advantages of genetically modified food essay

• Alzheimer's & Dementia
• Asthma & Allergies
• Atopic Dermatitis
• Breast Cancer
• Cardiovascular Health
• Environment & Sustainability
• Exercise & Fitness
• Headache & Migraine
• Health Equity
• HIV & AIDS
• Human Biology
• Men's Health
• Mental Health
• Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
• Parkinson's Disease
• Psoriatic Arthritis
• Sexual Health
• Ulcerative Colitis
• Women's Health
• Nutrition & Fitness
• Vitamins & Supplements
• At-Home Testing
• Men’s Health
• Women’s Health
• Latest News
• Medical Myths
• Honest Nutrition
• Through My Eyes
• New Normal Health
• 2023 in medicine
• Why exercise is key to living a long and healthy life
• What do we know about the gut microbiome in IBD?
• My podcast changed me
• Can 'biological race' explain disparities in health?
• Why Parkinson's research is zooming in on the gut
• Health Hubs
• Find a Doctor
• BMI Calculators and Charts
• Blood Pressure Chart: Ranges and Guide
• Breast Cancer: Self-Examination Guide
• Sleep Calculator
• RA Myths vs Facts
• Type 2 Diabetes: Managing Blood Sugar
• Ankylosing Spondylitis Pain: Fact or Fiction
• Our Editorial Process
• Content Integrity
• Conscious Language
• Health Conditions
• Health Products

Genetically modified food: What are the pros and cons?

Engineers design plants using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to improve taste, nutritional content, and resilience. However, people have concerns over their safety, and there is much debate about the pros and cons of using GMOs.

Scientists create GMO foods by introducing genetic material, or DNA, from a different organism through genetic engineering.

Most of the currently available GMO foods are plants, such as fruit and vegetables.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates all foods from genetically engineered plants. They must meet the same safety requirements as non-GMO foods.

GMO foods are likely to become a crucial tool in feeding the world’s growing population, especially in areas with harsh climates. However, there have been concerns about possible risks.

This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of GMO crops, including their potential effects on human health and the environment.

Pros of GMOs

Manufacturers use genetic modification to give foods desirable traits.

Potential advantages of GMO crops include attractiveness to consumers, resilience, nutritional value, and less waste.

Attractiveness

GMO crops may be increasingly attractive to consumers. Examples of this include apples and potatoes that are less likely to bruise or turn brown.

Some believe that GMO foods may have an enhanced flavor compared to non-GMO foods. However, there is no evidence to show that genetic modification has any effect on the taste, smell, or appearance of foods in the U.S. In fact, most people cannot tell the difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.

Resilience and less waste

Most GMO crops in the U.S. were developed to help farmers. They are more resilient crops that help prevent crop and food loss. Some of the reasons farmers choose to grow GMO crops include :

• higher tolerance to herbicides, making it easier to control weeds
• greater resistance to certain plant viruses, which can help increase food security by reducing food waste
• greater residence to damaging insects, which can help reduce the use of pesticides

GMO crops may also be more resistant to harsh climates, such as drought, heat, and salty soils. This can help increase the growth of crops in areas where food security is a concern. Certain genes in GMO foods may also help increase the shelf life of foods, again decreasing food waste.

Nutritional value

Certain types of GMOs may add nutritional value to foods. An example of this is golden rice. This is a product that is engineered to provide higher levels of vitamin A to consumers. While it can provide nutritional value to those who eat it, especially in areas where vitamin A deficiency is an issue, the growth of this product is not widespread. It is not currently a part of the U.S. food system.

Growing plants that are more resistant to diseases spread by insects or viruses will likely result in higher yields for farmers and a more attractive product. All these factors can contribute to lower costs for the consumer and can ensure that more people have access to quality food.

Cons of GMOs

Genetically engineering foods is a relatively new practice, which means the long-term effects on safety are not yet clear.

Many concerns about the disadvantages relate to human health. Scientists have not yet shown that GMO foods are harmful to health, but research is ongoing.

Allergic reactions

There is a small risk that GMO foods can trigger an allergic reaction, but this will only happen if the genetic change triggers the production of an allergen.

For instance, if scientists combine a gene from a Brazil nut with a soybean, there is a slight chance that a person with a nut allergy could have an allergic reaction to products made with the soybean.

The World Health Organization (WHO) discourages genetic engineers from using DNA from allergens unless they can prove that the proteins that the gene produces do not cause allergies.

Scientists assess the likelihood of GMO foods causing an allergic reaction in humans before a product reaches the market and can prevent its launch if necessary.

There have been concerns that eating GMO foods can contribute to the development of cancer by raising levels of potentially carcinogenic substances in the body.

The American Cancer Society states there is no evidence that currently available GMO foods either increase or reduce the risk of cancer.

While cancer rates have changed over time in the U.S., there is no evidence that these changes coincide with the introduction of GMO foods. If there is a link, it could take several more years before a trend emerges.

Antibacterial resistance

Some GMOs contain changes that make them resistant to certain antibiotics . In theory, the genes from these plants could enter humans or animals when they eat them. As a result, the person or animal could also develop antibiotic resistance.

The likelihood of this happening is very small , but the WHO and other health authorities have guidelines in place to prevent it.

Changes in human DNA

In older research from 2009 , some food scientists noted that food DNA can survive as far as the gut, and there have been concerns that this could affect the immune system.

Some people have also raised fears that eating GMO food could lead to genetic changes in humans. However, most of the DNA in food — whether GMO or not — either is destroyed by cooking or breaks down before it reaches the large intestine.

Small fragments of DNA from food can and do enter the bloodstream and body organs, but there is no evidence that they have any impact on genetic makeup or human health.

Toxicity for body organs

In older research from 2009 , some researchers suggested that GMO foods might impact the liver, kidney, pancreas, and reproductive system. They did not have evidence to confirm this and called for further studies.

The use of GMO crops may even reduce the risk of toxicity from some substances, as farmers may be able to reduce the use of pesticides.

Are GMO foods good or bad for the environment?

Climate change and severe weather events are disrupting food production and supply. GMO foods could help maintain supplies in the face of changing environmental conditions and a growing population.

Genetically modifying some foods could make them:

• easier to store and transport
• less prone to waste due to disease and aging
• more likely to grow in areas with poor-quality soil
• higher in nutrients

Also, a 2022 study suggests GMO foods could help slow climate change by reducing greenhouse gases.

Environmental concerns include :

• the risk of outcrossing, where genes from GMO foods pass into wild plants and other crops
• a negative impact on insects and other species
• reduction in other plant types, leading to a loss of biodiversity

The risks will vary depending on local conditions.

How to identify GMO foods

In the U.S., the FDA does not require special labeling for GMO foods. This is because they must meet the same safety standards as other foods, and there should be no need for additional regulation.

