Vegetable oil

It is reported that there is no or a significantly small amount of protein or DNA remaining in vegetable oil extracted from the original GM crops in USA. Vegetable oil is sold to consumers as cooking oil, margarine and shortening, and is used in prepared foods. Vegetable oil is made of triglycerides extracted from plants or seeds and then refined, and may be further processed via hydrogenation to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining process removes nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients (Crevel et al. 2000 ). Cooking oil, margarine and shortening may also be made from several crops. A large percentage of Canola produced in USA is GM and is mainly used to produce vegetable oil. Canola oil is the third most widely consumed vegetable oil in the world. The genetic modifications are made for providing resistance to herbicides viz. glyphosate or glufosinate and also for improving the oil composition. After removing oil from canola seed, which is ∼43 %, the meal has been used as high quality animal feed. Canola oil is a key ingredient in many foods and is sold directly to consumers as margarine or cooking oil. The oil has many non-food uses, which includes making lipsticks.

Maize, also called corn in the USA and cornmeal, which is ground and dried maize constitute a staple food in many regions of the world. Grown since 1997 in the USA and Canada, 86 % of the USA maize crop was genetically modified in 2010 (Hamer and Scuse 2010 ) and 32 % of the worldwide maize crop was GM in 2011 (Clive 2011 ). A good amount of the total maize harvested go for livestock feed including the distillers grains. The remaining has been used for ethanol and high fructose corn syrup production, export, and also used for other sweeteners, cornstarch, alcohol, human food or drink. Corn oil is sold directly as cooking oil and to make shortening and margarine, in addition to make vitamin carriers, as a source of lecithin, as an ingredient in prepared foods like mayonnaise, sauces and soups, and also to fry potato chips and French fries. Cottonseed oil is used as a salad and cooking oil, both domestically and industrially. Nearly 93 % of the cotton crop in USA is GM.

The USA imports 10 % of its sugar from other countries, while the remaining 90 % is extracted from domestically grown sugar beet and sugarcane. Out of the domestically grown sugar crops, half of the extracted sugar is derived from sugar beet, and the other half is from sugarcane. After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the USA. In USA 95 % of sugar beet acres were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed (Clive 2011 ). Sugar beets that are herbicide-tolerant have been approved in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore and USA. The food products of sugar beets are refined sugar and molasses. Pulp remaining from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugar beets is highly refined and contains no DNA or protein—it is just sucrose, the same as sugar produced from non-GM sugar beets (Joana et al. 2010 ).

Quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. These tests are based on screening genetic elements like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar or event specific markers for the official GMOs like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73. The array based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for different potential GMO combining different approaches viz. screening elements, plant-specific markers, and event-specific markers. The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening elements or event specific markers. Controls are necessary to avoid false positive or false negative results. For example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in the event of a virus contaminated sample.

Joana et al. ( 2010 ) reported the extraction and detection of DNA along with a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean. The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps. This excluded the intermediate steps of refining viz. neutralization, washing and bleaching possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify GMOs in the fully refined soybean oil.

Figure  1 gives the overall protocol for the testing of GMOs. This is based on a PCR detection system specific for 35S promoter region originating from cauliflower mosaic virus (Deisingh and Badrie 2005 ). The 35S-PCR technique permits detection of GMO contents of foods and raw materials in the range of 0.01–0.1 %. The development of quantitative detection systems such as quantitative competitive PCR (QC-PCR), real-time PCR and ELISA systems resulted in the advantage of survival of DNA in most manufacturing processes. Otherwise with ELISA, there can be protein denaturing during food processing. Inter-laboratory differences were found to be less with the QC-PCR than with quantitative PCR probably due to insufficient homogenisation of the sample. However, there are disadvantages, the major one being the amount of DNA, which could be amplified, is affected by food processing techniques and can vary up to 5-fold. Thus, results need to be normalised by using plant-specific QC-PCR system. Further, DNA, which cannot be amplified, will affect all quantitative PCR detection systems.

Protocol for the testing of genetically modified foods

In a recent work La Mura et al. ( 2011 ) applied QUIZ (quantization using informative zeros) to estimate the contents of RoundUp Ready™ soya and MON810 in processed food containing one or both GMs. They reported that the quantification of GM in samples can be performed without the need for certified reference materials using QUIZ. Results showed good agreement between derived values and known input of GM material and compare favourably with quantitative real-time PCR. Detection of Roundup Ready soybean by loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral-flow dipstick has been reported recently (Xiumin et al. 2012 ).

GM foods-merits and demerits

Before we think of having GM foods it is very important to know about is advantages and disadvantages especially with respect to its safety. These foods are made by inserting genes of other species into their DNA. Though this kind of genetic modification is used both in plants and animals, it is found more commonly in the former than in the latter. Experts are working on developing foods that have the ability to alleviate certain disorders and diseases. Though researchers and the manufacturers make sure that there are various advantages of consuming these foods, a fair bit of the population is entirely against them.

GM foods are useful in controlling the occurrence of certain diseases. By modifying the DNA system of these foods, the properties causing allergies are eliminated successfully. These foods grow faster than the foods that are grown traditionally. Probably because of this, the increased productivity provides the population with more food. Moreover these foods are a boon in places which experience frequent droughts, or where the soil is incompetent for agriculture. At times, genetically engineered food crops can be grown at places with unfavourable climatic conditions too. A normal crop can grow only in specific season or under some favourable climatic conditions. Though the seeds for such foods are quite expensive, their cost of production is reported to be less than that of the traditional crops due to the natural resistance towards pests and insects. This reduces the necessity of exposing GM crops to harmful pesticides and insecticides, making these foods free from chemicals and environment friendly as well. Genetically engineered foods are reported to be high in nutrients and contain more minerals and vitamins than those found in traditionally grown foods. Other than this, these foods are known to taste better. Another reason for people opting for genetically engineered foods is that they have an increased shelf life and hence there is less fear of foods getting spoiled quickly.

The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. Besides, as these foods are new inventions, not much is known about their long term effects on human beings. As the health effects are unknown, many people prefer to stay away from these foods. Manufacturers do not mention on the label that foods are developed by genetic manipulation because they think that this would affect their business, which is not a good practice. Many religious and cultural communities are against such foods because they see it as an unnatural way of producing foods. Many people are also not comfortable with the idea of transferring animal genes into plants and vice versa. Also, this cross-pollination method can cause damage to other organisms that thrive in the environment. Experts are also of the opinion that with the increase of such foods, developing countries would start depending more on industrial countries because it is likely that the food production would be controlled by them in the time to come.