However, a GMO food needs a special label if it is “materially different” from its conventional counterpart. For example :

• a GMO canola oil with more lauric acid than traditional canola oil will be labeled “laurate canola oil”
• a GMO soybean oil with more oleic acid than non-GMO soybean oil must be labeled “high oleic soybean oil”

However, the 2018 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard states that all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must now carry the label “derived from bioengineering” or “bioengineered.” Specific symbols show whether a food has been bioengineered.

Types of GMO foods

The following are the most common GMO crops produced and sold in the U.S.:

• summer squash

Derivatives of these foods, such as cornstarch and sugar, also feature in other manufactured foods. It is worth noting that 99.9% of all sugar beet harvested in the U.S. is GMO, as well as over 90% of all canola, corn, soybean, and cotton.

How to find non-GMO food

Foods that are bioengineered and products that contain bioengineered foods must carry a specific label. If a product does not have this kind of label, it does not contain bioengineered ingredients.

Foods that are likely to be GMO include :

• sugar beet, as 99.9% of sugar beet in the U.S. is GMO
• canola products, as 95% of them are GMO in the U.S.
• soybean products, since 94% of soybean in the U.S. is GMO
• corn, as 92% of corn planted in the U.S. is GMO
• cottonseed oil, since 96% of cotton is GMO

Many GMO crops also become ingredients in other foods, for example:

• cornstarch in soups and sauces
• corn syrup, used as a sweetener
• corn, canola, and soybean oils in mayonnaise, dressings, and bread
• sugar derived from sugar beets

How do scientists make GMO foods?

Genetic modification is when scientists insert new DNA into the gene pool of an existing plant.

For this to happen, the following needs to take place:

• Scientists transfer new DNA into plant cells.
• They grow the cells in tissue culture, and a plant develops.
• The new plant produces seeds.
• A person grows plants from the new seeds.
• The new plants will have genetic features that make them, for example, more nutritious or resistant to pests, disease, or climate factors.

For thousands of years, people have used processes such as selective breeding or crossbreeding to produce more viable crops. However, changes took a long time to achieve, and it was hard to make specific changes.

In recent years, developments in genetic engineering have allowed scientists to make specific changes more quickly. The crops produced in this way are called GMO crops. The first GMO food to appear on the market was a tomato in 1994 .

Frequently asked questions

Below, we answer some questions people often ask about GMO foods.

What common foods are GMO?

The likelihood that any food derived from corn, cottonseed, soybean, canola, or sugar beet will be GMO food in the U.S. is 90% or higher.

Which GMO foods to avoid?

There is no specific GMO food to avoid. GMO foods undergo strict testing before they can be commercialized. Moreover, this could make them safer than other foods, which do not undergo testing.

Is GMO food safe?

Currently, there is no evidence that GMO foods cause cancer, allergies, or any other health conditions. However, research is ongoing.

What are the risks of GMO foods?

Health authorities vet all GMOs and other foods for safety before manufacturers can sell them, and research is ongoing.

So far, scientists have found no evidence that commercially available GMO foods are dangerous for health. Environmental concerns include the risk of altered genes entering wild species.

Genetic modification can make plants resistant to disease and tolerant of herbicides, and therefore, the process can increase the amount of food that farmers can grow. This in turn can reduce food prices and contribute to food security.

GMO crops are relatively new, and researchers are still investigating their long-term safety and health effects, but no evidence has yet emerged that currently available GMO foods are harmful to human health.

Last medically reviewed on January 5, 2024

• Food Allergy
• Public Health
• Nutrition / Diet
• Environment / Water / Pollution

How we reviewed this article:

• Abrams S A, et al. (2023). Use of genetically modified organism (GMO)-containing food products in children. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/153/1/e2023064774/196193/Use-of-Genetically-Modified-Organism-GMO
• Antibiotic-resistant genes. (n.d.). https://www.government.nl/topics/biotechnology/antibiotic-resistant-genes
• BE disclosure. (n.d.). https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be
• Common questions about diet, activity, and cancer risk. (2020). https://www.cancer.org/healthy/eat-healthy-get-active/acs-guidelines-nutrition-physical-activity-cancer-prevention/common-questions.html
• Dona A, et al. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18989835/
• Food, genetically modified. (2014). https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified
• Guidance for industry: Voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not been derived from genetically engineered plants. (2019). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-voluntary-labeling-indicating-whether-foods-have-or-have-not-been-derived
• Hamrick C, et al. (2021). The challenges of future foods from prevention of nutrient deficiencies to the management of diabetes. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772566921000045
• How GMOs are regulated in the United States. (2023). https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmos-are-regulated-united-states
• Human health effects of genetically engineered crops. (2016). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424534/
• KhokharVoytas A, et al. (2023). Genetic modification strategies for enhancing plant resilience to abiotic stresses in the context of climate change. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37642792/
• Kovak E, et al. (2022). Genetically modified crops support climate change mitigation. https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(22)00004-8
• Mbow C, et al. (2019). Chapter 5: Food security. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/
• National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. (2018). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard
• Nawaz M A, et al. (2019). Addressing concerns over the fate of DNA derived from genetically modified food in the human body: A review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691518309037
• New plant variety regulatory information. (2023). https://www.fda.gov/food/food-new-plant-varieties/new-plant-variety-regulatory-information
• Recent trends in GE adoption. (2020). https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx
• Science and history of GMOs and other food modification processes. (2022). https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes
• Understanding new plant varieties. (2020). https://www.fda.gov/food/food-new-plant-varieties/understanding-new-plant-varieties
• What GMO crops are grown and sold in the U.S.? [Fact sheet]. (2020). https://www.fda.gov/media/135274/download
• What is genetic modification (GM) of crops and how is it done? (2016). https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/what-is-gm-and-how-is-it-done/
• Why do farmers in the US grow GMO crops? (2022). https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/why-do-farmers-us-grow-gmo-crops

Share this article

Latest news

• Depression: Virtual reality may help improve mental health
• Colorectal cancer is rising in children, teens, and young adults, study finds
• Aging white matter in the brain may affect stroke recovery, study finds
• New weight loss endoscopic procedure could help reduce 'hunger hormone'
• New oral rinse could help detect gastric cancer in early stages

Related Coverage

People with a food intolerance have difficulty digesting certain foods. Find out how food intolerances differ from food allergies, what causes them…

In recent decades, ultra-processed foods have become common in diets worldwide. Here, we look at seven ways that these foods pose risks to health.