Safety tests on commercial GM crops

The GM tomatoes were produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an ‘antisense’ GM method (IRDC 1998 ). The results show that there were no significant alterations in total protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids (Redenbaugh et al. 1992 ). Therefore, the GM and parent tomatoes were deemed to be “substantially equivalent”. In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed with homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were reported to be absent. A study with a GM tomato expressing B. thuringiensis toxin CRYIA (b) was underlined by the immunocytochemical demonstration of in vitro binding of Bt toxin to the caecum/colon from humans and rhesus monkeys (Noteborn et al. 1995 ).

Two lines of Chardon LL herbicide-resistant GM maize expressing the gene of phosphinothricin acetyltransferase before and after ensiling showed significant differences in fat and carbohydrate contents compared with non-GM maize and were therefore substantially different come. Toxicity tests were only performed with the maize even though with this the unpredictable effects of the gene transfer or the vector or gene insertion could not be demonstrated or excluded. The design of these experiments was also flawed because of poor digestibility and reduction in feed conversion efficiency of GM corn. One broiler chicken feeding study with rations containing transgenic Event 176 derived Bt corn (Novartis) has been published (Brake and Vlachos 1998 ). However, the results of this trial are more relevant to commercial than academic scientific studies.

GM soybeans

To make soybeans herbicide resistant, the gene of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium was used. Safety tests claim the GM variety to be “substantially equivalent” to conventional soybeans (Padgette et al. 1996 ). The same was claimed for GTS (glyphosate-resistant soybeans) sprayed with this herbicide (Taylor et al. 1999 ). However, several significant differences between the GM and control lines were recorded (Padgette et al. 1996 ) and the study showed statistically significant changes in the contents of genistein (isoflavone) with significant importance for health (Lappe et al. 1999 ) and increased content in trypsin inhibitor.

Studies have been conducted on the feeding value (Hammond et al. 1996 ) and possible toxicity (Harrison et al. 1996 ) for rats, broiler chickens, catfish and dairy cows of two GM lines of glyphosate-resistant soybean (GTS). The growth, feed conversion efficiency, catfish fillet composition, broiler breast muscle and fat pad weights and milk production, rumen fermentation and digestibilities in cows were found to be similar for GTS and non-GTS. These studies had the following lacunae: (a) No individual feed intakes, body or organ weights were given and histology studies were qualitative microscopy on the pancreas, (b) The feeding value of the two GTS lines was not substantially equivalent either because the rats/catfish grew significantly better on one of the GTS lines than on the other, (c) The design of study with broiler chicken was not much convincing, (d) Milk production and performance of lactating cows also showed significant differences between cows fed GM and non-GM feeds and (e) Testing of the safety of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, which renders soybeans glyphosate-resistant (Harrison et al. 1996 ), was irrelevant because in the gavage studies an E. coli recombinant and not the GTS product were used. In a separate study (Teshima et al. 2000 ), it was claimed that rats and mice which were fed 30 % toasted GTS or non-GTS in their diet had no significant differences in nutritional performance, organ weights, histopathology and production of IgE and IgG antibodies.

GM potatoes

There were no improvements in the protein content or amino acid profile of GM potatoes (Hashimoto et al. 1999a ). In a short feeding study to establish the safety of GM potatoes expressing the soybean glycinin gene, rats were daily force-fed with 2 g of GM or control potatoes/kg body weight (Hashimoto et al 1999b ). No differences in growth, feed intake, blood cell count and composition and organ weights between the groups were found. In this study, the intake of potato by animals was reported to be too low (Pusztai 2001 ).

Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells (Fares and El-Sayed 1998 ). The results showed CryI toxin which was stable in the mouse gut. Growing rats pair-fed on iso -proteinic and iso -caloric balanced diets containing raw or boiled non-GM potatoes and GM potatoes with the snowdrop ( Galanthus nivalis ) bulb lectin (GNA) gene (Ewen and Pusztai 1999 ) showed significant increase in the mucosal thickness of the stomach and the crypt length of the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes. Most of these effects were due to the insertion of the construct used for the transformation or the genetic transformation itself and not to GNA which had been pre-selected as a non-mitotic lectin unable to induce hyperplastic intestinal growth (Pusztai et al. 1990 ) and epithelial T lymphocyte infiltration.

The kind that expresses soybean glycinin gene (40–50 mg glycinin/g protein) was developed (Momma et al. 1999 ) and was claimed to contain 20 % more protein. However, the increased protein content was found probably due to a decrease in moisture rather than true increase in protein.

Several lines of GM cotton plants have been developed using a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki providing increased protection against major lepidopteran pests. The lines were claimed to be “substantially equivalent” to parent lines (Berberich et al. 1996 ) in levels of macronutrients and gossypol. Cyclopropenoid fatty acids and aflatoxin levels were less than those in conventional seeds. However, because of the use of inappropriate statistics it was questionable whether the GM and non-GM lines were equivalent, particularly as environmental stresses could have unpredictable effects on anti-nutrient/toxin levels (Novak and Haslberger 2000 ).

The nutritional value of diets containing GM peas expressing bean alpha-amylase inhibitor when fed to rats for 10 days at two different doses viz. 30 % and 65 % was shown to be similar to that of parent-line peas (Pusztai et al. 1999 ). At the same time in order to establish its safety for humans a more rigorous specific risk assessment will have to be carried out with several GM lines. Nutritional/toxicological testing on laboratory animals should follow the clinical, double-blind, placebo-type tests with human volunteers.

Allergenicity studies

When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2S proteins (Nordlee et al. 1996 ) or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes (Noteborn et al. 1995 ). It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens (Burks and Fuchs 1995 ). Farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin (Bernstein et al. 1999 ). It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000 ).

The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors such as size and stability of the transgenically expressed protein (O’Neil et al. 1998 ) is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing (Metcalf et al. 1996 ) instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins may be misleading because, for example, Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000 ). However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy (Nakamura and Matsuda 1996 ).

It is known that the main concerns about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity and allergenicity. There are two issues from an allergic standpoint. These are the transfer of a known allergen that may occur from a crop into a non-allergenic target crop and the creation of a neo-allergen where de novo sensitisation occurs in the population. Patients allergic to Brazil nuts and not to soy bean then showed an IgE mediated response towards GM soy bean. Lack ( 2002 ) argued that it is possible to prevent such occurrences by doing IgE-binding studies and taking into account physico-chemical characteristics of proteins and referring to known allergen databases. The second possible scenario of de novo sensitisation does not easily lend itself to risk assessment. He reports that evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se is lacking very much compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry.

Risks and controversy

There are controversies around GM food on several levels, including whether food produced with it is safe, whether it should be labelled and if so how, whether agricultural biotechnology and it is needed to address world hunger now or in the future, and more specifically with respect to intellectual property and market dynamics, environmental effects of GM crops and GM crops’ role in industrial agricultural more generally.

Many problems, viz. the risks of “tampering with Mother Nature”, the health concerns that consumers should be aware of and the benefits of recombinant technology, also arise with pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants. The evolution of resistant pests and weeds termed superbugs and super weeds is another problem. Resistance can evolve whenever selective pressure is strong enough. If these cultivars are planted on a commercial scale, there will be strong selective pressure in that habitat, which could cause the evolution of resistant insects in a few years and nullify the effects of the transgenic. Likewise, if spraying of herbicides becomes more regular due to new cultivars, surrounding weeds could develop a resistance to the herbicide tolerant by the crop. This would cause an increase in herbicide dose or change in herbicide, as well as an increase in the amount and types of herbicides on crop plants. Ironically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research (Steinbrecher 1996 ).

Another issue is the uncertainty in whether the pest-resistant characteristic of these crops can escape to their weedy relatives causing resistant and increased weeds (Louda 1999 ). It is also possible that if insect-resistant plants cause increased death in one particular pest, it may decrease competition and invite minor pests to become a major problem. In addition, it could cause the pest population to shift to another plant population that was once unthreatened. These effects can branch out much further. A study of Bt crops showed that “beneficial insects, so named because they prey on crop pests, were also exposed to harmful quantities of Bt.” It was stated that it is possible for the effects to reach further up the food web to effect plants and animals consumed by humans (Brian 1999 ). Also, from a toxicological standpoint, further investigation is required to determine if residues from herbicide or pest resistant plants could harm key groups of organisms found in surrounding soil, such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and other microorganisms (Allison and Palma 1997 ).

The potential risks accompanied by disease resistant plants deal mostly with viral resistance. It is possible that viral resistance can lead to the formation of new viruses and therefore new diseases. It has been reported that naturally occurring viruses can recombine with viral fragments that are introduced to create transgenic plants, forming new viruses. Additionally, there can be many variations of this newly formed virus (Steinbrecher 1996 ).

Health risks associated with GM foods are concerned with toxins, allergens, or genetic hazards. The mechanisms of food hazards fall into three main categories (Conner and Jacobs 1999 ). They are inserted genes and their expression products, secondary and pleiotropic effects of gene expression and the insertional mutagenesis resulting from gene integration. With regards to the first category, it is not the transferred gene itself that would pose a health risk. It should be the expression of the gene and the affects of the gene product that are considered. New proteins can be synthesized that can produce unpredictable allergenic effects. For example, bean plants that were genetically modified to increase cysteine and methionine content were discarded after the discovery that the expressed protein of the transgene was highly allergenic (Butler and Reichhardt 1999 ). Due attention should be taken for foods engineered with genes from foods that commonly cause allergies, such as milk, eggs, nuts, wheat, legumes, fish, molluscs and crustacean (Maryanski 1997 ). However, since the products of the transgenic are usually previously identified, the amount and effects of the product can be assessed before public consumption. Also, any potential risk, immunological, allergenic, toxic or genetically hazardous, could be recognized and evaluated if health concerns arise. The available allergen data bases with details are shown in Table  1 .

Allergen databases (Kleter and Peijnenburg 2002 )

More concern comes with secondary and pleiotropic effects. For example, many transgenes encode an enzyme that alters biochemical pathways. This could cause an increase or decrease in certain biochemicals. Also, the presence of a new enzyme could cause depletion in the enzymatic substrate and subsequent build up of the enzymatic product. In addition, newly expressed enzymes may cause metabolites to diverge from one secondary metabolic pathway to another (Conner and Jacobs 1999 ). These changes in metabolism can lead to an increase in toxin concentrations. Assessing toxins is a more difficult task due to limitations of animal models. Animals have high variation between experimental groups and it is challenging to attain relevant doses of transgenic foods in animals that would provide results comparable to humans (Butler and Reichhardt 1999 ). Consequently, biochemical and regulatory pathways in plants are poorly understood.

Insertional mutagenesis can disrupt or change the expression of existing genes in a host plant. Random insertion can cause inactivation of endogenous genes, producing mutant plants. Moreover, fusion proteins can be made from plant DNA and inserted DNA. Many of these genes create nonsense products or are eliminated in crop selection due to incorrect appearance. However, of most concern is the activation or up regulation of silent or low expressed genes. This is due to the fact that it is possible to activate “genes that encode enzymes in biochemical pathways toward the production of toxic secondary compounds” (Conner and Jacobs 1999 ). This becomes a greater issue when the new protein or toxic compound is expressed in the edible portion of the plant, so that the food is no longer substantially equal to its traditional counterpart.

There is a great deal of unknowns when it comes to the risks of GM foods. One critic declared “foreign proteins that have never been in the human food chain will soon be consumed in large amounts”. It took us many years to realize that DDT might have oestrogenic activities and affect humans, “but we are now being asked to believe that everything is OK with GM foods because we haven’t seen any dead bodies yet” (Butler and Reichhardt 1999 ). As a result of the growing public concerns over GM foods, national governments have been working to regulate production and trade of GM foods.

Reports say that GM crops are grown over 160 million hectares in 29 countries, and imported by countries (including European ones) that don’t grow them. Nearly 300 million Americans, 1350 million Chinese, 280 million Brazilians and millions elsewhere regularly eat GM foods, directly and indirectly. Though Europeans voice major fears about GM foods, they permit GM maize cultivation. It imports GM soy meal and maize as animal feed. Millions of Europeans visit the US and South America and eat GM food.

Around three million Indians have become US citizens, and millions more go to the US for tourism and business and they will be eating GM foods in the USA. Indian activists claim that GM foods are inherently dangerous and must not be cultivated in India. Activists strongly opposed Bt cotton in India, and published reports claiming that the crop had failed in the field. At the same time farmers soon learned from experience that Bt cotton was very profitable, and 30 million rushed to adopt it. In consequence, India’s cotton production doubled and exports zoomed, even while using much less pesticide. Punjab farmers lease land at Rs 30,000 per acre to grow Bt cotton.