Researchers say overall diet quality may be more important than the amount of ultra-processed foods you consume in terms of the risk of early death…

A new study suggests ancient grain consumption is associated with improved health outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes. Ancient grains like oats…

Arachidonic acid, a polyunsaturated omega-6 fatty acid, could be a key driver of bipolar disorder, according to a new study. The findings suggest that…

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

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.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Resources for You (Food)
• Agricultural Biotechnology

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world. “GMO” (genetically modified organism) is the common term consumers and popular media use to describe a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering . Since the first genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, for sale to consumers were planted in the 1990s, researchers have tracked their impacts on and off the farm.

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

Most of the GMO crops grown today were developed to help farmers prevent crop loss. The three most common traits found in GMO crops are:

• Resistance to insect damage
• Tolerance to herbicides
• Resistance to plant viruses

For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers can apply fewer spray pesticides to protect the crops. GMO crops that are tolerant to herbicides help farmers control weeds without damaging the crops. When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts.

The GMO papaya, called the Rainbow papaya , is an example of a GMO crop developed to be resistant to a virus. When the ringspot virus threatened the Hawaii papaya industry and the livelihoods of Hawaiian papaya farmers, plant scientists developed the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya. The Rainbow papaya was commercially planted in 1998, and today it is grown all over Hawaii and exported to Japan.

Learn more on Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

The most common GMO crops were developed to address the needs of farmers, but in turn they can help foods become more accessible and affordable for consumers. Some GMO crops were developed specifically to benefit consumers. For example, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available. GMO apples that do not brown when cut are now available for sale and may help reduce food waste. Plant scientists continue to develop GMO crops that they hope will benefit consumers.

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment .

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

GMOs also impact the lives of farmers in other parts of the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of people’s diets. For example, a GMO eggplant developed to be insect resistant has been slowly released to farmers in Bangladesh since 2014. Farmers who grow GMO eggplants are earning more and have less exposure to pesticides. USAID is also working with partner countries in Africa and elsewhere on several staple crops, such as virus-resistant cassava , insect-resistant cowpea , and blight-resistant potato .

Learn more about GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development and GMOs Outside the U.S .

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

• 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

• What Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Why Maternity Care Is Underpaid
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Jamie Ducharme at [email protected]

The Safety, Benefits and Future of Genetically Modified Organisms

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been suggested as a way to feed the world’s increasing population, but there have also been questions about what impact—if any—they have on health. This Food Savvy Friday article will explore the safety, benefits and future of GMOs.

What’s a GMO?

Simply put, a genetically modified organism refers to a living thing—from bacteria to fungi to crops—that’s had its genetic code altered in some way. Most of the time, only a small section of the genetic code is changed and the rest is left alone, but these small changes can produce a wide range of results, like increasing the yield of corn, making potatoes resistant to insects, and preventing apples from turning brown after being cut.

Are they safe to consume?

Since GMOs are relatively new, having been introduced only a few decades ago, there have been valid questions about whether they’re safe to eat. Many brands advertise themselves as “non-GMO,” which implies that the alternative is not desirable or healthy. Fortunately, multiple studies have shown that GMOs pose no health risks to the consumer, and are in fact as healthy as conventional crops (Report: GMO Foods). GMOs are also approved by the FDA, having passed the rigorous testing required to be sold to consumers. Still, the stigma around genetically modified foods remains. In a recent study, 85% of college-age participants believed that GMOs were “at least somewhat dangerous to health,” though this did not significantly impact their food choices (Oselinsky et al., 2021). 

What are their benefits?

Beyond health, the benefits of GMOs are widespread:

• Higher yields
• Fewer chemicals and pesticides
• Less soil erosion than unmodified crops
• Used in medicine to produce life-saving vaccines, insulin, and treatments for diseases 

Future of GMOs

Beginning in 2022, food companies will be required to label products containing GMOs. Since approximately 75% of processed foods contain GMOs, buyers need not be intimidated by the new messaging and should remember that genetically modified products are just as healthy as regular ones. 

While it is always important to be aware of what is in your food and to advocate for transparency in food labeling, GMOs are proven to be healthy, safe, and sustainable.

• Oselinsky, K., Johnson, A., Lundeberg, P., Johnson Holm, A., Mueller, M., & Graham, D. J., 2021, GMO Food Labels Do Not Affect College Student Food Selection, Despite Negative Attitudes towards GMOs.
• Tufts University health & nutrition letter. New York: Tufts Media LLC., 2016, Study: GMO Foods as Safe as Conventional Choices.

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology

People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection , in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism . Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering.

Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology

The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone was the first protein pharmaceutical made in plants (Barta et al ., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody was produced (Hiatt et al ., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which has since dominated the industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes (Ma et al ., 2003). As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials. The use of genetically modified animals has also been indispensible in medical research. Transgenic animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases.

Potential GMO Applications

Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of microorganisms are being considered as future clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition, genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Work is currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B virus (HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al ., 2003). Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about potential risks.

Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs

Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression . After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism , growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.

Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk , but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al ., 2003).

In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring . Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.

Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy

One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis . Prior to construction of the recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects, including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.

The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al . (1999) in which the mortality of monarch larvae was reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply) covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered with pollen from regular corn. The report by Losey et al . was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that natural levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs.

Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen. For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al ., 2001), providing the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years.

Unintended Economic Consequences

Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont et al ., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops.

GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns

In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but 23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market. In addition, only 5% of those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns associated with using biotech products.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean. Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned.

Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled.

These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.

History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development

In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli , was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus (Devos et al ., 2007). Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in 1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues.

In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S. had very few regulations in place. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al ., 2007). Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by forecasting the societal impacts of GMOs.

Then, in 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations," became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a product-based approach to assessment, whereas the European approach is more process based (Devos et al ., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops.

Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand

Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived markers (Ma et al ., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate growing seasons.

GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.

References and Recommended Reading

Barta, A., et al . The expression of a nopaline synthase-human growth hormone chimaeric gene in transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue. Plant Molecular Biology 6 , 347–357 (1986)

Beyer, P., et al . Golden rice: Introducing the β-carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. Journal of Nutrition 132 , 506S–510S (2002)

Demont, M., et al . GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6 , 46–53 (2007)

Devlin, R., et al . Extraordinary salmon growth. Nature 371 , 209–210 (1994) ( link to article )

Devos, Y., et al . Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 , 29–61 (2007) doi:10.1007/s10806-007-9057-6

Guerrero-Andrade, O., et al . Expression of the Newcastle disease virus fusion protein in transgenic maize and immunological studies. Transgenic Research 15 , 455–463(2006) doi:10.1007/s11248-006-0017-0

Hiatt, A., et al . Production of antibodies in transgenic plants. Nature 342 , 76–79 (1989) ( link to article )

Hoban, T. Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology. ESA working papers nos. 4-9. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2004)

Jesse, H., & Obrycki, J. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: Lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125 , 241–248 (2000)

Losey, J., et al . Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399 , 214 (1999) doi:10.1038/20338 ( link to article )

Ma, J., et al . The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants. Nature Reviews Genetics 4 , 794–805 (2003) doi:10.1038/nrg1177 ( link to article )

Muir, W., & Howard, R. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 , 13853–13856 (1999)

Sears, M., et al . Impact of Bt corn on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 , 11937–11942 (2001)

Spurgeon, D. Call for tighter controls on transgenic foods. Nature 409 , 749 (2001) ( link to article )

Takeda, S., & Matsuoka, M. Genetic approaches to crop improvement: Responding to environmental and population changes. Nature Reviews Genetics 9 , 444–457 (2008) doi:10.1038/nrg2342 ( link to article )

United States Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program. Human Genome Project information: Genetically modified foods and organisms, (2007)

• Add Content to Group

Article History

Flag inappropriate.