Public concerns-global scenario

In the late 1980s, there was a major controversy associated with GM foods even when the GMOs were not in the market. But the industrial applications of gene technology were developed to the production and marketing status. After words, the European Commission harmonized the national regulations across Europe. Concerns from the community side on GMOs in particular about its authorization have taken place since 1990s and the regulatory frame work on the marketing aspects underwent refining. Issues specifically on the use of GMOs for human consumption were introduced in 1997, in the Regulation on Novel Foods Ingredients (258/97/EC of 27 January 1997). This Regulations deals with rules for authorization and labelling of novel foods including food products made from GMOs, recognizing for the first time the consumer’s right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. The labelling of GM maize varieties and GM soy varieties that did not fall under this Regulation are covered by Regulation (EC 1139/98). Further legislative initiatives concern the traceability and labelling of GMOs and the authorization of GMOs in food and feed.

The initial outcome of the implementation of the first European directive seemed to be a settlement of the conflicts over technologies related to gene applications. By 1996, the second international level controversy over gene technology came up and triggered the arrival of GM soybeans at European harbours (Lassen et al. 2002 ). The GM soy beans by Monsanto to resist the herbicide represented the first large scale marketing of GM foods in Europe. Events such as commercialisation of GM maize and other GM modified commodities focused the public attention on the emerging biosciences, as did other gene technology applications such as animal and human cloning. The public debate on the issues associated with the GM foods resulted in the formation of many non-governmental organizations with explicit interest. At the same time there is a great demand for public participation in the issues about regulation and scientific strategy who expresses acceptance or rejection of GM products through purchase decisions or consumer boycotts (Frewer and Salter 2002 ).

Most research effort has been devoted to assessing people’s attitudes towards GM foods as a technology. Numerous “opinion poll”—type surveys have been conducted on national and cross-national levels (Hamstra 1998 ). Ethical concerns are also important, that a particular technology is in some way “tampering with nature”, or that unintended effects are unpredictable and thus unknown to science (Miles and Frewer 2001 ).

Consumer’s attitude towards GM foods

Consumer acceptance is conditioned by the risk that they perceive from introducing food into their consumption habits processed through technology that they hardly understand. In a study conducted in Spain, the main conclusion was that the introduction of GM food into agro-food markets should be accompanied by adequate policies to guarantee consumer safety. These actions would allow a decrease in consumer-perceived risk by taking special care of the information provided, concretely relating to health. For, the most influential factor in consumer-perceived risk from these foods is concern about health (Martinez-Poveda et al. 2009 ).

Tsourgiannis et al. ( 2011 ) conducted a study aimed to identify the factors that affect consumers purchasing behaviour towards food products that are free from GMO (GM Free) in a European region and more precisely in the Prefecture of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi. Field interviews conducted in a random selected sample consisted of 337 consumers in the cities of Drama, Kavala, Xanthi in 2009. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to identify the factors that affect people in preferring consuming products that are GM Free. The factors that influence people in the study area to buy GM Free products are: (a) products’ certification as GM Free or organic products, (b) interest about the protection of the environment and nutrition value, (c) marketing issues and (d) price and quality. Furthermore, cluster and discriminant analysis identified two groups of consumers: (a) those influenced by the product price, quality and marketing aspects and (b) those interested in product’s certification and environmental protection (Tsourgiannis et al. 2011 ).

Snell et al. ( 2012 ) examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations) on the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. They referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. They observed some small differences, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

GM foods: issues with respect to India

In a major setback to the proponents of GM technology in farm crops, the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture in 2012 asked Indian government to stop all field trials and sought a bar on GM food crops such as Bt. brinjal. Raising the “ethical dimensions” of transgenics in agricultural crops, as well as studies of a long-term environmental and chronic toxicology impact, the panel noted that there were no significant socio-economic benefits to farmers.

Countries like India have great security concerns at the same time specific problems exist for small and marginal farmers. India could use a toxin free variety of the Lathyrus sativus grown on marginal lands and consumed by the very poor. GM mustard is a variety using the barnase-barstar-bar gene complex, an unstable gene construct with possible undesirable effects, to achieve male sterile lines that are used to make hybrid mustard varieties. In India we have good non-GM alternatives for making male sterile lines for hybrid production so the Proagro variety is of little use. Being a food crop, GM mustard will have to be examined very carefully. Even if there were to be benefits, they have to be weighed against the risks posed to human health and the environment. Apart from this, mustard is a cross-pollinating crop and pollen with their foreign genes is bound to reach non-GM mustard and wild relatives. We do not know what impact this will have. If GM technology is to be used in India, it should be directed at the real needs of Indian farmers, on crops like legumes, oilseeds and fodder and traits like drought tolerance and salinity tolerance.

Basmati rice and Darjeeling tea are perhaps India’s most easily identifiable premium products in the area of food. Basmati is highly prized rice, its markets are growing and it is a high end, expensive product in the international market. Like Champagne wine and truffles from France, international consumers treat it as a special, luxury food. Since rice is nutritionally a poor cereal, it is thought that addition of iron and vitamin A by genetic modification would increase the nutritional quality. So does it make any sense at all to breed a GM Basmati, along the lines of Bt Cotton? However, premium wine makers have outright rejected the notion of GM doctored wines that were designed to cut out the hangover and were supposed to be ‘healthier’. Premium products like special wines, truffles and Basmati rice need to be handled in a special, premium way (Sahai 2003 ).

Traceability of GMOs in the food production chain

Traceability systems document the history of a product and may serve the purpose of both marketing and health protection. In this framework, segregation and identity preservation systems allow for the separation of GM and non-GM products from “farm to fork”. Implementation of these systems comes with specific technical requirements for each particular step of the food processing chain. In addition, the feasibility of traceability systems depends on a number of factors, including unique identifiers for each GM product, detection methods, permissible levels of contamination, and financial costs. Progress has been achieved in the field of sampling, detection, and traceability of GM products, while some issues remain to be solved. For success, much will depend on the threshold level for adventitious contamination set by legislation (Miraglia et al. 2004 ).

Issues related to detection and traceability of GMOs is gaining interest worldwide due to the global diffusion and the related socio-economical implications. The interest of the scientific community into traceability aspects has also been increased simultaneously. Crucial factors in sampling and detection methodologies are the number of the GMOs involved and international agreement on traceability. The availability of reliable traceability strategies is very important and this may increase public trust in transparency in GMO related issues.

Heat processing methods like autoclaving and microwave heating can damage the DNA and reduce the level to detectable DNA. The PCR based methods have been standardised to detect such DNA in GM soybean and maize (Vijayakumar et al. 2009 ). Molecular methods such as multiplex and real time PCR methods have been developed to detect even 20 pg of genomic DNA in genetically modified EE-1 brinjal (Ballari et al. 2012 ).