Email your Friend

•  |  Lead Editor:  Bob Moss

Within this Subject (34)

• Applications in Biotechnology (4)
• Discovery of Genetic Material (4)
• DNA Replication (6)
• Gene Copies (5)
• Jumping Genes (4)
• RNA (7)
• Transcription & Translation (4)

Other Topic Rooms

• Gene Inheritance and Transmission
• Gene Expression and Regulation
• Nucleic Acid Structure and Function
• Chromosomes and Cytogenetics
• Evolutionary Genetics
• Population and Quantitative Genetics
• Genes and Disease
• Genetics and Society
• Cell Origins and Metabolism
• Proteins and Gene Expression
• Subcellular Compartments
• Cell Communication
• Cell Cycle and Cell Division

© 2014 Nature Education

• Press Room |
• Terms of Use |
• Privacy Notice |

Visual Browse

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Nutrition & Dieting — Genetically Modified Food

Essays on Genetically Modified Food

Embark on a deep dive into the complex and contentious world of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with our curated collection of genetically modified food essay samples. These essays are designed to provide students with a multifaceted view of the GMO debate, offering insights into the scientific, ethical, environmental, and socio-economic dimensions of genetically modified foods. Whether you are seeking inspiration, looking to bolster your argument, or searching for comprehensive analyses, our collection is an invaluable resource for anyone writing a genetically modified food essay.

The GMO Debate

Genetically modified foods have been at the center of global debates due to their potential impact on food security, health, environment, and biodiversity. Essays on this topic explore various angles, including the benefits of GMOs in addressing world hunger , the concerns over their health and environmental effects, and the ethical considerations of manipulating genetic material. By engaging with these essays, students can cultivate a balanced perspective, appreciating the complexities of the GMO debate.

Highlights from Our Essay Collection

Our genetically modified food essay samples encompass a wide range of perspectives, ensuring that students can find material that resonates with their specific research interests and viewpoints. From critical essays examining the risks associated with GMO consumption to persuasive essays advocating for the role of GMOs in sustainable agriculture, our collection offers a rich tapestry of arguments and discussions. Each essay not only serves as a model for academic writing but also as a springboard for generating unique ideas and approaches to the topic.

Utilizing Our Essays to Your Advantage

• Idea Generation: Let our essays inspire your topic selection and approach, offering new perspectives on the genetically modified food debate.
• Research Starting Point: Use the essays as a foundation for further research, helping you to identify key points, studies, and statistics relevant to your argument.
• Structural Blueprint: Analyze the organization and flow of our essays to guide the structuring of your own argument, ensuring clarity and persuasiveness.
• Citation Guidance: Learn from the referencing styles used in our essays to enhance the credibility and academic integrity of your work.

The debate over genetically modified foods is both vital and vast, touching on issues that affect our health, environment, and global food supply. Our collection of genetically modified food essay samples is here to guide students through the intricacies of this debate, providing a solid foundation for informed and compelling writing. Dive into our essays to enrich your understanding and articulate your position on genetically modified foods with confidence and clarity.

Explore our genetically modified food essay samples today and embark on a journey of discovery and debate. Let these essays empower you to craft a thoughtful and persuasive genetically modified food essay that contributes meaningfully to the ongoing conversation.

The Ethics of Meat Consumption

Kfc's triumph and turmoil in china, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Thesis Statement on Genetically Modified Foods

The advantages of genetic engineering in food production, genetically modified technology in the agricultural industry, genetically modified food: is it beneficial or harmful, 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

Why Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Mandatory

Should genetically modified foods be banned, genetically modified food: benefits and risks, relevant topics.

• Healthy Food
• High Fructose Corn Syrup
• Weight Loss

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!

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

The Advantages of Genetically Modified Foods Essay

Today we currently live in a world that is constantly changing and advancing due to the many beneficial inventions of technological advancements, especially in the wide-ranged field of different molecular genetics. Scientists are always discovering and implementing new ways to help benefit society and our future generation through enhanced food products. Consumers should be informed of how these foods are becoming a great help to those in need. Genetically modified foods should be perceived as an advantage to either the producer or consumer of these foods through a lower price, posssibility eliminating world starvation, and greater benefit in terms of durability and the increased improvement of crop production. As we all know, food has …show more content…

Producers will continue to experiment to prevent negative outcomes. Soon food resources will disappear, society should take advantage of the availability GM foods to rationalize the use of these foods throughout the years. Since GM foods are cheaper to grow, higher in production, and extend the time food remains edible, it seems reasonable that GM food provides more food to people around the world. Over the years as populations continue to increase, food production has adapted, using new methods and technologies to cooperate with the increase in demand. Janet Carpenter, Owner of J E Carpenter Consulting LLC M.S. Agricultural and Resource Economics mentioned that there is a significant production of GM crops for farmers, developing and developed countries. Janet claimed that in a recent case study revealed, “GM insect-resistant cotton in India provides examples of both the highest yield increases observed as well as several of the negative results. The largest yield increases found in the review were for Bt cotton in India, where surveys show yield increases of up to 150%.” (Carpenter) Introducing GMOs technology to developing countries will help tackle poverty as well as hunger.“The accumulated evidence from

Argumentative Essay On Genetically Modified Foods

Genetic engineering is the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material, otherwise known as DNA. Since biochemists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer pioneered genetic engineering in 1973, the process has grown to have numerous applications such as medicine production, for example insulin (Mckinley). However, a main topic of concern is the application of genetic engineering on foods that we eat everyday. By modifying the genetic "blueprint" of crops, it is possible to improve many aspects of agriculture. But with any sort of scientific discovery that allows humans to act as Mother Nature, genetically modifying organisms has been a very controversial topic. Yet our society continues to grow, and the need for the benefits of genetically modified foods continues to grow. Genetically modifying foods should be permitted in our society because it allows larger yields of crops to be produced, produces foods with higher nutritional values, and reduces our global ecological footprint.

Essay about Genetically Modified Foods vs. Organic Foods

• 9 Works Cited

A new kind of foods called the genetically modified foods has been creating a quiet revolution in the American market for the past several years. Scientists are able to produce these new foods by transferring genes from one organism into another across species boundaries. This new technique has been developed to improve the shelf life, nutritional content, flavor, color, and texture of foods. Since 1994, about 45 genetically modified foods such as tomato, corn, soybeans, canola, and potatoes have been marketed in the United States. About two-thirds of foods that are processed in U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients. So, we the people are consuming these foods without realizing the fact that they are not produced naturally.

Genetically Modified Organisms ( Gmos ) Essay

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines genetically modified foods as: “foods [that are] derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism” (WHO, year). GM foods are constructed and distributed because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer. For a GM food to be of theoretical benefit to the consumer and society as a whole, it should: increase crop yields due to the introduced resistance to pests and disease, enhance the nutritional

Essay on Genetically Modified Food (GMOs): Annotated Bibliography

• 5 Works Cited

Genetically modified food’s, or GMOs, goal is to feed the world's malnourished and undernourished population. Exploring the positive side to GMOs paints a wondrous picture for our planet’s future, although careful steps must be taken to ensure that destruction of our ecosystems do not occur. When GMOs were first introduced into the consumer market they claimed that they would help eliminate the world’s food crisis by providing plants that produced more and were resistant to elemental impacts like droughts and bacterial contaminants, however, production isn’t the only cause for the world’s food crisis. Which is a cause for concern because the population on the earth is growing and our land and ways of agriculture will not be enough to feed

Genetically Modified Foods, Pros and Cons persuasive essay.

“When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow.” – Ursula K. Le Guin. No matter what good some people believe they are doing, everything seems to come with a consequence, and the question is whether or not the good overpowers the bad. Many experts argue that Genetically Modified foods are actually beneficial to, not only people, but animals, plants, and the world overall. Some experts even state that, not only are they beneficial, but that they also protect the environment and aid food productivity. Most farmers actually recommend GMO’s because they are easier to grow, maintain, and tend to be more profitable; however, countless other experts have come to realize that GMO foods are untested, unsafe, and unhealthy. Studies indicate that

An Argument for GMO's in Foods Essay

One of my favorite episodes of the television show, "The Simpsons", begins with Marge, the mother, serving her family a dinner of unusually large, genetically modified foods. Shortly after dinner is served, one of the potatoes eats a carrot. Although this example is comedic hyperbole, it is still an excellent illustration of the public perception of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as dangerous "Frankenfoods". This perception is out of touch with the reality of GMOs and runs contrary to a large body of scientific evidence that indicates that GMOs are safe for people and our environment.

The Controversy Over Genetically Modified Foods ( GMOs) Essay

• 10 Works Cited

The genetic engineering of foods has, in one sense, been in existence for hundreds of years. The first time Gregor Mendel bred different varieties of pea plants to observe the various traits present in their offspring, the concept was born. Today, genetic engineering has developed into one of the most complex and advanced fields of scientific thinking, all the while provoking many questions and acquiring many opponents along the way. While there are compelling arguments presented for each side of the issue, the simple fact is that genetically modified (GM) foods are a reality, especially in the United States, as they are already present in many products that are consumed on a daily

The Controversy Of Genetically Modified Foods In The United States

People who support the genetic modification of foods agree that by producing foods in this format, society can benefit in many ways. For instance, producers can create more nutritious foods, achieve higher yields, and decrease food prices. The article “27 Big Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Foods,” states that “[a]ccording to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, some GM foods have been engineered to become more nutritious in terms

Gmos Argumentative Essay

Because there is such an abundance of food in this country (the USA), one can find GMOs almost everywhere, from a cob of corn in the produce aisle to a fast-food quarter pounder. Consequently, if a person is concerned about what food they are putting into their mouth, the topic is GMOs is likely to show up at some point. Growing crops that have been changed on a genetic level to achieve a specific characteristic is now a commonplace practice by many commercial and non-commercial farmers alike. These enhanced species of plants have a variety of advantages over unmodified species. Genetically modified organisms can benefit farmers and consumers because of their increased durability and

The Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops Essay

However, these risks are purely speculative: 81 separate studies costing approximately $65 million have been conducted by the European Commission alone and have shown no evidence of any risk linked to GM foods (1). Indeed, the U.S. has concluded that the risk of GM crops is minimal. As a result, in the U.S., genetically altered crops accounted for 93% of planted soybeans and cotton and 86% of corn in 2009. (2). Considering the success and benefits of GM crops in America, developing countries have followed suit. In 2009, India planted 84,000 square kilometers of genetically modified cotton, and Brazil planted 214,000 square kilometers of GM soybeans, a 26% increase from the year before (3). Like the U.S., these countries conducted a risk-benefit analysis and concluded that the economic, health, and food surplus benefits of GM crops offset the unproven risks (4). Thus, agricultural biotechnology is being implemented in farming techniques throughout the world.

Persuasive Essay Gmo

Our world is full of complications, situations that need people’s attention. Scientists are attempting to find answers for most of the world’s difficulties. Nevertheless, a solution for one problem creates some other obstacle. It becomes impossible to create a solution that does not have side effects. One of the difficult situations in this world is hunger and poverty. Many people lack enough food to live a healthy life, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries. In order to provide sufficient food and maintain food security, scientists discovered genetically altered foods. Genetically engineered foods are grown from plants or animals whose genes are modified by inserting new genes that can increase the plant’s and animal’s resistance to diseases and worms. By doing so, researchers improve crop yield and animal products. In addition to increasing the amount of food produced, scientists enhance the nutritive content of crops by using biotechnology, which results in reducing malnutrition. Furthermore, some investigators claim the environmental importance of

Genetically Modified Foods Good or Bad?: Essay

• 3 Works Cited

What if people could create an organism that was stronger than it was previously? More resistance to diseases, poisons, and that could thrive in a hostile environment? That is what scientist are creating with GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) but mostly with plants that farmers produce for food such as corn or soybeans. Scientist can create modified organism when they pick an organism (such as corn) and then have certain changes introduced into their DNA using genetic engineering. It is different from breeding because instead of getting random genes, scientists are putting the desired gene directly into the plants’ DNA. Genetically modified foods are a controversial topic throughout most of the country but most Americans would be

Genetically Foods : Genetically Modified Foods

“70 percent of our corn farmland and 93 percent of soy farmland are planted with crops genetically engineered to resist pests and herbicides and increase crop yields. 60% of all the processed foods in the United States are genetically modified; a shocking statistic has the concern of many Americans. However, most people are uninformed about the beneficial impact that genetically modified food has on their diet. GM is the use of molecular biology technology to modify the inherited structure of organisms. Genetically engineered crops increase nutrients, drought tolerance, provide more food for growing populations, and resists diseases and pesticides. Genetically engineered foods are crucial to the improvement of economy, agriculture, society, and health choices. The creation of GM foods was one of the most significant breakthroughs in food industry. Genetically modifying foods is a key component that is harmless for the enrichment of our foods.