DNA and protein based methods have been adopted for the detection and identification of GMOs which is relatively a new area of diagnostics. New diagnostic methodologies are also being developed, viz. the microarray-based methods that allow for the simultaneous identification of the increasing number of GMOs on the global market in a single sample. Some of these techniques have also been discussed for the detection of unintended effects of genetic modification by Cellini et al. ( 2004 ). The implementation of adequate traceability systems requires more than technical tools alone and is strictly linked to labelling constraints. The more stringent the labelling requirements, the more expensive and difficult the associated traceability strategies are to meet these requirements.

Both labelling and traceability of GMOs are current issues that are considered in trade and regulation. Currently, labelling of GM foods containing detectable transgenic material is required by EU legislation. A proposed package of legislation would extend this labelling to foods without any traces of transgenics. These new legislations would also impose labelling and a traceability system based on documentation throughout the food and feed manufacture system. The regulatory issues of risk analysis and labelling are currently harmonised by Codex Alimentarius. The implementation and maintenance of the regulations necessitates sampling protocols and analytical methodologies that allow for accurate determination of the content of GM organisms within a food and feed sample. Current methodologies for the analysis of GMOs are focused on either one of two targets, the transgenic DNA inserted- or the novel protein(s) expressed- in a GM product. For most DNA-based detection methods, the polymerase chain reaction is employed. Items that need consideration in the use of DNA-based detection methods include the specificity, sensitivity, matrix effects, internal reference DNA, availability of external reference materials, hemizygosity versus homozygosity, extra chromosomal DNA and international harmonisation.

For most protein-based methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with antibodies binding the novel protein are employed. Consideration should be given to the selection of the antigen bound by the antibody, accuracy, validation and matrix effects. Currently, validation of detection methods for analysis of GMOs is taking place. New methodologies are developed, in addition to the use of microarrays, mass spectrometry and surface plasmon resonance. Challenges for GMO detection include the detection of transgenic material in materials with varying chromosome numbers. The existing and proposed regulatory EU requirements for traceability of GM products fit within a broader tendency towards traceability of foods in general and, commercially, towards products that can be distinguished from one another.

Gene transfer studies in human volunteers

As of January 2009, there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of GM foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. These volunteers were provided with GM soy to eat to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soya transferred into the bacteria living in their gut before the start of the feeding experiment. As this low-frequency transfer did not increase after the consumption of GM soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur during the experiment. In volunteers with complete digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive passage through intact gastrointestinal tract (Netherwood 2004 ). Other studies have found DNA from M13 virus, GFP and even ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco) genes in the blood and tissue of ingesting animals (Guertler et al. 2009 ; Brigulla and Wackernagel 2010 ).

Two studies on the possible effects of giving GM feed to animals found that there were no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from GM plants (Gerhard et al. 2005 ; Beagle et al. 2006 ). Specifically, the studies noted that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with GM plants (Nordlee 1996 ; Streit 2001 ).

Future developments

The GM foods have the potential to solve many of the world’s hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Challenges ahead lie in many areas viz. safety testing, regulation, policies and food labelling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits.

Future also envisages that applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B (Kumar et al. 2005 ), metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new biodegradable plastics with unique properties (van Beilen and Yves 2008 ). While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects.

One has to agree that there are many opinions (Domingo 2000 ) about scarce data on the potential health risks of GM food crops, even though these should have been tested for and eliminated before their introduction. Although it is argued that small differences between GM and non-GM crops have little biological meaning, it is opined that most GM and parental line crops fall short of the definition of substantial equivalence. In any case, we need novel methods and concepts to probe into the compositional, nutritional, toxicological and metabolic differences between GM and conventional crops and into the safety of the genetic techniques used in developing GM crops if we want to put this technology on a proper scientific foundation and allay the fears of the general public. Considerable effort need to be directed towards understanding people’s attitudes towards this gene technology. At the same time it is imperative to note the lack of trust in institutions and institutional activities regarding GMOs and the public perceive that institutions have failed to take account of the actual concerns of the public as part of their risk management activities.