Benefits Of Genetically Modified Organisms Essay

A Genetically Modified Organism or GMO is an organism whose genome has been altered by the process of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found within. These genetically modified organisms are a relatively new phenomenon in the United States, introduced in 1994. However, beginning in 2014 these chemicals could be found in 90% of corn, cotton, and soybeans produced in the United States. The looks and taste of genetically modified organisms may seem inviting but are the health risks really worth it? In my opinion, I believe that while genetically modified organisms do have positive feel and comfort they pose a large health risk to all who choose to consume them.

Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Food Essays

Genetically modified foods are a types of foods that have been genetically changed, to add or get rid of an unwanted trait in a food. For example, seedless oranges. This is a type of orange that is genetically modified (had tits genes changed) specifically so it would grow without seeds. Many foods are genetically modified today. Oranges, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, squash, and many others have had their genes changed. In fact, the average person will eat at least one genetically modified food everyday without realizing it. According to a survey by USDA 26% of people asked believed that they had never eaten a genetically modified food.

Related Topics

• Genetically modified organism
• Genetically modified food
• Food industry

• 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: 13 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops Essay

The concerns regarding gm foods, benefits of gm foods, reference list.

Genetic modification or engineering of food entails changing the DNA make-up of the seeds used to grow certain food crops and pharmaceutical plants.

As a result, genetic modification aims at altering the characteristics of plants so that they can be grown within a short period, to suit the prevailing climatic conditions, to resist the damage from pests, diseases, and weeds, and to increase food production (Windley, 2008, p. 1).

Therefore, research studies note that genetically modified foods hold the key to solving the current issues regarding the global food production patterns. Conversely, critics of these modified foods have raised several concerns regarding the safety of these foods and their effect on the environment and traditional varieties of food crops.

Thus, this essay presents discussions on the concerns raised over the safety and effect of genetically modified (GM) foods, and the benefits of these foods in order to assess whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

Most researchers are concerned about the safety of GM foods to human health. Here, the researchers note that there are no human studies regarding the effect of GM foods on human beings and therefore, one cannot certainly state the effect of these crops relative to their digestibility, their present and future impact on human health, and their effect on the human microbiota (Windley, 2008, p. 1).

In addition, studies note that most GM foods contain a lot of pesticide and herbicide residues, which are potential risk factors in the development of different food allergies (Bant, 2008). Conversely, other studies posit that some GM foods such as GMO potatoes can lead to the development of pre-cancerous lesions in the intestinal tract, testicles, and the liver of test animals (Windley, 2008, p. 2).

Additionally, there are concerns over the long-term effect of GM seeds in that their increased use threatens the existence of natural seeds. Here, most researchers note that GM seeds have found popularity in different parts of the world whereby they have been replanted over the years and therefore, raising concerns in that they may lead to the lose of the natural seeds.

Furthermore, natural plants may lose their nutritional profile and the cost of farm inputs may increase because farmers will be forced to purchase seeds, which were previously available for free (Windley, 2008, p. 2).

Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the effect of GM foods on the environment. Here, the critics of GM foods argue that the increased use of herbicides and pesticides may lead to the emergence of resistant strains of weeds and insects, which may become potentially harmful to the environment (Bant, 2008).

Moreover, certain GM crops including pharmaceutical plants may escape from containment fields to the food crop fields and therefore, contaminate the natural crops (Marvier, 2007, p. 59).

Despite the increased criticism against GM foods, they are important in terms of guaranteeing the global food safety because of their potential to increase the yield and the nutritional content of some food crops (Bant, 2008).

Additionally, GM crops can survive in different climatic conditions and therefore, they have the potential to expand the cultivation areas and resources relative to the diminishing natural resources. Furthermore, GM crops are designed to resist herbivores, insects, and herbicides. As a result, there is maximal utilization of the limited resources to realize increased yields with GM foods (Bant, 2008).

Furthermore, most GM foods can endure long-distance transportation, which does not normally favor most natural crops such as greens. As a result, GM foods can expand the shelf life of foods and thus, reduce the costs incurred due to food spoilage (Bant, 2008).

Additionally, since most developing countries rely on grains as the only staple food, they can derive several benefits from GM crops, which aim at diversifying the nutritional profile of food grains. Moreover, most GM crops have been designed by excluding potential allergens in the original plants and therefore, GM foods have increased the range of food crops available to farmers (Bant, 2008).

Lastly, scientists have designed genetically modified pharmaceutical plants, which possess the ability to produce large quantities of drugs and vaccines. As a result, genetic engineering of plants allows the increased availability of pharmaceuticals while reducing the cost of health care provision in the world (Marvier, 2007, p. 59).

The essay presents discussions on the benefits and concerns regarding the production of GM foods and pharmaceuticals. The discussions above note that GM foods and pharmaceuticals hold several benefits amid the intense criticism regarding their safety and their effect on the environment.

As noted above, most critics base their arguments on assumptions while the benefits of GM foods cannot be overemphasized. As a result, there is the possibility that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the concerns over their safety and potential impact on human beings and the environment unless the claims made against GM foods are supported by factual and statistical data.

Bant, O., 2008. Genetically modified crops: boon or bane? Illumin . Web.

Marvier, M., 2007. Pharmaceutical crops have a mixed outlook in California. California Agriculture . Web.

Windley, S., 2008. Genetically modified foods. University of Sussex: AAC Reading Pack. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 25). Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops. https://ivypanda.com/essays/benefits-and-concerns-regarding-genetically-modified-crops/

"Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops." IvyPanda , 25 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/benefits-and-concerns-regarding-genetically-modified-crops/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops'. 25 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops." December 25, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/benefits-and-concerns-regarding-genetically-modified-crops/.

1. IvyPanda . "Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops." December 25, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/benefits-and-concerns-regarding-genetically-modified-crops/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops." December 25, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/benefits-and-concerns-regarding-genetically-modified-crops/.