Contributor Information

A. S. Bawa, Email: ni.oc.oohay@awabrednirama .

K. R. Anilakumar, Email: moc.liamg@rkramukalina .

• Allison S, Palma PM. Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience. 1997; 47 :86–96. doi: 10.2307/1313019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ballari VR, Martin A, Gowda LR (2012) Detection and identification of genetically modified EE-1 brinjal ( Solanum melongena ) by single, multiplex and SYBR® real-time PCR. J Sci Food Agric. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5764, Published online 22 June 2012 [ PubMed ]
• Beagle JM, Apgar GA, Jones KL, Griswold KE, Radcliffe JS, Qiu X, Lightfoot DA, Iqbal MJ. The digestive fate of Escherichia coli glutamate dehydrogenase deoxyribonucleic acid from transgenic corn in diets fed to weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 2006; 84 (3):597–607. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berberich SA, Ream JE, Jackson TL, Wood R, Stipanovic R, Harvey P, Patzer S, Fuchs RL. The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. J Agric Food Chem. 1996; 44 :365–371. doi: 10.1021/jf950304i. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M, Tierzieva S, Bernstein DI, Lummus Z, Selgrade MK, Doerfler DL, Seligy VL. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides . Environ Health Perspect. 1999; 107 :575–582. doi: 10.1289/ehp.99107575. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brake J, Vlachos D. Evaluation of transgenic Event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chicken. Poult Sci. 1998; 77 :648–653. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brian H. Unintended effects of Bt crops. World Watch. 1999; 12 :9–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brigulla M, Wackernagel W. Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010; 86 (4):1027–1041. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2489-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burks AW, Fuchs RL. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and commercial soybean varieties. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995; 96 :1008–1010. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6749(95)70243-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler T, Reichhardt T. Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought. Nature. 1999; 398 (6729):651–653. doi: 10.1038/19348. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AMR, Karenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay JJ, Lehasranta S, Noteborn HPJM, Pedersen J, Smith M. Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004; 42 :1089–1125. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman MD. Allergen nomenclature. In: Lockey RF, Dennis Ledford K, editors. Allergens and allergen immunotherapy. 4. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008. pp. 47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clive J (1996) Global review of the field testing and commercialization of transgenic plants: 1986 to 1995. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/isaaabriefs/Briefs%201.pdf . Retrieved on 17 July 2010
• Clive J. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Briefs 43 . Ithaca: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conner AJ, Jacobs JME. Genetic engineering of crops as potential source of genetic hazard in the human diet. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 1999; 443 :223–234. doi: 10.1016/S1383-5742(99)00020-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crevel RWR, Lerkhof MAT, Koning MMG. Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000; 38 (4):385–393. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00158-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deisingh AK, Badrie N. Detection approaches for genetically modified organisms in foods. Food Res Int. 2005; 38 :639–649. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2005.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Domingo JL. Health risks of genetically modified foods: many opinions but few data. Science. 2000; 288 :1748–1749. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5472.1748. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 1999; 354 :1353–1354. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998; 6 :219–233. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-7189(199811/12)6:6<219::AID-NT30>3.0.CO;2-K. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frewer LI, Salter B. Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy the case of BSE. Sci Public Policy. 2002; 29 :137–145. doi: 10.3152/147154302781781092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerhard F, Andrew C, Karen A. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Arch Anim Nutr. 2005; 59 :1–40. doi: 10.1080/17450390512331342368. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guertler P, Paul V, Albrech C, Meyer HH. Sensitive and highly specific quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA for recording a potential transfer of novel DNA and Cry1Ab protein from feed into bovine milk. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009; 393 :1629–1638. doi: 10.1007/s00216-009-2667-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamer H, Scuse T (2010) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture. Acreage report, NY
• Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J Nutr. 1996; 126 :717–727. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamstra A (1998) Public opinion about Biotechnology. A survey of surveys. European Federation of Biotechnology, The Hague
• Harrison LA, Bailey MR, Naylor MW, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Nida DL, Burnette BL, Nickson TE, Mitsky TA, Taylor ML, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J Nutr. 1996; 126 :728–740. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashimoto W, Momma K, Katsube T, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of genetically engineered potatoes with designed soybean glycinin: compositional analyses of the potato tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed protein in transgenic potatoes. J Sci Food Agric. 1999; 79 :1607–1612. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199909)79:12<1607::AID-JSFA408>3.0.CO;2-T. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashimoto W, Momma K, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of transgenic potatoes with soybean glycinin by feeding studies in rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999; 63 :1942–1946. doi: 10.1271/bbb.63.1942. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IRDC (1998) Alliance for biointegrity. http://www.biointegrity.org including Calgene FLAVR SAVR™ tomato report, pp 1–604; International Research and Development Corp. first test report, pp 1736–1738; Conclusions of the expert panel regarding the safety of the FLAVR SAVR™ tomato, ENVIRON, Arlington VA, USA pp 2355–2382; Four week oral (intubation) toxicity study in rats by IRDC, pp 2895–3000
• Ivanciuc O, Schein CH, Braun W. SDAP: database and computational tools for allergenic proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31 :359–362. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg010. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joana C, Isabel M, Joana SA, Oliveira MBPP. Monitoring genetically modified soybean along the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining processes by polymerase chain reaction techniques. Food Res Int. 2010; 43 :301–306. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SR. Quantification of the impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006. Washington DC: National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AACM. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct Biol. 2002; 2 :8–19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6807-2-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar GBS, Ganapathi TR, Revathi CJ, Srinivas L, Bapat VA. Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants. Planta. 2005; 222 :484–493. doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lack G. Clinical risk assessment of GM foods. Toxicol Lett. 2002; 127 :337–340. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4274(01)00517-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• La Mura M, Allnutt TR, Greenland A, Mackay LD. Application of QUIZ for GM quantification in food. Food Chem. 2011; 125 :1340–1344. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lappe MA, Bailey EB, Childress C, Setchell KDR. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Med Food. 1999; 1 :241–245. doi: 10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lassen J, Allansdottir A, Liakoupulos M, Olsson A, Mortensen AT. Testing times: the reception of round-up ready soya in Europe. In: Bauer M, Gaskell G, editors. Biotechnology—the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 279–312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Louda SM (1999) Insect Limitation of weedy plants and its ecological implications. In: Traynor PL, Westwood J H (eds) Proceedings of a workshop on: ecological effects of pest resistance genes in managed ecosystems. Information Systems for Biotechnology. Blacksburg, Virginia, pp 43–48, http://www.isb.vt.edu
• Mari A, Riccioli D. The allergome web site—a database of allergenic molecules. Aim, structure, and data of a web-based resource. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004; 113 :S301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez-Poveda A, Molla-Bauza MB, Gomis FJC, Martinez LMC. Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy. 2009; 34 :519–528. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maryanski JH. Bioengineered foods: will they cause allergic reactions? NY: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN); 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalf DD, Astwood JD, Townsend R, Sampson HA, Taylor SL, Fuchs RL (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. In: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(S):S165–S186. CRC, Boca Raton [ PubMed ]
• Miles S, Frewer LI. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards—higher and lower order attributes. Food Qual Prefer. 2001; 12 :47–61. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00029-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miraglia M, Berdal K, Brera C, Corbisier P, Holst-jensen A, Kok E, Marvin H, Schimmel H, Rentsch J, van Rie J, Zagon J. Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004; 42 :1157–1180. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Momma K, Hashimoto W, Ozawa S, Kawai S, Katsube T, Takaiwa F, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean glycinin: analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999; 63 :314–318. doi: 10.1271/bbb.63.314. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakamura R, Matsuda T. Rice allergenic protein and molecular-genetic approach for hypoallergenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1996; 60 :1215–1221. doi: 10.1271/bbb.60.1215. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Netherwood T. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 2004; 22 :204–209. doi: 10.1038/nbt934. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nordlee JA. Identification of Brazil-Nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New Engl J Med. 1996; 334 :688–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybean. New Engl J Med. 1996; 334 :688–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noteborn HPJM, Bienenmann-Ploum ME, van den Berg JHJ, Alink GM, Zolla L, Raynaerts A, Pensa M, Kuiper HA. Safety assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein CRYIA(b) expressed in transgenic tomatoes. In: Engel KH, Takeoka GR, Teranishi R, editors. ACS Symp series 605 Genetically modified foods—safety issues. Washington, D.C: American Chemical Society; 1995. pp. 135–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novak WK, Haslberger AG. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000; 38 :473–483. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00040-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Neil C, Reese G, Lehrer SB. Allergenic potential of recombinant food proteins. Allergy Clin Immunol Int. 1998; 10 :5–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Bailey MR, MacDonald J, Holden LR, Fuchs RL. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr. 1996; 126 :702–716. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pusztai A (2001) Safety tests on commercial crops. American Institute of Biological Sciences. actionbioscience.org, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html viewed 2 March 2010
• Pusztai A, Ewen SWB, Grant G, Peumans WJ, van Damme EJM, Rubio L, Bardocz S. Relationship between survival and binding of plant lectins during small intestinal passage and their effectiveness as growth factors. Digestion. 1990; 46 (suppl 2):308–316. doi: 10.1159/000200402. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pusztai A, Grant G, Bardocz S, Alonso R, Chrispeels MJ, Schroeder HE, Tabe LM, Higgins TJV. Expression of the insecticidal bean alpha-amylase inhibitor transgene has minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30 % of the diet. J Nutr. 1999; 129 :1597–1603. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Redenbaugh K, Hiatt W, Martineau B, Kramer M, Sheehy R, Sanders R, Houck C, Emlay D (1992) Safety assessment of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables: a case study of the Flavr Savr Tomato. CRC Press, Boca Raton
• Sahai S. Genetically modified crops: issues for India. Fin Agric. 2003; 35 :7–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé J-B, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Agnès ER. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012; 50 :1134–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbrecher RA. From green to gene evolution: the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. Ecologist. 1996; 26 :273–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Streit L. Association of the Brazil nut protein gene and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor alleles with soybean protease inhibitor activity and agronomic traits. Crop Sci. 2001; 41 :1757–1760. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.1757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor NB, Fuchs RL, MacDonald J, Shariff AB, Padgette SR. Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem. 1999; 47 :4469–4473. doi: 10.1021/jf990056g. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teshima R, Akiyama H, Okunuki H, Sakushima J-i, Goda Y, Onodera H, Sawada J-i, Toyoda M. Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. J Food Hyg Soc Jpn. 2000; 41 :188–193. doi: 10.3358/shokueishi.41.188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsourgiannis L, Karasavvoglou A, Florou G. Consumers’ attitudes towards GM free products in a European region. The case of the Prefecture of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi in Greece. Appetite. 2011; 57 :448–458. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Beilen JB, Yves P. Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and biomaterials: production of renewable polymers from crop plants. Plant J. 2008; 54 (4):684–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, Martinez-Gil AF, de la Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Characterization of the mucosal and sytemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000; 33 :147–155. doi: 10.1590/S0100-879X2000000200002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vijayakumar KR, Martin A, Gowda LR, Prakash V. Detection of genetically modified soya and maize: impact of heat processing. Food Chem. 2009; 117 :514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.04.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiumin W, Da T, Qingfeng G, Fang T, Jianhua W. Detection of Roundup Ready soybean by loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral-flow dipstick. Food Control. 2012; 29 :213–220. [ Google Scholar ]

Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

In my understanding, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the needed help in resolving shortage of food throughout the world. Scientists create a more robust and better version of the current vegetables, fruits and other items humans consume. For example, as far as I know, the current version of bananas is GMO since, in the wilds, bananas had large seeds, were green and looked utterly dissimilar to the yellow delicious fruit people are familiar with. GMO enhances the taste of a product and the amount of the product, which is why it can be a possible solution to resolving the worldwide hunger issues.

For the reason that I was interested in GMOs and did my research before, the article did not change my perception of it much since I have already known what GMOs are and that they are a predominant source of food presently. Moreover, as the population number will increase in the future years, the GMO industry will have to expand and adopt new methods of cultivating food (Uji, 2016, p. 78). Therefore, humanity will progress and benefit from the usage of such technologies.

The way a GMO was created does not matter to me as much because I trust scientists. They would not release a vegetable or an animal that would be hurtful for people since they do their research and check their specimens for safety. Therefore, a released and cultivated GMO, whether created through intragenesis or transgenesis, are safe for humans.

I feel proud that humanity has gone so far in improving nature’s gifts and improving the quality and quantity of cultivated foods. GMO technologies are on the right track since they aid people in ending the problem of hunger worldwide. Moreover, GMOs are more affordable and accessible since they can survive more than their natural counterparts.

Uji, O. (2016). European and American views on genetically modified foods. The New Atlantis , 49, 77–92. Web.

• GMO Production: Reasons and Potential Effects
• Froma Harrop Views on Genetically Modified Food
• Genetically Modified Organisms in Canadian Agriculture
• Genetically Modified Food: Analysis and Implications
• Genetically Modified Foods: Substantial Equivalence
• Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against
• Understanding Genetically Modified Foods by Howard et al.
• A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 21). Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/

"Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." IvyPanda , 21 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs'. 21 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." June 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." June 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." June 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — GMO — GMO Labeling: Debating the Pros and Cons

Gmo Labeling: Debating The Pros and Cons

• Categories: Genetic Modification GMO

About this sample

Words: 678 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 678 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Historical evolution of the gmo labeling debate, arguments for gmo labeling, arguments against gmo labeling, political and regulatory dimensions, conclusion: navigating a complex discourse.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 558 words

7 pages / 2992 words

2 pages / 746 words

2 pages / 835 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on GMO

GMO effects on the environment have become a subject of intense debate and scrutiny in recent years. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have revolutionized agriculture by altering the genetic makeup of crops to enhance their [...]

Genetically Modified Organisms, commonly known as GMOs, have become a controversial topic in today's society. These organisms have been altered through genetic engineering techniques to improve their characteristics or introduce [...]

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have been a topic of heated debate in recent years, sparking conversations about the potential benefits and risks associated with their widespread use. From increased crop yields to [...]

In a world where the intersection of science and food production is becoming increasingly complex, the debate surrounding the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has ignited a fervent discussion among consumers, [...]

Think back to the last meal you had; now think about how much of that food you consumed was genetically modified (GM). About 80% of today’s processed food contains genetically modified organisms, otherwise known as GMO’s. [...]

Technology is created by the comparatively small and smart human brain, which has changed the landscape, redefined natural resources and even diversified the food human being rely on. Over the past 30 years, there is a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

GMO and non-GMO: Pros and Cons

• January 28, 2021

Many consumers in the European Union, regardless of their level of education or nationality, take a critical distance from genetic engineering in food production. Several surveys have repeatedly shown that their vast majority do not want GM foods. [1]

GMOs create a path that leads to advantages and benefits, but also raises extremely important questions. Even over 20 years after the introduction of gene plants, we still lack on an extensive study on effects of genetically modified plants on humans. Genetic engineering is a tricky issue and not everyone has specialized knowledge. It is therefore particularly easy to influence consumer opinions with little effort.

Most of the genetically modified plants present the following benefits:

• Tolerance to atmospheric stress, such as extreme temperatures, salinity, drought and floods;
• Resistance to viruses, fungi and bacteria;
• Herbicide tolerance;
• Insect resistance.

Proponents predict that genetic engineering would increase yields in the fields due to the characteristics above, although this would not reach the desired level of food security. Hunger and malnutrition are issues that often require additional social and political strategies.

Efforts are needed to maintain and develop varieties and cultivation methods should be adapted to the local needs together with the local population. The only efficient way to reduce the proportion of undernourished locally is by using conventional means – for example by cultivating traditional food plants such as cassava root, but also through targeted support projects, educational programs, nutritional advice and political activities. A multi-dimensional strategy is necessary that creates suitable, specific activities for each situation.