• Genetically Modified Corn in the United States of America
• Genetic Alteration of Food Sources: A New Strategy to Improve Food Production
• Weed Issues in Strawberry
• Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations
• Sequencing Bacterial Genome
• Possible Benefits of New Genetics
• Medical Ethics: Case of Jane and Phyllis
• Privacy in Genetic Testing and Restriction of Access to Own Personal Information

Genetically Modified Food Benefits Essay

THE BENEFITS OF GENETICALLY MODIEFIED FOOD GMO means genetically modified organisms, in this essay I will focus on genetically modified food and its benefits. Genetically modified food is genetically improved food which changes the crop or the plant to have something they don't have usually. For example it could make a crop have some nutrients the they didn't usually have or they you could make some the plant resistant to herbicides. People usually don't like the GMO because they think of it as chemicals and side effects. The genetically modified food helps the people through increase the economy, it also improves the environment and may be the health to the in habitants and the plants themselves. Mainly the economy of the country is affected[1]. for example the US it widely grows corn, but it is very vulnerable to a lot of pest and disease a lot of the corn may die of that[1]. With the help of the GMO plant could be resistant to the diseases [1]. Which will increase the amount of corn that specific country grows, which will in return increase the economy of the country [1]. also the farmer will not need herbicides or pesticides, so they would be saving some money [1]. Also it increases the economy of the country, because …show more content…

An example is genetically modified rice or the Golden rice. We know that rice is the staple food for most people in Asia or even in Africa, some people just eat food only. Millions of the children in places like the Philippines go blind of vitamin A deficiency thousands of others die of other disease, because lack of vitamin A cause the weakening of the immune system[4][2]. To solve this problem the genetic engineers took a gene from corn which provides vitamin A and from bacteria in the normal rice. Only one bowl of the golden rice provides 60% of the vitamin A needed in one day[4]. Again we see that the genetically modified food saving living

Transformation Of Pglo Lab Report

GMO's are genetically altered organisms made by scientists. By altering the organisms' genetics it could change its size, color, taste, and physical appearance. A GMO is meant to be stronger, better and simply more effective than past generations that haven't been altered. They are more capable of adapting and surviving new environments they wouldn't naturally be able to. For example crops can be made pest resistant, sweeter, bigger, be able to grow faster, be able to grow under any type of conditions rather than having to wait for certain season to get that certain type of crop and even be the new 'edible vaccines'(Scientific American Inc).

Why Genetically Modified Organisms Are Bad

Genetically Modified Organisms- Not as bad as you think Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are organisms that are engineered to improve the original organism. Even though genetically modified organisms are seen as harmful to people and the organism, they also improve the organism and can make it better. There are many benefits that most people don’t realize about genetically modified organisms, and I believe that GMOs are good for people, instead of bad. One example of how genetically modified organisms are helpful is that GMOs improve resistance to insects and generate healthier crops.

Gmos Argumentative Essay

It’s a popular topic on the media that GMOs are bad for the human body. Well, little did the they know that ninety percent of corn grown in the US is genetically modified (Margie Kelly), and the body can 't even distinguish between GMOs and non-GMOs! There are people debating that GMOs are unhealthy, bad for the economy and even the environment. These people must be uneducated on this topic. Genetically modified crops improve our society because they allow farmers to yield a larger crop, improve the quality their crop, and lessen the negative environmental impacts of their crops.

Genetically Modified Food Argumentative Essay

Genetically modified food, usually short written as GM food, is food which composed by artificial modified DNA, like insert genes from another organism. GM food is not newly introduced technology, the first scientist discovered genes can be transfer between organism was in 1946, the first genetically modified products first appeared in 1983. However, debates over the topic has never stopped. Some people hold positive view towards GM food, think that it can improve our world.

The Pros And Cons Of GMO Foods

GMO or Genetically Modified Organism is applied to any food or meat which has been genetically modified through its growth or cultivation. In other words, vast industries are merging DNA from various species in order to increase production and decrease costs. Sure, it turned out just fine for the moneymakers, however this is on the cost of ordinary people who tremble upon the fact to go in the markets and examine and study every label which enters their shopping card. Every fruit, veggie

Argumentative Essay On Genetically Modified Food

For years, the health and safety of genetically modified foods have been debated and researched by scientists, but the question still stands: should genetically modified foods be allowed for consumption? The process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. The purpose is to alter the genetic code in plants and animals to make them more productive or resistant to pests or farming techniques. Genetically modified organisms, more commonly known as GMOs, have been a controversial topic of debate for a number of reasons. The ethics behind genetically modified foods come into question due to an abundance of short and long-term effects from the process, many of which are still unknown today.

Pros And Cons Of Genetically Modified Foods

Are genetically modified foods creating or solving problems? “Genetically modified food” is a term rapidly becoming more frequently debated in conversation today. Discussion with regards to its use or even place in our society is on going, with conflicting arguments always prevalent. Many people believe that genetically modified foods are creating problems within society, while others argue the opposite and believe genetically modified foods are in fact solving problems. Both sides offer sound argument, however by analysing research and genetically modified food history, one can ascertain that genetically modified foods are proffering more solutions to issues in our world rather than creating them.

Persuasive Essay On Genetically Modified Foods

What do a tomato, soybean and a french fry have in common? They are all some of the most commonly genetically modified foods sold on the market today. By using the genetic information from one organism, and inserting or modifying it into another organism, scientists can make food crops stay fresher, grow bigger, and have the crops create their own pesticides. Nevertheless, the technology to modify genes has surpassed its practicality. Genetically modified foods need to be removed from everyday agriculture because of the threat they pose to human health, the environment, and the impact on global economy.

Gmo Labeling Persuasive Essay

The labelling of genetically modified foods is seen as wholesome common sense, and it should be required to have the information on the back of every product. People have been manipulating the genetic makeup of plants for numerous generations using the process of traditional cross breeding. Genetically modified crops have been traded, grown and consumed around the world, including Australia since 1996. The progress and advancement in this field has impacted the way we view the deeper issues of this technology. While genetic engineering crop property has been gradually increasing, so have concerns, in that producing and eating genetically modified foods may pose unexpected environmental and health hazards.

Why Is Gmo Bad

Some experts claim that GMOs can solve the world 's hunger problem, however, it is not a black and white question, meaning that it is not a simple question to answer and people have different opinions on whether it is positive or negative for our country. A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. This can cause problems, that can be extremely dangerous, nevertheless, it can help plants protect themselves from certain diseases or animals.

Argumentative Essay On Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically modified organisms are biologically altered foods. Scientists put a desired gene from one plant, animal, or organism into another plant, in the hope that more crops are grown and have resistance to disease, drought, and pesticides. You likely have several items in your kitchen that are genetically modified that you don’t even know about. According to Livestrong.com, more than 88% of all soy, corn, squash, and cotton plants grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. Animal products like eggs, meat, and milk contain genetically modified foods, because the food fed to livestock is usually genetically modified.