On the other hand, the use of GMOs brings risks, such as:

• Persistence and invasiveness;
• Selective advantages or disadvantages;
• Transfer of genes;
• Interactions with target organisms (e.g. induction of resistance in pests to which plants are resistant);
• Interactions with non-target organisms (e.g. effects on bees and other non-pest insects, with consequences to biodiversity);
• Interactions with the soil ecosystem with consequent biogeochemical effects.
• Alterations in Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Variations in sensitivity to climatic effects;
• Modifications in sensitivity to soil abiotic factors (salinity, minerals …).
• Toxicological effects;
• Allergenicity;
• Changes in nutritional value;
• Transfer of antibiotic resistance.

In addition, once genetically modified plants have been introduced into the world, they often can no longer be retrieved: they can actively spread, multiplied, passing on their genetically modified properties to other organisms and influence each other, with all, largely unexplored consequences for the environment, animals and people.

All new genetically modified crops have to be checked for harmlessness to humans, animals and the environment before they are approved, but many scientists describe the current regulations for risk assessment as insufficient. Numerous studies have found that the Crispr / Cas9 gene scissors when lost are not as accurate as their users often think [2] .

The Counterpoint: Climate Change

Farmers are already using the variety of conventional plants that are adapted to their respective environmental conditions such as drought, flooding or high salinity in the soil. Drought-tolerant crops grown conventionally already exist. The genetic engineering industry has promised a lot, but so far has not yet presented a solution for a secure return on climate change.

New genetic engineering methods , so-called genome editing, are to lead more quickly to plants that can withstand abiotic stress such as drought and high salinity. They are placed in the foreground as the solution to the problem of climate change. In practice, companies continue to focus on commercial applications such as herbicide tolerance or feed quality. The promotion of alternative research in the sense of sustainable agriculture with more comprehensive, multi-dimensional approaches seems more effective here.

Regarding food quality , what we can say is that genetic engineering is not necessary for a healthy diet. In our industrialized nations, the variety and range of good quality food have never been as large and available all year round as it is today. Thanks to improved food hygiene, quality assurance systems and optimized detection methods, our food had reached a high safety standard even before the introduction of genetic engineering.

The savings in weed killers (herbicides) in the cultivation of herbicide-resistant crops (HR crops) highlighted by seed companies is controversial. Various studies show that the results are dependent on various factors, such as the growing conditions and climatic conditions at the location. Figures show a significant increase in spray consumption since the introduction of genetic engineering in the field.

Due to the increasing development of resistance in weeds to the herbicides used, farmers not only have to increase the dose, but they also have to use additional active ingredients. Another consequence is that the genetic engineering industry is developing crops that can withstand higher doses of herbicides or are multi-resistant to various herbicides. This also promotes the emergence of multi-resistant “super weeds”. Furthermore, the constant confrontation of the insects with the Bt poison (certain GM crops produce toxins that are lethal to insects) has already led to the emergence of resistant pests. Instead of using fewer sprays, these pests need to be combated with other or additional pesticides.

ProTerra Standard

Created in 2006, the ProTerra Standard has a long-standing history and experience in promoting sustainability in the food and feed supply chain and segregated non-GMO materials. Among others, one of its aims is to secure the supply of sustainably produced, fully traceable, non-GMO ingredients for feed and food.

Principle 5 ensures that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their by-products must not be used in the production of ProTerra certified products (this includes technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9). Besides, our packaging label is a mean by which brands can communicate the non-GMO and sustainability commitment directly to consumers and stakeholders.

E.Brosz, 2016: ALIMENTAZIONE SOSTENIBILE, Rischi e pratiche per alimenti a beneficio della salute e dell’ambiente

Https://www.jbc.org/content/early/2020/03/11/jbc.ra120.012933.full.pdf, https://www.ohnegentechnik.org/aktuelles/nachrichten/2020/april/neuentwickelte-gen-scheren-sind-auch-nicht-besser-als-die-alten/, profundo: european soy monitor 2017, https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/lebensmittel/lebensmittelproduktion/gentechnik-pro-und-contra-8385 – gentechnik: pro und contra, 2019, [1] https://www.proterrafoundation.org/project/new-trends-in-consumer-behaviour/, [2] https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19368.

Webinar – How future trends can help us to reduce environmental impact?

How proterra supports companies to avoid raw materials within their supply chain connected to land use change, la filière française du soja ambitionne de produire 650 000 tonnes d’ici 2025, learn how was the proterra 4th international non-gmo soy conference in germany, join our mail list.

We will treat your information with respect. Please read our  Privacy and Confidentiality Policy  to learns how we handle your mailing list sign-up.

You can change your mind at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at  [email protected]

By navigating the ProTerra website users agree to accept the Privacy and Confidentiality Policy

Essay Service Examples Medicine GMO

Pros and Cons of GMOs

Table of contents

Introduction to gmos: definition and overview, the process of creating gmos, economic implications of gmos for consumers, environmental benefits of gmos, nutritional enhancements through gmos, challenges and concerns: legal and ecological impacts, potential health risks: allergies and super pests, conclusion: weighing the pros and cons of gmos.

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

• Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2014). Economic Impact of GM Crops. GM Crops & Food, 5(1), 65-75. doi:10.4161/gmcr.28098
• Mahgoub, S. E. (2016). Genetically Modified Foods: Basics, Applications, and Controversy. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.
• Gao, Y., Liu, C., Wu, Y., & Wu, K. (n.d.). Status of Resistance to Bt Cotton in China: Cotton Bollworm and Pink Bollworm. Bt Resistance: Characterization and Strategies for GM Crops Producing Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxins, 15-25. doi:10.1079/9781780644370.0015. Retrieved From https://cals.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/bt/6Publications/PBWupdate0604.pdf
• Powell, C. (2015, August 11). How to Make a GMO. Retrieved from http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Genetically Modified Food

Have you ever known that GMOs is safe for human’s life? GMOs is considered to be safe and...

• Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Modification

Genetically engineered organisms could have a massive impact on humans. They can do almost...

• Organic Food

This is an argumentative research essay. The topic that I have chosen to write about is...

In my 20 years of living, I always thought of why God made possible that humans and animals able...

Genetically modified food in some communities is still mistakenly considered as too risky...

• Conversation

Unlabeled. Unassuming. Untested ('Genetically Modified Foods'). What’s the truth about genetically...

Some believe that GMOs, genetically modified organisms, are radical, unstable, and treacherous...

GMO also known as genetically modified organisms. You might wonder what they are, but it is the...

GMO stands for genetically modified organisms. GMO foods are made through genetic engineering....

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!