Persuasive Speech On Gmo Food

GMOS Introduction: I believe that GMOS are good for this world and for the people because the gmos can save us from starving when all the food is gone. GMOS are a genetically modified organism is an organism whose genetic materials that have been altered using genetic engineering techniques. GMO foods are okay to eat because some food that have gmos could have some genetic characteristics in them to make the food survive the hot when that food has to be frozen. GMOS are different from foods that don 't have GMOS Body 1: GMOS can save the world because if we had no food because if there was a drought and the plants died. Then we could just plant GMO foods, The drought won’t really do anything to the plant.

Pro Genetic Engineering Argumentative Essay

Food production has been a matter that has been disputed for years now because of the things that have been added to crops. While pesticide helps keep other organisms from taking crop harvest, it has also added chemicals into the food that we consume; chemicals that should not be inside of us. Genetic engineering would allow for the natural modification of food to provide DNA genes that can be used to act as a shield against pests and diseases. With the DNA modification of crops, there would be no need to

Essay On Advantages And Disadvantages Of Gm Foods

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Foods? Genetically modified (GM) foods are organisms that have had new genes added to themselves from other organisms. Being around since 1994, they are produced in a way that is very similar to genetic engineering. The technique used in this type of crop management has been introduced to ensure farmers and merchants are able to improve crop or food quality in a more efficient way.

Gm Foods Advantages And Disadvantages Essay

3)SUSTAINABILITY: Gm foods gives us a constant and efficient ways to feed the growing population in the world. This is the main goal of the genetically modified crops. 4)RESISTANCE TO DISEASE: Most important modification done to the crops is the disease resistance ability. Scientists have genetically restructured the DNA to withstand diseases. This helps to keep the price low for the customers.

More about Genetically Modified Food Benefits Essay

Genetically Modified Food Essay

Genetically Modified Food

Genetically modified food Nobody knows that how big the market of genetically modified foods will be in the future. Nobody knows that how serious the final effect of genetically modified foods will be. Nobody knows that how to deal with the damage for humans、animals and environment that caused by genetically modified foods. Despite all these, officials have long been aware of the problems in planting or eating genetically modified foods, according to news reports. In some cases, the most important problems lie in the genetically modified foods that the damage is irreversible to human、animal organs and the ecological environment. Thus, genetically modified foods may have some advantages on disease resistant、output and so on, but rejecting genetically…

GM Modified Foods: What Is Genetically Modified Food?

What is Genetically Modified Food? Genetically modified (GM) foods are defined as "foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism" (WHO, 2015). Genetic engineering (also called modern biotechnology or gene technology) performs this modification. The specific genes selected from one organism are transferred to another within different species such as animals,…

Genetically Modified Foods

Foods produced without GMOs are looked at as healthier and safer. While that may not hold true, more and more Americans are believing it. The world is rapidly changing, so it makes sense that technology and agriculture will change with it. GMOs can be used as stockpile food for largely growing populations, especially those in poverty. In the first half of this century alone, global demand for food is expected to grow by about 70 percent (Bones, 2011). The MIT technology review shows that for…

Essay On Genetically Modified Foods

The Impacts of Modified Foods Genetically modified foods have an impact on everyone including animals. Anyone that is concerned with genetically modified foods shouldn’t worry. It mostly impacts humans in both good and bad ways, but mostly in a positive way. Many may agree that genetically modified foods are bad for anyone who eats it. Some will argue that we shouldn’t tamper with the organism, but we’ve been modifying organisms since the beginning of time. Genetically modified foods are good…

Against Genetically Modified Foods

Im going against genetically modified foods because you never know what can happen to your body. When food is genetically modified, its genes are changed by scientists to produce new traits that farmers and consumers want from their food. For example, with genetic modification, a plant that is eaten by a certain type of insect could be changed in such a way that it tastes bad or is even dangerous to that insect. With genetic engineering, food items can become more resistant to disease and pests,…

Genetically Modified Food Controversy

Fake Food… to Eat or Not to Eat Throughout the world, foods are being genetically modified to improve production, lower price, and make the food more resistant to insects ( Agadoni). However, along with the use of genetically engineered crops follows controversy. Genetically modified foods, or GM’s, have a big support group but also an equally as big opposition. The use of genetically modified foods in the global supply should be limited to need based situations and only after more than…

The Problem Of Genetically Modified Foods

earth by 2050. Even now with over 7 billion mouths to feed the food industry is struggling and is constantly being put under immense pressure to produce enough food to feed us and the issue is only exacerbating as the population continues to increase in size. - What is the solution/possible solutions? However, there is a resolution to fix the problem. The most current effective and efficient solution to this dilemma is Genetically Modified Food (GE). Genetically modified organisms is the…

Genetically Modified Foods Ethical

Since birth, food has been an essential needs. In the past, food would take awhile to harvesting and was hard to get from hunting. Nowadays, technology has allowed the mass production of food. Unfortunately, the market took advantage of this technology by not letting the consumers know what the food contains. This is created the birth of Genetically Modified Organisms, also known as GMOs. GMOs are organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) had been altered in a way that does not occur…

Benefits Of Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified foods, or GMOs, are foods whose DNA has been altered through genetic engineering. The goal of genetic engineering is to add DNA into an organism manually which will lead to new traits that weren’t in the original organism. This engineering can be done in either animals, bacteria, plants, or any type of organism and is performed to bring forth new traits along with having a better control over the traits. Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding. Trait…

Genetically Modified Foods Are A Problem

Paper #1 Genetically Modified Foods Are a Problem In the past couple of years Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) have been taking over America at an increasing and alarming rate. Over the past few years many Americans, including myself, have been concerned about GMO foods and if it’s safe for people to consume. With this in mind, more than sixty other countries ban or require GMO labeling on their food products. GMO products, such as tomatoes can last longer on display without rotting as well…

Related Topics:

• Agriculture
• Antibiotic resistance
• Bacillus thuringiensis
• Gene expression
• Genetic engineering
• Genetically modified food
• Genetically modified organism
• Golden rice
• Immune system

Popular Topics:

• The Outsiders Essay
• Abortion Argumentative Essay
• My Bedroom Essay
• Essay on Insurance Frauds
• Nationalism Essay
• Describing a Place Essay
• King Lear Essay
• Globalisation Essay
• A Raisin in the Sun Essay
• Film Review Essay
• College Experience Essay
• Essay on Accounting
• Good Teacher Essay
• Love Is the Most Powerful Weapon Essay
• Online Dating Essay
• Online Shopping Vs Traditional Shopping Essay
• King Shaka Zulu Essay
• Advantages of Studying Abroad Essay
• What Does It Mean to Be Human Essay
• Essay on Trust
• Essay on Dreams
• Healthy Food Habits Essay
• Imperialism Essay
• My Goal in Life Essay
• How to Take Care of Pets Essay

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings