research paper on gmo

• Open access
• Published: 13 January 2022

Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies

• Chen Shen 1 ,
• Xiang-Chang Yin 2 ,
• Bo-Yang Jiao 3 ,
• Jing Li 4 ,
• Peng Jia 5 ,
• Xiao-Wen Zhang 1 ,
• Xue-Hao Cheng 6 ,
• Jian-Xin Ren 6 ,
• Hui-Di Lan 7 ,
• Wen-Bin Hou 1 ,
• Min Fang 1 ,
• Yu-Tong Fei 1 ,
• Nicola Robinson 1 , 8 &
• Jian-Ping Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0320-061X 1 , 9  

Environmental Sciences Europe volume  34 , Article number:  8 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

15 Citations

47 Altmetric

Metrics details

A systematic review of animal and human studies was conducted on genetically modified (GM) food consumption to assess its safety in terms of adverse effects/events to inform public concerns and future research.

Seven electronic databases were searched from January 1st 1983 till July 11th 2020 for in vivo, animal and human studies on the incidence of adverse effects/events of GM products consumption. Two authors independently identified eligible studies, assessed the study quality, and extracted data on the name of the periodical, author and affiliation, literature type, the theme of the study, publication year, funding, sample size, target population characteristics, type of the intervention/exposure, outcomes and outcome measures, and details of adverse effects/events. We used the Chi-square test to compare the adverse event reporting rates in articles funded by industry funding, government funding or unfunded articles.

One crossover trial in humans and 203 animal studies from 179 articles met the inclusion criteria. The study quality was all assessed as being unclear or having a high risk of bias. Minor illnesses were reported in the human trial. Among the 204 studies, 59.46% of adverse events (22 of 37) were serious adverse events from 16 animal studies (7.84%). No significant differences were found in the adverse event reporting rates either between industry and government funding ( χ 2  = 2.286, P  = 0.131), industry and non-industry funding ( χ 2  = 1.761, P  = 0.185) or funded and non-funded articles ( χ 2  = 0.491, P  = 0.483). We finally identified 21 GM food-related adverse events involving 7 GM events (NK603 × MON810 maize, GTS 40-3-2 soybean, NK603 maize, MON863 maize, MON810 maize, MON863 × MON810 × NK603 maize and GM Shanyou 63 rice), which had all been on regulatory approval in some countries/regions.

Serious adverse events of GM consumption include mortality, tumour or cancer, significant low fertility, decreased learning and reaction abilities, and some organ abnormalities. Further clinical trials and long-term cohort studies in human populations, especially on GM food-related adverse events and the corresponding GM events, are still warranted. It suggests the necessity of labelling GM food so that consumers can make their own choice.

Introduction

Genetic modification is defined as introducing transgene(s) with desired traits into the recipient organism’s genome by recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology, and therefore it does not occur naturally [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Genetically modified (GM) crops are thought to address food security, sustainability and climate change solutions by improving crop yields, conserving biodiversity, providing a better environment in terms of the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits, reducing CO 2 emissions and helping alleviate poverty through uplifting the economic situation [ 4 ]. Insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits were first introduced into four types of crop, canola, cotton, maize and soybeans, at the beginning of GM production [ 5 ]. At present, the mainstream characteristics of new crops still pursue higher-yielding, more nutritious, pest- and disease-resistant and climate-smart to meet future demand for a yield increase of major crops such as wheat, rice and corn, due to the growing population [ 6 ].

Since 1996, the first year of commercialization of GM crops, 70 countries had adopted GM crops until 2018, including 26 countries that cumulatively planted 2.5 billion hectares of GM crops and an additional 44 countries that imported GM crops. During the 27 years (1992 to 2018), 4349 approvals for 387 GM events from 27 GM crops were granted by 70 countries involving 2063 for food (when the direct consumers are mainly humans), 1461 for feed (the products only intended for animal consumption) use and 825 for environmental release or cultivation [ 4 , 7 ]. The major agricultural product exporting countries like the U.S.A., Brazil and Argentina show over 90% adoption of biotech crops [ 4 ]. For GM animal products, biotech salmon, considered to be the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption, was approved by the United States Department of Agriculture and Food & Drug Administration in 2015 [ 8 ]. In addition, it is illegal to grow major GM food crops in China while there are substantial investments in biotechnology research and GM maize, soybeans, and canola are allowed to import and eat [ 9 ].

Genetically modified food, however, is an example of the controversial relation between the inherent uncertainty of the scientific approach and the need of consumers to use products resulting from scientific developments thought to be safe [ 10 ]. Significant health risks have not been reported in peer-reviewed studies on GM food safety/security, which may cause some publication bias [ 11 ] but with a few exceptions, like the most famous “Monarch Butterfly controversy” [ 12 ], "Pusztai case" [ 13 ] and the "Séralini case" [ 14 ]. Unexpected effects of GM crops were reported in these studies, occupying an important place in the pages of scientific journals. Nevertheless, the above controversies severely impacted the public image, leading to full or partial bans in 38 countries including the European Union [ 15 ].

The complexity of risk evaluation is shown in these conflicting results, and concerns about the citizen-consumers have been raised against GM food [ 10 ]. Of most concern, aroused from the controversial events and some research results, is the potential of carcinogenesis, teratogenesis [ 16 ], lethal effects and adverse influences on fertility. GM agriculture is now widely discussed in both positive and negative frames and currently serves as a hotbed of debate in the public and policymakers. Although there are some reports and evidence from human and animal studies on the potential health effects of GM food/feed, the evidence is not conclusive and public concerns have not been resolved.

We aimed to conduct a systematic review of animal and human studies on GM food consumption to assess its safety in terms of adverse effects/events to inform public concerns and future research.

This study was a systematic review of previously published studies, conducted and reported in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [ 17 ] guideline.

Search strategy

China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP Database, Chinese Biomedical Database (SinoMed), PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched from January, 1st, 1983 till July, 11th, 2020, using a predefined search strategy (Additional file 1 : Appendix S1). Reference lists of retrieved articles were also searched.

Eligibility criteria

Based on the evidence pyramid proposed by the Medical Center of State University of New York in 2001, we determined the type of research we included in the study. For a comprehensive evaluation of the literature, all in vivo animal studies and human studies (cross-sectional studies, case reports, case series, case–control studies, case–crossover studies, cohort studies, controlled clinical trials, including randomized trials, quasi-randomized trials and non-randomized trials) in multiple languages were included. Animal studies in all fields were included, that is, they could be clinical, agricultural and animal husbandry, veterinary medicine, life sciences, etc. Field studies were excluded.

The study population in animal studies was applied with inclusion criteria based on the categorization approach that highlights the actual use of them: laboratory animals and economical animals (livestock and aquatilia) were included, with no prespecified limitations on age, population, species/races, health status or others. Interventions/exposures of the genetically modified animal/plant/microorganism products included for animal/human ingestion referred to GM food, GM food ingredients and GM feed, regardless of their dosage or duration. The GM strain (line) and GM event were not limited. There was no restriction on whether controls were or were not included. The studies were excluded if they focused on the effects of GM food/feed on secondary or multilevel consumers in the food chain where GM food/feed was only consumed by primary consumers in the predator relationships. For instance, if non-GM fishes were fed with diet containing GM ingredients and then the fish was fed to the experimental cats, the study was excluded.

Outcomes focused on the incidence of adverse effects or adverse events in GM food/feed consumption, including primary outcomes on carcinogenesis, teratogenesis, lethal effect (all-cause mortality) and reproduction and secondary outcomes on other biomarkers were included. Toxicity studies of general toxicity studies (acute, sub-acute, sub-chronic, chronic and carcinogenicity toxicity studies) and specific toxicity studies (genotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity and other toxicology studies) were included. Mortality in pups before weaning was considered as an outcome of reproductive toxicity but not as a lethal effect. Outcomes of adverse events in laboratory testing would not be included only when they could indicate tissue or organ toxicity. Outcomes of adverse events in breeding performance in animal husbandry studies, which focused on the economic benefits of the animal products, were included and these indicators were regarded as reproduction biomarkers in this research.

Outcomes of adverse events on growth performance, carcass traits, meat and fur production performance and meat quality for economic benefit evaluation of live stocks were excluded, of which the indicators included final body weight, weight gain, feed to gain ratio, half-eviscerated weight, eviscerated weight, percentage of eviscerated yield and muscle lean meat, sebum rate in some parts of the body, etc. Studies on the insecticidal effect of insect-resistant GM feed and outcomes of adverse events in gene fragments residual in the digestive tract were excluded. Besides, duplicate publications, studies with duplicate statistics, or references devoid of necessary information of participants, sample size, interventions/exposures or results were excluded.

Study selection and data extraction

Titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were reviewed by 6 researchers in pair (C Shen, XC Yin, BY Jiao, J Peng, YZ Li, XH Cheng). 6 authors (C Shen, XC Yin, BY Jiao, JX Ren, J Li and XW Zhang) independently reviewed the full texts to identify the studies meeting eligibility criteria and then 8 researchers in pair (C Shen, XC Yin, BY Jiao, J Li, P Jia, XW Zhang, XH Cheng and JX Ren) independently extracted data from the included studies according to a predesignated extraction table. The discrepancies were resolved through consensus and if necessary, arbitrated by another author (JP Liu).

We extracted the name of the periodical, author and affiliation, literature type, the theme of the study, publication year, funding, sample size, target population characteristics, type of the intervention/exposure, outcomes and outcome measures. For those studies in which adverse effects/events occurred, details of interventions/exposures and control conditions (if any), dosage, duration, number of the generation, and the results were extracted.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality for animal studies was assessed, using criteria from the SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. The quality of animal studies was categorized into low risk of bias, unclear risk of bias, or high risk of bias according to the risk for each important outcome within included studies, including the adequacy of generation of the sequence generation, baseline characteristics, allocation concealment, random housing, blinding (performance bias), random outcome assessment, blinding (detection bias), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, or other sources of bias. The judgment of other risk of bias was based on whether there were contamination (pooling drugs), inappropriate influence of funders, unit of analysis errors, design-specific risks of bias or new animals added to the control and experimental groups to replace drop-outs from the original population.

Statistical synthesis and analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out using Microsoft Excel 2016 and SPSS 20.0. The findings were reported mainly in two parts, characteristics of the included studies and detailed information on the studies in which adverse effects/events occurred. Initially, descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages were calculated to summarize the data. Subsequently, studies that evaluated similar populations, interventions, controls (if any) and outcomes were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis, and data from other studies were presented in tables and described in a narrative summary. The incidence of adverse events reported in articles funded by industry funding, government funding or unfunded articles were, respectively, counted and the Chi-square test was used for the comparisons.

Besides, we figured the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) by percentage. With reference to the Food and Drug Administration’s definition [ 18 ], our study defined SAEs as death, life-threatening, hospitalization (initial or prolonged), disability or permanent change, disruption, impairment or damage in a body function or structure (including cancer or tumour), in physical activities or quality of life, congenital anomaly or birth defect in the newborn child or pups, infertility or significant low in the number of deliveries or live birth rate than the non-GM commercial, conventional or blank controls, and an event resulting in intervention/treatment to prevent permanent impairment, damage or to prevent one of the other outcomes.

Meanwhile, the adverse events which cannot be ruled out that it has nothing to do with GM food (hereinafter abbreviated as GM food-related adverse events) were identified and the percentages under each outcome were calculated.

Description of studies

The flow diagram of the literature selection is shown in Fig.  1 . A total of 9668 records were identified, including 9584 from the initial search through seven databases and 84 from other sources. After removal of duplicates and exclusion of references by reading titles and abstracts, 455 full-text articles were screened and 276 references were excluded with reasons (seen in the flow chart). Finally, 204 studies from 179 articles [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 ] (153 journal articles, 22 dissertations, 3 conference proceedings and 1 unpublished report) were included in data synthesis, since there were more than one study conducted in each of the 2 included dissertations [ 107 , 127 ], 11 journal articles [ 19 , 33 , 35 , 63 , 67 , 88 , 102 , 118 , 132 , 172 , 184 ] and 1 unpublished report [ 32 ]. The included studies were of 203 in vivo animal studies and 1 crossover trial [ 97 ] in humans.

The flow of literature search and selection of studies on the safety of GM food

Study characteristics

Of the 179 included articles, 94 were in English [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ], 83 were published in Chinese [ 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 ], and 2 in Japanese [ 196 , 197 ]. The earliest included reference dated back to 1998 [ 153 ] (shown in Fig.  2 ), after which the remaining articles were distributed from 2000 to 2020 (45 articles in the 2000s, while 131 in the 2010s and 2 in the 2020s). The year 2012 witnessed the largest volume of publication (n = 26 articles, 14.53%). For funding sources or sponsors (Additional file 1 : Appendix S2), in addition to 57 articles not mentioning the funding/sponsor (hereinafter as non-funded articles), there were 116 articles (64.8% of the 179 articles) supported by 56 kinds of government funding from 12 countries/government organizations and, still, 9 articles (5.03%) by 10 kinds of industry/institute funding sources/sponsors from 4 countries (America, Australia, French and German). Among them, 3 articles [ 29 , 62 , 74 ] claimed to have been funded or sponsored by both government and industry. China had undertaken the most government/school-level funding projects (39 of 56 projects, 69.64%).

The publications (number of articles) on the safety of GM food by year

The periodicals that have published more than 5 included articles were Food and Chemical Toxicology (published 25 included articles), EFSA Journal (13), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (9), Journal of Hygiene Research (9) and Chinese Journal of Food Hygiene (8). 11 of 13 authors, who have published ten or more included studies, were from European Food Safety Authority and published 12 included articles as co-authors. They were Christina Tlustos (published 12 included articles), Claudia Bolognesi (12), Konrad Grob (12), Vittorio Silano (12), Andre Penninks (11), Gilles Riviere (11), Holger Zorn (11), Karl-Heinz Engel (11), Yi Liu (11), Natalia Kovalkovicova (10), Sirpa Karenlampi (10). In addition to the above 12 articles, the top 3 of the 11 authors who published five or more included studies was Yang Xiao-Guang (from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, published 11 included articles), Wang Jing (from Tianjin Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, published 10 included articles) and Zhuo Qin (from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, published 7 included articles). The top 5 affiliations which published included articles were Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (published 16 included articles), Tianjin Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (12), European Food Safety Authority (12), National Chung Hsing University (10), International Rice Research Institute (9).

Of the 204 included studies, one was a double-blind crossover trial ( n  = 36) in humans and the others were all animal studies. Individual sample sizes of the total 54,392 study population ranged from 4 (cats) [ 153 ] to 21,000 (Atlantic salmon) [ 23 ]. The studies involved 14 different kinds of animals (see Table 1 ). Apart from the most commonly used rats/mice (in 160 studies, 78.82%), pigs and chicks were two of the most extensively studied animals (in 23 studies, 11.33%). For themes of the 178 included animal studies, 158 were on clinical and 20 were on agricultural and animal husbandry. For the ones on clinical, 117 were on general toxicity (8 on acute, 6 sub-acute, 84 sub-chronic, 16 chronic toxicity, and still 3 on both acute, sub-acute and sub-chronic toxicity), 35 on specific toxicity (15 on reproductive and developmental toxicity, 16 on immunotoxicity, 3 on teratogenic effect and 1 on mutagenicity), 3 on allergenicity, 1 on learning and memory ability, 1 on athletic ability and 1 on both sub-chronic toxicity and allergenicity.

For interventions/exposures, 31 kinds of GM food were identified, including 18 kinds of GM plant food, 7 kinds of GM animal food and 6 kinds of GM microorganism food. Each included study covered one intervention/exposure, except for one study, Chen [ 29 ], that involved two kinds of GM products (sweet pepper and tomato) modified with the same gene (coat protein gene of cucumber mosaic virus), respectively, in two experimental groups. Maize, rice and soybean were the three most popular kinds of GM plant food (taken 79.38%) in research while milk/milk powder and animal-derived protein occupied the top two in GM animal food (56.25%). As for GM microorganism products, 5 kinds of food/feed enzyme derived from 5 different kinds of GM fungi or bacteria as well as 1 kind of microorganism-derived protein were among included studies.

Methodological quality of the animal studies

According to our predefined quality assessment criteria, all of the studies were identified as being unclear or having a high risk of bias (Fig.  3 ). None of the studies were reported to blind researchers from knowing which intervention each animal received. None of the studies reported prior sample-size calculation, 31 studies (15.27%) described wrong randomization procedures or did not mention the method of “randomization”, and 12 studies (5.91%) did not report adequate allocation concealment. 28 studies (13.79%) described that the groups were similar at baseline and 76 studies (37.44%) claimed that the housing conditions of animals from the various experimental groups were identical. 10 studies (4.93%) described randomly pick an animal during outcome assessment while 7 studies (3.45%) failed to select animals at random for outcome assessment. 88 studies (43.35%) completely used objective outcome indicators for outcome measurement. 185 studies (91.13%) reported consistent outcomes in the method and result sections while 5 studies did not, but none of the study protocols were available.

Risk of bias of the included animal studies

Incidence of adverse events/effects

No meta-analysis was conducted due to the significant heterogeneity of the primary studies. Among the 204 studies, a total of 29 studies (14.22%) from 23 articles reported 37 adverse events, involving 13 on mortality, 6 on reproductive toxicity, 3 on carcinogenesis and 15 on other biomarkers (including one human trial). It is worth noting that when, in one study, there were multiple aspects of adverse events on “other biomarkers”, we recorded it as 1 adverse event. Then, 22 serious adverse events (59.46% of adverse events) were identified in 16 studies (7.84% of the included studies and 55.17% of the studies reporting adverse events, marked in the tables with double asterisks). The SAEs mainly rested on mortality (13 studies), tumour or cancer (3), significant low in the number of pup deliveries (2), decreased learning and reaction abilities (1), severe stomach inflammation (1), intestinal adenoma lesions (1), and other pathology abnormalities (1) as hypertrophies and hyperplasia in mammary glands and pituitary, liver congestions and necrosis as well as severe chronic progressive nephropathies.

The incidence of adverse events reporting in government funding, industry funding and non-funded articles were 10.34% (12 of 116), 33.33% (3 of 9) and 15.79% (9 of 57), respectively. When comparing the adverse event reporting rates using the Chi-square test, we found that there were no significant differences either between industry funding and government funding ( χ 2  = 2.286, P  = 0.131), industry funding and non-industry funding ( χ 2  = 1.761, P  = 0.185) or funded and non-funded articles ( χ 2  = 0.491, P  = 0.483).

Incidence of adverse events/effects in human trial

As for the human trial [ 97 ], shown in Table 2 , a randomized double-blind crossover design was conducted for acute consumption of two single breakfasts, with a 14-day washout period, containing either seed oil generated from transgenic Camelina sativa plants or commercially blended fish oil. 36 healthy people were randomly allocated into two groups and venous blood samples were collected after the postprandial session, 8 h after each meal. No follow-up was reported. No major adverse symptoms or health effects were reported but some unrelated minor illnesses for the 72 postprandial sessions from 36 participants, such as minor upper respiratory tract infections (2.78%), minor nose bleed (1.39%), pyelonephritis (1.39%) and headaches (8.33%).

Incidence of adverse events/effects in animal studies

For the 203 animal studies, 28 studies (13.79%) from 22 articles reported 36 adverse events, including 13 on mortality (Table 3 , 36.11%), 6 on reproductive toxicity ( Table 4 , 16.67%), 3 on carcinogenesis (Table 5 , 8.33%) and 14 on other biomarkers (Additional file 1 : Appendix S3, 38.89%).

All causes of death were included in this analysis and 11 of the 13 studies claimed that the mortality was not significantly different between the groups or had nothing to do with GM food. One study (Ermakova [ 37 ]) reported higher pup mortality in the Roundup-Ready soya (40.3.2 line) group compared with the controls. In Séralini [ 74 ] , the general cause of death was large mammary tumours in females and other organ problems in males. Besides, rats in the Roundup-tolerant GM NK603 maize groups were 2–3 times more likely to die than controls, and more rapidly.

With respect to effects on reproduction, 5 animal feeding studies were reported to trigger reproductive toxicity but one study (Cisterna [ 31 ]) claimed to have no substantial impact on fertility. The reproductive toxicity manifested in the significant low in the number of deliveries, survival rate (from birth to weaning), litter weight, litter size and weight of some organs in the pups. For example, in Ermakova I 2005, the rats fed with Roundup-Ready soya had a 55.6% pup mortality rate during lactation periods compared to 9% in the control of traditional soya and 6.8% in the reference group. The pups kept dying during the lactation period while pups from the control group only died during the first week. Cyran N 2008 a and Cyran N 2008 c [ 32 ] were two rat feeding studies reported in one article, both given NK603 × MON810 maize. A multi-generation study was conducted as Cyran N 2008 a while Cyran N 2008 c did a continuous breeding study. Both of them indicated that fewer sum of pups was born and weaned in the GM groups. Pup losses, in Cyran N 2008 a, overall generations were about twice as many pups lost as compared to the control group (14.59% vs 7.4%) but was not significantly different and significantly lower litter weight was also reported in Cyran N 2008 c.

Three mouse/rat feeding studies reported triggering cancers/tumours when Tang [ 156 ] attributed the incidence of the tumour to the elder age of rats. Séralini 2014 (on Roundup-tolerant GM maize) found that females in the treatment groups almost always developed large mammary tumours more often than and controls. As for males, 4 times larger palpable tumours than controls were presented which emerged up to 600 days earlier. Cyran 2008 b [ 32 ] revealed a life term study where mice in the three groups were fed with transgenic maize NK603xMON810 (from 33.0% in the diet), control isoline diet and GM-free Austrian corn reference diet, respectively. The survival rate was not significantly different while cancer (leucosis) was the common cause of death.

GM food-related adverse events

Among the 37 adverse events reported, 16 of them claimed to have nothing to do with GM food, while the rest 21 (from 17 studies) did not, still leaving the question open. The GM food-related adverse events existed in mortality (2 studies), reproductive toxicity (5), carcinogenesis (2), and other biomarkers (12).

By gathering evidence, we identified 3 kinds of GM food associated with adverse events, GM soybean, GM maize as well as GM rice. For the 17 studies involved in the GM food-related adverse events, 4 studies were absent of information on the GM event of their test substance and the remainder concentrated on 7 GM events (3 studies on NK603 × MON810 maize, 2 on GTS 40-3-2 soybean, 2 on NK603 maize, 2 on MON863 maize, 2 on MON810 maize, 1 on maize mixed with MON863 × MON810 × NK603, NK603 × MON810 and NK603 and 1 on GM Shanyou 63 rice). When searching in the GM Approval Database on the ISAAA website, we found that all of the first 6 GM events listed, all developed by Monsanto Company, had been on regulatory approval for food, feed and cultivation in multiple countries/regions, including the European Union. GM -39 Shanyou 63 was developed in China and given approval for food, feed, and cultivation only by China in 2009.

Summary of findings

We included 203 in vivo animal studies and 1 human trial, and all of the studies were identified as being unclear or having a high risk of bias. Overall, we reported two main findings. First, we identified 37 adverse events for GM food consumption while 22 of them (59.46%) were serious adverse events extracted from 16 animal studies (7.84%). SAEs were mortality, tumour or cancer, significantly low in the number of pup deliveries, decreased learning and reaction abilities, severe stomach inflammation, intestinal adenoma lesions, and other pathological abnormalities in the mammary glands, pituitary, liver and kidney.

Second, there were 21 GM food-related adverse events indicating that GM food may have effects on increased mortality (2 studies), reproductive toxicity (5 studies), which referred to significantly low fertility in parental generation and low survival rate, litter weight, litter size and weight of some organs in the pups, carcinogenesis (2 studies) and other biomarkers (12 studies). The effect-related GM food included 7 GM events (NK603 × MON810 maize, GTS 40-3-2 soybean, NK603 maize, MON863 maize, MON810 maize, MON863 × MON810 × NK603 maize and GM Shanyou 63 rice), which had all been on regulatory approval for food, feed and cultivation in some countries/regions.

Agreements and disagreements with other reviews

To our knowledge, there have been 3 previous systematic reviews (SRs) [ 198 , 199 , 200 ] and 6 conventional reviews [ 16 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 ] addressing similar research questions on the unexpected effects of GM food consumption. Keshani et al. [ 198 ], searching in 4 English databases, included experimental studies on GM crops’ potential effects on sperm parameters. The study finally included 7 rat feeding studies, which were all identified in our study, and indicated no harm to GM plants consumers. Edge et al. [ 199 ] addressed 30 review questions for including human studies, published in recent 20 years (1994–2014), on health effects of genetically engineered (GE) food crops, but found no human study on 25 questions. The remaining 5 questions, related to allergenicity and nutrient adequacy, were answered based on 21 human studies. The human studies were all excluded in our research because of no direct ingestion of GE food in the allergenicity assessment studies or no targeted outcomes in the nutrient assessment trial. To illustrate, the above-mentioned nutrient assessment clinical trial evaluated the effect of carrots containing twofold higher calcium content on calcium absorption and we thought it was not on outcome related to adverse events/effects. The conclusion of the research also supported that there were no clear adverse health effects associated with the consumption of GE food. Moreover, Dunn et al. [ 200 ] included both human and animal studies for examining the allergenicity of GM organisms and finally found 34 human studies and 49 animal studies eligible. In addition to 32 human studies which involved human serum for IgE binding or inhibition studies and not direct consumption of GM product, the rest 2 [ 206 , 207 ]studies were on actual ingestion of a GM food. However, they were not included in our research because of not targeted study type and unrelated outcomes. The conclusion agreed with the first two SRs that GM foods did not appear to be more allergenic than their conventional counterparts.

As for conventional reviews, Domingo showed special attention to the safety of GM food and published four literature reviews in 2000 [ 203 ], 2007 [ 204 ], 2011 [ 205 ] and 2016 [ 16 ]. Domingo searched two databases, PubMed and Scopus, to assess adverse/toxic effects of GM plants. In the latest updated review, he addressed the conclusion that GM soybeans, rice, corn/maize and wheat would be as safe as the parental species of these plants. However, our results may not be consistent with Domingo’s conclusion: we focus on a summarization of adverse events for GM food consumption through a systematic search in 7 databases; we identified 37 adverse events, 22 serious adverse events and 21 GM food-related adverse events; GM maize, soybean and rice with some specific GM events were all related to GM food-related adverse events. In addition, Domingo found a notable advance of studies published in scientific journals by biotechnology companies. Coincidentally, we did a Chi-square test to compare the adverse event reporting rates and found no significant differences between industry funding, government funding and non-funded articles. Besides, our systematic review validated Domingo’s findings that some GM plants were studied scarcely in recent years including GM potatoes discussed in the controversy of Pusztai case.

Strengths and limitations

In this review, a systematic search of major databases was conducted to identify all available studies in all languages on the adverse effects/events of GM food consumption. To make the inclusion and data synthesis comprehensive, both in vivo human and animal studies in all fields were included, with no limitations on the type of participant, type of intervention/exposure or whether control was included. The terms used for searching, containing all kinds of names of GM food, were based on a basic search on the internet by the researchers and the list was perfected as much as possible. With respect to additional searching, we went through multifarious news which reported controversy of GM food and thus we identified several hot studies by following the clue. In order to trace the potential conflicts of interest, we performed a Chi-square test for comparing adverse events report rates in articles funded by industry funding, government funding or unfunded articles, but found no statistical significance. Nevertheless, it was hard to conduct a quantitative data synthesis for the effects of GM food consumption on the adverse events because of the significant heterogeneity of the primary studies.

There are several limitations in this review. The methodological quality of the included studies is generally poor, which indicates a high or unclear risk of bias resulting from insufficient reporting of methodological components in the studies. Methodological quality may not be fully reflected based solely on the reporting of the manuscript. There were unclear descriptions of randomization procedures and a lack of blinding in all of the studies, which may have created potential performance biases and detection biases, as researchers might have been aware of the effects of interventions. The ability to perform meta-analysis was limited because of the heterogeneity of the participants, interventions (GM food in various GM events), comparisons, feeding doses, administration time, other exposure factors, and the variance of composite outcome measures used in the 204 included studies. When we did the manual search, we found that related publications were retracted sometimes, under the name of inadequate experimental designs or statistical analysis. For example, Séralini 2012 was retracted by Food and Chemical Toxicology , but subsequently republished in another journal [ 14 , 74 ]. This indicates that it was hard for us to find the original full-text papers of the retracted publications and articles provided by databases still have some unavoidable publication bias. The retraction on controversial researches may also cause the controversy for the public to doubt the reality of the studies published and to concern the safety of GM food. In addition, the lack of human studies is another key limitation of this research. As for the searching strategy, we did not include publication types as newspaper articles and comments. This was thought to be a limitation of this research because these sources may give us clues of related researches and can help us to do a manual search comprehensively. It is also an implication for future systematic reviews.

Implications for research

Future research should be conducted in humans, especially observational cohort studies. High-quality animal studies according to the ARRIVE reporting standard focusing on reproductive toxicity and carcinogenesis are still needed. Trials or studies should be registered prospectively, and be accessible. Furthermore, to address public concerns, future studies should focus on SAEs and GM food-related adverse events reported in this research such as NK603 maize, MON863 maize and MON810 maize. Meanwhile, some implications of findings still could be explored such as how GM food affects people’s eating habits, labelling of GM food and public choice. Some of the included studies conducted an intergenerational or multigenerational evaluation of the safety of GM food, but only two studies (Cyran N 2008 a and Cyran N 2008 c) in one article reported adverse events related to fertility. The differences in the results may be due to different interventions/exposures (GM food in certain GM events), laboratory animals, intervention/exposure time, experiment environment, etc. Therefore, it is necessary for subsequent studies to start with intergenerational or multigenerational research to verify the safety of GM food in terms of study design.

Serious adverse events accounted for 59.46% of the total 37 identified adverse events of GM consumption, which include: mortality, tumour or cancer, significantly lower number of pup deliveries, decreased learning and reaction abilities, and organ abnormalities in the stomach, intestinal adenoma, mammary glands, pituitary, liver and kidney. The interventions/exposures in the adverse event related studies emphasized on GM soybean, maize and rice in specific GM events. Animal studies occupy the lowest hierarchy of evidence, and there are flaws in study design and is not convincing enough. The evidence on the effect of GM consumption on humans is still insufficient. Further clinical trials and long-term cohort studies in human populations, especially on GM food-related adverse events and the corresponding GM events, are still warranted. It is better to prove the safety before they are approved for food consumption and it also suggests the necessity of labelling on GM food so that consumers can make their own choice.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

Genetically modified

Deoxyribonucleic acid

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Serious adverse event

Camelina sativa Seed oil

Blended fish oil

Body weight

Systematic reviews

Genetically engineered

Hundleby PA, Harwood WA (2019) Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing. Food Energy Secur. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.161

Article   Google Scholar  

Sprink T, Eriksson D, Schiemann J et al (2016) Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep 35:1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Georges F, Ray H (2017) Genome editing of crops: a renewed opportunity for food security. GM Crops Food 8:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2016.1270489

ISAAA (2018) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM Crops in 2018: biotech crops continue to help meet the challenges of increased population and climate change. ISAAA Brief No. 54 [Online]. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/54/default.asp . Accessed 17 July 2020

Andrew J, Ismail NW, Djama M (2018) An overview of genetically modified crop governance, issues and challenges in Malaysia. J Sci Food Agric 98:12–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8666

Hickey LT, Hafeez AN, Robinson H et al (2019) Breeding crops to feed 10 billion. Nat Biotechnol 37(7):744–754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0152-9

Giraldo PA, Shinozuka H, Spangenberg GC et al (2019) Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: is there any difference from food? Front Plant Sci 10:1592. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01592

ISAAA (2016) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief No. 52 [Online]. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/default.asp . Accessed 17 July 2020

Pray C, Huang J, Hu R, Deng H et al (2018) Prospects for cultivation of genetically engineered food crops in China. Global Food Secur Agric Policy Econ Environ 16:133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.01.003

Martinelli L, Karbarz M, Siipi H (2013) Science, safety, and trust: the case of transgenic food. Croat Med J 54:91–96. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2013.54.91

Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214. https://doi.org/10.1038/20338

Ewen SW, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7

Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R et al (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize [retracted in: Food Chem Toxicol. 2014 Jan;63:244]. Food Chem Toxicol 50(11):4221–4231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

Genetic Literacy Project (2017) Where are GMOs grown and banned? [Online]. https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grownand-banned/ . Accessed 5 Sept 2020

Domingo JL (2016) Safety assessment of GM plants: an updated review of the scientific literature. Food Chem Toxicol 95:12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.06.013 ( Epub 2016 Jun 16 )

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

FDA (2016) What is a serious adverse event? [Online]. https://www.fda.gov/safety/reporting-serious-problems-fda/what-serious-adverse-event . Accessed 28 Sept 2020

Al-Harbi A, Lary S, Edwards MG et al (2019) A proteomic-based approach to study underlying molecular responses of the small intestine of Wistar rats to genetically modified corn (MON810). Transgenic Res 28(5–6):479–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-019-00157-y

Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D et al (2009) Subchronic feeding study of grain from herbicide-tolerant maize DP-Ø9814Ø-6 in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 47:2269–2280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2009.06.014

Bai H, Wang Z, Hu R et al (2015) A 90-day toxicology study of meat from genetically modified sheep overexpressing TLR4 in Sprague-Dawley rats. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121636

Bakke-Mckellep AM, Koppang EO, Gunnes G et al (2007) Histological, digestive, metabolic, hormonal and some immune factor responses in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L, fed genetically modified soybeans. J Fish Dis 30:65–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2007.00782.x

Bakke-McKellep AM, Sanden M, Danieli A et al (2008) Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar L.) parr fed genetically modified soybeans and maize: histological, digestive, metabolic, and immunological investigations. Res Vet Sci 84:395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2007.06.008

Buzoianu SG, Walsh MC, Rea MC et al (2012) Effect of feeding genetically modified Bt MON810 maize to ∼ 40-day-old pigs for 110 days on growth and health indicators. Animal 6:1609–1619. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000249

Buzoianu SG, Walsh MC, Rea MC et al (2012) Effects of feeding Bt maize to sows during gestation and lactation on maternal and offspring immunity and fate of transgenic material. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047851

Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ et al (2013) A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Organic Systems 1:1–12

Google Scholar  

Chen X, Gao MQ, Liang D et al (2017) Safety assessment of genetically modified milk containing human beta-defensin-3 on rats by a 90-day feeding study. Food Chem Toxicol 100:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.12.012

Chen YN, Hwang WZ, Fang TJ et al (2011) The impact of transgenic papaya (TPY10-4) fruit supplementation on immune responses in ovalbumin-sensitised mice. J Sci Food Agric 91:539–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4218

Chen ZL, Gu H, Li Y et al (2003) Safety assessment for genetically modified sweet pepper and tomato. Toxicology 188:297–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-483x(03)00111-2

Chukwudebe A, Privalle L, Reed A et al (2012) Health and nutritional status of Wistar rats following subchronic exposure to CV127 soybeans. Food Chem Toxicol 50:956–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.034

Cisterna B, Flach F, Vecchio L et al (2008) Can a genetically-modified organism-containing diet influence embryo development? A preliminary study on pre-implantation mouse embryos. Eur J Histochem 52:263–267. https://doi.org/10.4081/1226

Cyran N, Gülly C, Handl S et al (2008) Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. FiBL, Wien

de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D et al (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci 5:706–726. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.5.706

Delaney B, Appenzeller LM, Munley SM et al (2008) Subchronic feeding study of high oleic acid soybeans (Event DP-3Ø5423-1) in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 46:3808–3817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2008.10.003

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Naegeli H, Birch AN et al (2018) Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87751 for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2014-121). EFSA J 16(8):e05346. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5346

El-Shamei ZS, Gab-Alla AA, Shatta AA (2012) Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). Am J Sci 10(8):684–696

Ermakova I (2005) Influence of genetically modified soya on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups. In: Epigenetics, transgenic plants& risk assessment.

Gao MQ, Zhang R, Yang Y et al (2018) A subchronic feeding safety evaluation of transgenic milk containing human β-defensin 3 on reproductive system of C57BL/6J mouse. Food Chem Toxicol 115:198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2018.03.007

Gu J, Krogdahl Å, Sissener NH et al (2013) Effects of oral Bt-maize (MON810) exposure on growth and health parameters in normal and sensitised Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Br J Nutr 109:1408–1423. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711451200325X

Guo QY, He LX, Zhu H et al (2015) Effects of 90-day feeding of transgenic maize BT799 on the reproductive system in male Wistar rats. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:15309–15320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121214986

Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J et al (2004) Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1003–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013

Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R et al (2006) Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44:147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008

He XY, Tang MZ, Luo YB et al (2009) A 90-day toxicology study of transgenic lysine-rich maize grain (Y642) in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 47:425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2008.11.032

Healy C, Hammond B, Kirkpatrick J (2008) Results of a 13-week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected, glyphosate-tolerant MON 88017 corn. Food Chem Toxicol 46:2517–2524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2008.04.005

Ibrahim MA, Okasha EF (2016) Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat. Exp Toxicol Pathol 68:579–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etp.2016.10.001

Kiliç A, Akay MT (2008) A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol 46:1164–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016

Kiliçgün H, Gürsul C, Sunar M et al (2013) The comparative effects of genetically modified maize and conventional maize on rats. J Clin Anal Med 4:136–139

Lee NJ, Yang BC, Hwang JS et al (2010) Effects of cloned-cattle meat diet on reproductive parameters in pregnant rabbits. Food Chem Toxicol 48:871–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2009.12.025

Lee NJ, Yang BC, Im GS et al (2013) No long-term feeding toxicities on the health status in rats fed with cloned Korean native beef cattle (Hanwoo) meat. Toxicol Pathol 41:872–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623312470762

Lin HT, Lee WC, Tsai YT et al (2016) Subchronic immunotoxicity assessment of genetically modified virus-resistant papaya in rats. J Agric Food Chem 64:5935–5940. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02242

Liu P, He X, Chen D et al (2012) A 90-day subchronic feeding study of genetically modified maize expressing Cry1Ac-M protein in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 50:3215–3221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.06.009

Liu Q, Yang W, Li M et al (2017) Effects of 60-week feeding diet containing Bt rice expressing the Cry1Ab protein on the offspring of inbred Wuzhishan Pigs fed the same diet. J Agric Food Chem 65:10300–10309. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04067

Liu S, Li CX, Feng XL et al (2013) Safety assessment of meat from transgenic cattle by 90-day feeding study in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 57:314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.04.00

Liu S, Liu HB, Wang HL et al (2019) Evaluation of behavioral profiles in mice fed with milk supplemented diets derived from human lactoferrin gene-modified cows. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 104:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.03.008

Liu Y, Zhang S, Zhou Q et al (2020) Subchronic feeding toxicity studies of drought-tolerant transgenic wheat MGX11-10 in Wistar Han RCC rats. Food Chem Toxicol 137:111129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111129

MacKenzie SA, Lamb I, Schmidt J et al (2007) Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-Ø15Ø7-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 45:551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2006.09.016

Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G et al (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol 130(5):967–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00418-008-0476-x

Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S et al (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean [published correction appears in Cell Struct Funct. 2002 Oct;27(5):399]. Cell Struct Funct 27(4):173–180. https://doi.org/10.1247/csf.27.173

Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Rossi L et al (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. J Anat 201(5):409–415. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8782.2002.00103.x

Mao J, Sun X, Cheng JH et al (2016) A 52-week safety study in cynomolgus macaques for genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab/1Ac protein. Food Chem Toxicol 95:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.06.015

Nouri-Ellouz O, Zeghal N, Makni S et al (2015) New food from a potato somatic hybrid: nutritional equivalence and safety assessment by a feeding study on rats. J Sci Food Agric 95(9):1911–1917. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6898

Oliva N, Florida Cueto-Reaño M, Trijatmiko KR et al (2020) Molecular characterization and safety assessment of biofortified provitamin A rice. Sci Rep 10(1):1376. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57669-5

Papineni S, Golden RM, Thomas J (2017) The aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12) protein is not acutely toxic in mice[J]. Food Chem Toxicol 110:200–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.10.036

Papineni S, Murray JA, Ricardo E et al (2017) Evaluation of the safety of a genetically modified DAS-444Ø6-6 soybean meal and hulls in a 90-day dietary toxicity study in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 109(Pt 1):245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.048

Papineni S, Passage JK, Ekmay RD et al (2018) Evaluation of 30% DAS-444Ø6-6 soybean meal in a subchronic rat toxicity study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 94:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.01.005

Poulsen M, Kroghsbo S, Schrøder M et al (2007) A 90-day safety study in Wistar rats fed genetically modified rice expressing snowdrop lectin Galanthus nivalis (GNA). Food Chem Toxicol 45(3):350–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2006.09.002

Qian ZY, Zhang SJ, Zhang L et al (2018) Subchronic toxicity study in rats evaluating genetically modified DAS-81419-2 soybean. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 96:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.04.019

Qian ZY, Bultman J, Papineni S et al (2018) Safety evaluation of DAS-44406-6 soybeans in Wistar rats. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 92:152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.11.016

Tudisco R, Calabrò S, Cutrignelli MI et al (2015) Genetically modified soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance. Small Rumin Res 126:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2015.01.023

Richards HA, Han CT, Hopkins RG et al (2003) Safety assessment of recombinant green fluorescent protein orally administered to weaned rats. J Nutr 133(6):1909–1912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.6.1909

Sanden M, Ornsrud R, Sissener NH et al (2013) Cross-generational feeding of Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis )-maize to zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) showed no adverse effects on the parental or offspring generations. Br J Nutr 110(12):2222–2233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114513001748

Schrøder M, Poulsen M, Wilcks A et al (2007) A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein ( Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol 45(3):339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2006.09.001

Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS (2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(4):596–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5

Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R et al (2014) Republished study: long-term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ Sci Eur 26(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5

Sheng Y, Qi X, Liu Y et al (2014) Subchronic toxicity study in vivo and allergenicity study in vitro for genetically modified rice that expresses pharmaceutical protein (human serum albumin). Food Chem Toxicol 72:242–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.07.030

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Processing Aids (EFSA CEP Panel) et al (2019) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme endo-1,4-β-xylanase from a genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis (strain NZYM-CE). EFSA J 17(4):e05685. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5685 ( Published 2019 Apr 30 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme endo-1,4-β-xylanase from a genetically modified Bacillus subtilis (strain LMG S-24584). EFSA J 16(10):e05447. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5447 ( Published 2018 September 27 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), Silano V et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme endo-1,4-β-xylanase from a genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae (strain NZYM-FA). EFSA J 16(11):e05480. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5480 ( Published 2018 Nov 16 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), Silano V et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme endo-1,4-β-xylanase from a genetically modified Trichoderma reesei (strain DP-Nzd22). EFSA J 16(11):e05479. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5479 ( Published 2018 Nov 30 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Processing Aids (CEP) et al (2019) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme pullulanase from a genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis (strain DP-Dzp39). EFSA J 17(1):e05554. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5554 ( Published 2019 Jan 10 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Processing Aids (CEP) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α-amylase from a genetically modified Aspergillus niger (strain NZYM-MC). EFSA J 16(10):e05451. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5451 ( Published 2018 Oct 31 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme alpha-amylase from a genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis (strain NZYM-AN). EFSA J 16(7):e05317. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5317 ( Published 2018 Jul 6 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme glucose oxidase from a genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae (strain NZYM-KP). EFSA J 16(7):e05319. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5319 ( Published 2018 Jul 6 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme endo-1,4-β-xylanase from a genetically modified Aspergillus niger (strain XEA). EFSA J 16(4):e05228. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5228 ( Published 2018 Apr 27 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme aqualysin 1 from a genetically modified Bacillus subtilis (strain LMGS 25520). EFSA J 16(5):e05170. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5170 ( Published 2018 May 2 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of the food enzyme xylanase from a genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain TD160(229). EFSA J 16(1):e05008. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5008 ( Published 2018 Jan 22 )

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) et al (2018) Safety evaluation of food enzyme xylanase from a genetically modified Bacillus subtilis (strain LMG S-27588). EFSA J 16(5):e05169. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5169 ( Published 2018 May 2 )

Talyn B, Lemon R, Badoella M et al (2019) Roundup ®, but not roundup-ready ® corn, increases mortality of drosophila melanogaster. Toxics. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics7030038

Tang M, Xie T, Cheng W et al (2012) A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing rhIGF-1 protein in C57BL/6J rats [published correction appears in Transgenic Res. 2012 Aug;21(4):927]. Transgenic Res 21(3):499–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-011-9550-6

Tang X, Han F, Zhao K et al (2012) A 90-day dietary toxicity study of genetically modified rice T1C–1 expressing Cry1C protein in Sprague Dawley rats. PLoS ONE 7(12):e52507. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052507

Teshima R, Watanabe T, Okunuki H et al (2002) Effect of subchronic feeding of genetically modified corn (CBH351) on immune system in BN rats and B10A mice. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi 43(5):273–279. https://doi.org/10.3358/shokueishi.43.273

Trabalza Marinucci M, Brandi G, Rondini C (2008) A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livest Sci 2008(113):178–190

Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Gardiner GE et al (2011) Fate of transgenic DNA from orally administered Bt MON810 maize and effects on immune response and growth in pigs. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027177

Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Gardiner GE et al (2012) Effects of short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize on growth performance, organ morphology and function in pigs. Br J Nutr 107(3):364–371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511003011

Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Rea MC et al (2012) Effects of feeding Bt MON810 maize to pigs for 110 days on peripheral immune response and digestive fate of the cry1Ab gene and truncated Bt toxin. PLoS ONE 7(5):e36141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036141

Wang X, He X, Zou S et al (2016) A subchronic feeding study of dicamba-tolerant soybean with the dmo gene in Sprague-Dawley rats. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 77:134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.02.001

West AL, Miles EA, Lillycrop KA et al (2019) Postprandial incorporation of EPA and DHA from transgenic Camelina sativa oil into blood lipids is equivalent to that from fish oil in healthy humans. Br J Nutr 121(11):1235–1246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114519000825

Wu Y, Xu Y, Du Y et al (2017) Dietary safety assessment of genetically modified rice EH rich in β-carotene. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 88:66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.05.019

Xiao GJ, Jiang SW, Qian LL et al (2016) A 90-day feeding study in rats to assess the safety of genetically engineered pork. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0165843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165843

Xie Z, Zou S, Xu W et al (2018) No subchronic toxicity of multiple herbicide-resistant soybean FG72 in Sprague-Dawley rats by 90-days feeding study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 94:299–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.02.004

Yang L, Sun Y, Wang Y et al (2014) Effects of dietary transgenic poplar leaf pellets on performance and tissues in rabbits. J Sci Food Agric 94(6):1163–1167. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6388

Yen GC, Lin HT, Cheng YH et al (2011) Food safety evaluation of papaya fruits resistant to papaya ring spot virus. J Food Drug Anal 19(2):269–377

CAS   Google Scholar  

Yong L, Liu YM, Jia XD et al (2012) Subchronic toxicity study of GH transgenic carp. Food Chem Toxicol 50(11):3920–3926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.064

Zeljenková D, Aláčová R, Ondrejková J et al (2016) One-year oral toxicity study on a genetically modified maize MON810 variety in Wistar Han RCC rats (EU 7th Framework Programme project GRACE). Arch Toxicol 90(10):2531–2562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1798-4

Zeljenková D, Ambrušová K, Bartušová M et al (2014) Ninety-day oral toxicity studies on two genetically modified maize MON810 varieties in Wistar Han RCC rats (EU 7th Framework Programme project GRACE). Arch Toxicol 88(12):2289–2314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-014-1374-8

Zhou C, Wang JW, Huang KL et al (2011) A 90-day safety study in Sprague-Dawley rats fed milk powder containing recombinant human lactoferrin (rhLF) derived from transgenic cloned cattle. Drug Chem Toxicol 34(4):359–368. https://doi.org/10.3109/01480545.2010.542465

Zhou XH, Dong Y, Xiao X et al (2011) A 90-day toxicology study of high-amylose transgenic rice grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 49:3112–3118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.09.024

Zhu HJ, Chen Y, Li YH et al (2015) A 90 day safety assessment of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab/1Ac protein using an aquatic animal model [published correction appears in J Agric Food Chem. 2015 Aug 26;63(33):7462]. J Agric Food Chem 63(14):3627–3633. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5055547

Zhu Y, He X, Luo Y et al (2013) A 90-day feeding study of glyphosate-tolerant maize with the G2-aroA gene in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 51:280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.09.008

Zou S, Tang M, He X et al (2015) A 90-day subchronic study of rats fed lean pork from genetically modified pigs with muscle-specific expression of recombinant follistatin. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 73(2):620–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.09.009

Dong SS, Zhang DN, Zhang ZH et al (2019) Ecotoxicological effects of transgenic mCry1Ac maize (BT799) on zebrafish. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 30(8):2845–2853. https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201908.031

Hu Y, Piao J, Yang X et al (2012) Nutritional components and sub-chronic toxicity of genetically modified rice expressing human lactoferrin. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 41(1):6–12. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.090

Bai H (2015) Bio-Safety assessment of transgenic sheep overexpressing oTLR4. PhD Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

Bao ZK (2016) Safety assessment of GH-Transgenic dairy goats. MS Thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China

Cao ZH (2014) Safety assessment of transgenic Bt rice in growing pig diet. MS Thesis, Henan University of Science and Technology, Henan, China

Chen XP, Zhuo Q, Piao JH et al (2004) Immunotoxicologic assessment of transgenetic rice. J Hyg Res 33(1):77–80

Chu HH, Si QQ, Xu Y et al (2016) Effect of genetically modified soybean meal on the immune function, intestinal digestive enzyme activities and serum biochemical indexes of growing pigs. J Qingdao Agric Univ Nat Sci 33(02):119–123. https://doi.org/10.3969/J.ISSN.1674-148X.2016.02.008

Dai YN, Yang XZ, Liu Y et al (2018) Acute oral toxicity and 90 days feeding test of recombinant human lactoferrin. J Hyg Res 47(02):286–311

Du HF (2006) Safety assessment of transgenic rice used in broiler diet. PhD Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

Feng XL, Wang HL, Li CX et al (2017) Safety assessment of meat from transgenic cattle by 90-day feeding study in rats. J Hyg Res 29(1):19–25. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2017.01.005

Feng YQ, Hu J, Zhi Y et al (2013) The effect of exposure to transgenic Bt rice on the immune system of parental female rats. Chin J Food Hyg 25(4):298–302

Feng YQ, Wang EH, Zhi Y et al (2013) The effect of exposure to transgenic Bt rice on reproductive system of male offspring rats. Chin J Food Hyg 25(02):113–117

Guo MF (2018) A three generation study to evaluate reproductive and neurodevelopmental toxicity of genetically modified maize with Cry1Ab and epsps genes in SD rats. MS Thesis, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China

Hu J (2013) Establish of a rat model for development immunotoxicity and its application in safety evaluation of transgenic CryAb/Ac Rice. MS Thesis, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China

Huang Q, Xu HB, Gao F et al (2009) Anaphylactic reactions in WZS minipig orally induced by glycinin. J Hyg Res 38(05):531–534

Jia XD, Li N, Wang W et al (2005) Assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified rice S86 by BN rat model. Chin J Food Hyg 01:7–9. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2005.01.003

Li M (2012) Safety evaluation of recombinant herbicide-resistant protein AROa-CC-M and transgenic insect-resistant maize BT-799. MS Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

Li M, Piao JH, Yang XG (2010) Subchronic toxicity test of genetically modified rice with double antisense starch-branching enzyme gene. J Hyg Res 39(04):436–443

Li R, Wang J, Jiang WL et al (2012) Effects of rice genetically modified with HJC-1 and G6-EPSPS genes on immunological parameters in Wuzhishan minipigs. J Environ Health 29(08):689–692. https://doi.org/10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2012.08.017

Li YH, Piao JH, Chen XP et al (2004) Immunotoxicologic assessment on transgenic rice. China Public Health 20(04):20–22

Li YH, Piao JH, Zhuo Q et al (2004) Study on the teratogenicity effects of genetically modified rice with Xa21 on rats. J Hyg Res 33(06):710–712

Liang LQ, Wang J, Cao XC et al (2010) Toxicity analysis of common carp transferred salmon growth hormone gene. Food Sci 31(05):261–265

Liu HT, Wang CR, Liu L et al (2018) Acute toxicity of fresh leaves of insect resistant transgenic populus nigra to mice. J Anhui Agric Sci 46(01):94–136. https://doi.org/10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2018.01.028

Liu HL, Wang J, Zeng Q et al (2012) Effects of rapeseed genetically modified with bar gene on immunological indicators in WZS minipigs. J Environ Health 29(11):977–980. https://doi.org/10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2012.11.020

Liu SS, Tan JZ, Sun Z et al (2011) Effects of glyphosate—resistant soybean meal on immune function of AA broilers. Chin J Anim Sci 47(13):41–46

Liu S, Wang XD, Feng XL et al (2013) Twenty-eight days feeding study on human lactoferrin expressed by cattle mammary bioreactor in mice. Chin J Public Health 29(02):230–232

Liu YH, Jiang SQ, Zhang J et al (2018) Subchronic toxicity of genetically modified Herbicide-resistant maize MON87427 with Cp4epsps gene in Wistar rats. J Public Health Prevent Med 29(06):17–20. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-2483.2018.06.004

Liu YF, Liu WH, He L et al (2008) Acute toxicity and mutagenic effect of transgenic rice on mice. J Hunan Univ Sci Technol Nat Sci Ed 23(04):111–117

Liu YF, Liu WH, He L et al (2008) Effects of resistant insects transgenic hybrid rice 21S/MSB on behavior and physiology of SD rats. Life Sci Res 12(03):257–261. https://doi.org/10.16605/j.cnki.1007-7847.2008.03.013

Lu MJ, Li F, Zhou GL et al (2008) Assessment of an anti-LeETR1 genetically modified tomato on reproductive-development toxicity and transferability of the transgene. J Toxicol 22(04):272–274. https://doi.org/10.16421/j.cnki.1002-3127.2008.04.006

Lu CB, Lin ZB, Zhang Y et al (2016) Effects of glyphosate-resistant transgenic soybean on physical enginery of male mice. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis 28(07):1115–1120. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2016.07.04

Lu CB, Yang DY, Gao Z et al (2012) Safety assessment of reproductive system in male mice fed with genetically modified soybeans. J Yangzhou Univ Agric Life Sci Ed 33(01):23–27. https://doi.org/10.16872/j.cnki.1671-4652.2012.01.006

Lu CB, Zhang Y, Chen BH et al (2017) Effects of glyphosate-resistant transgenic soybean on in vitro fertilization of male mice with reproductive damage. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis 29(06):910–916. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2017.06.08

Lu CB, Zhou W, Liu B et al (2013) Effects of transgenic soybean on reproductive system in male mice. Soybean Sci 32(01):119–123

Lv L, Guo J, Li SF et al (2013) Effects of transphytase gene maize on organ development and pathological changes of broilers. Chin J Anim Sci 49(05):31–34

Ma BT, Yuan XY, Wang XD et al (2017) Animal experiment of recombinant human lactoferrin based on the 28 days repeated oral toxicity. J Hyg Res 46(03):443–454

Ma YM, Wang J, Jiang WL et al (2012) Subchronic oral toxicity of genetically modified cottonseed with FBP7-iaaM gene in rats. J Environ Health 29(11):1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2012.11.024

Qi XZ, Wang J, Zhou C et al (2010) Effect of transferred human lactoferrin milk powder on serum iron and ferritin in rats. Food Sci 31(23):340–343

Qin HF (2012) Safety assessment of rice genetically modified with Cry1Ac and sck feeding studies on broilers. PhD Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.

Qiu ZL, Sun N, Wang J et al (2011) Sub-Chronic toxicity study of transgenic cottonseed in SD rats. Progr Mod Biomed 11(12):2215–2220. https://doi.org/10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2011.12.010

Song LS, Gao GQ, Wei ZY et al (2017) Effects of Fat1 transgenic milk on the health and reproductive ability of mice. Lab Anim Sci 34(03):28–37

Song Y (2013) Establishment of immunotoxicity screening system in rodents and its application in immunotoxicity evaluation of pesticides and genetically modified foods. PhD Thesis, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China

Sun XW, Liang LQ, Yan XC et al (1998) Research on transgenic carp as food. High Technol Lett 03:3–5

Sun Z, Liu SS, Tan JZ et al (2011) Effects of glyphosate—resistant soybean meal on immune function of AA broilers. Chin J Anim Sci 23:836–841

Tan JZ (2011) The feed safety assessment of Glyphosate-Tolerant soybean meal in broilers. MS Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

Tang XQ, Wang YF, Pei LJ et al (2019) Long-term toxicity study on transgenic rice T2A–1 with cry2A* gene. Chin J Food Hyg 31(6):510–516. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.jfh.2019.06.002

Tao R (2008) Detection of transgenic ingredients in feed and primary assessment on the safety of aquatic livestock fed transgenic soybean. MS Thesis, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shandong, China

Wang EH (2014) A study to access effects of transgenic Cry1Ab/Ac Rice TT51 on reproductive and neural development in rats. PhD Thesis, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China

Wang EH, Yu Z, Fang HQ et al (2013) Effect of transgenic Bt rice TT51 on early physiological and neurological development of rats offspring. Chin J Food Hyg 25(06):485–488. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2013.06.008

Wang HM, Yin JY, Zhai WS, et al (2015) Toxic pathology of cynomolgus monkeys fed transgenic rice for 52 weeks. In: The 7th National Toxicology Conference of China Toxicology Society and the 8th Hubei Science and Technology Forum, Wuhan, China, pp 442–443

Wang J, Jiang WL, Wang XJ et al (2002) Toxicological safety evaluation of transgenic T5 line pepper. Chin J Urban Rural Ind Hyg 01:46

Wang J, Jiang WL, Wang Y et al (2012) Subacute oral toxicity of recombinant human lactoferrin from transgenic cows in rats on 28d. J Toxicol 26(05):393–397

Wang J, Li R, Liu HL (2012) Assessment of allergenicity of rice genetically modified with HJC-1 and G6-EPSPS genes by BN rats model. J Environ Health 29(11):967–970. https://doi.org/10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2012.11.014

Wang J, Liu HL, Zeng Q et al (2012) Subacute toxicity of rapeseed genetically modified with bar gene in WZS minipigs. J Environ Health 29(11):980–984. https://doi.org/10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2012.11.021

Wang J, Zhou C, Che HL et al (2010) Study on sub-chronic toxicity of powered milk containing transgenic lactoferrin on SD rats. Progr Mod Biomed 10(15):2809–2813. https://doi.org/10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2010.15.002

Wang RY (2017) The effect of genetically modified feed on structure of mice testes. Livestock Poult Ind 28(06):6–7. https://doi.org/10.19567/j.cnki.1008-0414.2017.06.004

Wang R, Hu YC, Li M et al (2017) Study on the subchronic toxicity of transgenic DBN9978 herbicide resistant maize to rats. Food Nutr China 23(06):12–17

Wang XJ, Wang J, Liu HL et al (2012) Subchronic toxicity test of rice containing transgenic HJC-1 and G6-EPSPS in rats. J Environ Health 29(11):970–976. https://doi.org/10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2012.11.019

Wang Y (2011) Food safety assessment of genetically modified milk with human lactoferrin gene. MS Thesis, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China

Wang Y, Lai WQ, Chen JG et al (2000) Toxicity of anti-herbicide gene (BAR) transgenic rice. J Hyg Res 29(03):141–142

Wu JH (2013) The nutritional, edible safety and efficacy assessment of genetically modified rice with human lactoferrin gene and its purified protein and the nutritional assessment of genetically modified wheat expressing GmDREB/TaDREB4 genes with drought-resistance. Ph.D. Thesis, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China

Wu P, Su YL, Zhang J et al (2003) Safety evaluation of transgenic tomato against Cucumber Mosaic Virus. J Capital Univ Med Sci 24(03):254–258

Xu YJ (2012) The forage safety assessment of genetically modified organism corn to weaning piglets. M.S. Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fujian, China

Yu T, Liu Y, Wang JW et al (2017) Teratogenic test of recombinant human lactoferrin in rats. J Toxicol 31(03):247–250

Yuan JQ (2015) The detection of the transgenic GTS40-3-2 related genes and their products of livestock products sold and toxicology study of Sprague-Dawley rats ( Rattus norvegicus ). Ph.D. Thesis, Shanxi Agricultural University, Shanxi, China

Zhang L, Cheng C, He N et al (2011) Study on subchronic toxicity of transgenic soybean with high oleic acid on rats. J Toxicol 25(05):391–394. https://doi.org/10.16421/j.cnki.1002-3127.2011.05.012

Zhang L, Wang J, Jiang SQ et al (2016) Subchronic toxicity of genetically modified corn with Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj and G10evo (EPSPS) genes in rats. J Environ Health 33(07):585–589

Zhang LL (2018) The Unintended Effects of Long-Term Intergenerational Feeding Transgenic Maize Diets to Pure Line White Leghorn Chickens on the Intestinal Health. M.S. Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

Zhang M, Zhuo Q, Tian Y et al (2012) Study on chronic toxicity of genetically modified rice expressing human lactoferrin. Chin J Food Hyg 24(06):391–394. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2012.06.008

Zhang Q (2014) Production of GH transgenic goat by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Ph.D. Thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China

Zhang WP, Li YY, Wang WG et al (2009) Detection of mutagenicity of chitinase and -1, 3 dextran gene in maize. Chin Remed Clin 9(05):405–407

Zhang ZY, Liu LJ, Zhang L et al (2010) Subchronic toxicity of Bt transgenic rice to mice. J Toxicol 24(02):126–129. https://doi.org/10.16421/j.cnki.1002-3127.2010.02.016

Zhao L, Zhang L, Zhang YY et al (2009) Immunotoxicological evaluation of transgenic soybean oil. China Health Care Nutr 11:5

Zhi Y, Liu HB, Di GY et al (2013) Genetic toxicity of transgenic human α-lactalbumin powdered milk. Carcinogen Teratogen Mutagen 25(02):124–133. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2013.02.010

Zhi Y, Liu HB, Di GY et al (2011) Study on sub-chronic toxicity of powered milk containing transgenic human α-lactalbumin. J Hyg Res 40(04):426–430. https://doi.org/10.19813/j.cnki.weishengyanjiu.2011.04.004

Zhong F (2013) Subchronic feeding study of transgenic BADH alfalfa on rabbits. M.S. Thesis, Shandong Agricultural University, Shandong, China

Zhou GL, Lu MJ, Chen YX et al (2007) Antisense LeETR1 transgenic tomato rats were fed for 4 weeks. J Toxicol 21(02):160–161

Zhou H (2012) Safety aeeseement of the phytase transgenic corn in the broiler diet. M.S. Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fujian, China

Zhou LG (2009) Research of high lysine transgenic paddy on broiler feed security. M.S. Thesis, Yangzhou University, Jiangsu, China

Zhou WL, Yang XF, Ping A et al (2014) Effects of transgenic Dwarf-mosaic-resistant maize on learning and memory abilities of rats. J Shanxi Agric Univ Nat Sci Ed 34(02):129–131. https://doi.org/10.13842/j.cnki.issn1671-8151.2014.02.006

Zhou XH (2012) Toxicological studies on the food safety of two transgenic rice. Ph.D. Thesis, Jiangsu University, Jiangsu, China

Zhou ZW, Wang DZ, Shen H et al (2012) Comprehensive evaluation on functions & safety of imported GM soybean using BDI-GS system. Soybean Sci 31(05):822–826

Zhu H, Zhu LY, Guo JY et al (2014) Safety evaluation of BT-799 corn on Wistar rats. Food Nutr China 20(09):63–67

Zhuo Q, Chen XP, Piao JH et al (2004) Experimental study on converting cowpea trypsin inhibitor rice for 90 days. J Hyg Res 33(02):176–179

Zhuo Q, Chen XP, Piao JH et al (2004) Study on teratogenic effect of cowpea trypsin inhibitor rice. J Hyg Res 33(01):74–77

Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N et al (2008) A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi 49(4):272–282. https://doi.org/10.3358/shokueishi.49.272

Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N et al (2007) A 52-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi 48(3):41–50. https://doi.org/10.3358/shokueishi.48.41

Keshani P, Sharifi MH, Heydari MR et al (2020) The effect of genetically modified food on infertility indices: a systematic review study. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1424789

Edge MS, Kunkel ME, Schmidt J et al (2018) Evidence analysis library systematic review on advanced technology in food production. J Acad Nutr Diet 118(6):1106–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.08.005

Dunn SE, Vicini JL, Glenn KC et al (2017) The allergenicity of genetically modified foods from genetically engineered crops: a narrative and systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 119(3):214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2017.07.010

de Vos CJ, Swanenburg M (2018) Health effects of feeding genetically modified (GM) crops to livestock animals: a review. Food Chem Toxicol 117:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.031

Ricroch AE, Boisron A, Kuntz M (2014) Looking back at safety assessment of GM food/feed: an exhaustive review of 90-day animal feeding studies. Int J Biotechnology 13(4):230–256

Domingo Roig JL, Gómez Arnáiz M (2000) Riesgos sobre la salud de los alimentos modificados genéticamente: una revisión bibliográfica [Health risks of genetically modified foods: a literature review]. Revista espanola de salud publica 74(3):255–261

Domingo JL (2007) Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 47(8):721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390601177670

Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J (2011) A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int 37(4):734–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003

Teshima R, Watanabe T, Okunuki H et al (2002) Effect of subchronic feeding of genetically modified corn (CBH351) on immune system in BN rats and B10A mice. J Food Hyg Soc Jpn 43:273–279

Dubois AEJ, Pagliarani G, Brouwer RM et al (2015) First successful reduction of clinical allergenicity of food by genetic modification: Mal d 1-silenced apples cause fewer allergy symptoms than the wild-type cultivar. Allergy 70:1406–1412

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate Yi-Zhen Li for participating in screening the titles and abstracts .

This work was supported by Innovation Team and Talents Cultivation Program of National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (ZYYCXTD-C-202006). Prof. Nicola Robinson (visiting professor of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine) was funded by the International development and capacity enhancement of evidence-based Chinese medicine Project, Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China, G20200001187.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, 11 Bei San Huan Dong Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China

Chen Shen, Xiao-Wen Zhang, Wen-Bin Hou, Min Fang, Xun Li, Yu-Tong Fei, Nicola Robinson & Jian-Ping Liu

Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, China

Xiang-Chang Yin

School of Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

Bo-Yang Jiao

Beijing Key Laboratory of the Innovative Development of Functional Staple and the Nutritional Intervention for Chronic Disease, China National Research Institute of Food & Fermentation Industries Co,. Ltd, Beijing, China

School of Life Sciences, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

School of Chinese Materia Medica, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

Xue-Hao Cheng & Jian-Xin Ren

Ruikang Hospital, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Guangxi, China

School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, SE1 OAA, UK

Nicola Robinson

Institute for Excellence in Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

Jian-Ping Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All work was done by the authors. JPL and YTF conceived the study and revised the manuscript. CS contributed to data searching, screening and extraction, analysis of the data, drafted and revised the paper and approved the final version to be submitted. XCY, BYJ, JP, XHC, JXR, JL, XWZ, HDL, WBH and MF participated in identifying or screening the titles, abstracts and full-text screening and data extraction. XL, NR and JPL advised on the analysis of the data and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian-Ping Liu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declared that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix s1..

Search strategy applied in English language databases. Appendix S2. Funding sources or sponsors. Appendix S3. Adverse events/effects—other biomarkers.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shen, C., Yin, XC., Jiao, BY. et al. Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies. Environ Sci Eur 34 , 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00578-9

Download citation

Received : 07 July 2021

Accepted : 11 December 2021

Published : 13 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00578-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Adverse event
• Genetically modified food
• Evidence-based medicine
• Systematic review

Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects

• Published: 31 March 2020
• Volume 251 , article number  91 , ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Krishan Kumar 1 ,
• Geetika Gambhir 1 ,
• Abhishek Dass 1 ,
• Amit Kumar Tripathi 2 ,
• Alla Singh 3 ,
• Abhishek Kumar Jha 1 ,
• Pranjal Yadava 1 ,
• Mukesh Choudhary 3 &
• Sujay Rakshit 3  

30k Accesses

212 Citations

14 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Main conclusion

While transgenic technology has heralded a new era in crop improvement, several concerns have precluded their widespread acceptance. Alternative technologies, such as cisgenesis and genome-editing may address many of such issues and facilitate the development of genetically engineered crop varieties with multiple favourable traits.

Genetic engineering and plant transformation have played a pivotal role in crop improvement via introducing beneficial foreign gene(s) or silencing the expression of endogenous gene(s) in crop plants. Genetically modified crops possess one or more useful traits, such as, herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, abiotic stress tolerance, disease resistance, and nutritional improvement. To date, nearly 525 different transgenic events in 32 crops have been approved for cultivation in different parts of the world. The adoption of transgenic technology has been shown to increase crop yields, reduce pesticide and insecticide use, reduce CO 2 emissions, and decrease the cost of crop production. However, widespread adoption of transgenic crops carrying foreign genes faces roadblocks due to concerns of potential toxicity and allergenicity to human beings, potential environmental risks, such as chances of gene flow, adverse effects on non-target organisms, evolution of resistance in weeds and insects etc. These concerns have prompted the adoption of alternative technologies like cisgenesis, intragenesis, and most recently, genome editing. Some of these alternative technologies can be utilized to develop crop plants that are free from any foreign gene hence, it is expected that such crops might achieve higher consumer acceptance as compared to the transgenic crops and would get faster regulatory approvals. In this review, we present a comprehensive update on the current status of the genetically modified (GM) crops under cultivation. We also discuss the issues affecting widespread adoption of transgenic GM crops and comment upon the recent tools and techniques developed to address some of these concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Agrobacterium tumefaciens-Mediated Plant Transformation: A Review

Shahnam Azizi-Dargahlou & Mahin pouresmaeil

In vitro plant tissue culture: means for production of biological active compounds

Claudia A. Espinosa-Leal, César A. Puente-Garza & Silverio García-Lara

Advantages, risks and legal perspectives of GMOs in 2020s

Acharjee S, Sarmah BK, Kumar PA, Olsen K, Mahon R, Moar WJ, Moore A, Higgins TJV (2010) Transgenic chickpeas ( Cicer arietinum L.) expressing a sequence-modified cry2Aa gene. Plant Sci 178:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.02.001

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Adang MJ, Brody MS, Cardineau G, Eagan N, Roush RT, Shewmaker CK, Jones A, Oakes JE, McBride KE (1993) The reconstruction and expression of a Bacillus thuringiensis cryIIIA gene in protoplasts and potato plants. Plant Mol Biol 21:1131–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00023609

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Agarwal A, Yadava P, Kumar K, Singh I, Kaul T, Pattanayak A, Agrawal PA (2018) Insights into maize genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 24:175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-017-0502-3

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Al-Babili S, Beyer P (2005) Golden Rice—Five years on the road—five years to go? Trends Plant Sci 10:565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.10.006

Anzalone AV, Randolph PB, Davis JR, Sousa AA, Koblan LW, Levy JM, Chen PJ, Wilson C, Newby GA, Raguram A, Liu DR (2019) Search and replace genome editing without double strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576:149–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4

Ariel FD, Manavella PA, Dezar CA, Chan RL (2007) The true story of the HD-Zip family. Trends Plant Sci 12:419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.003

Azevedo RA, Lea PJ (2001) Lysine metabolism in higher plants. Amino Acids 20:261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007260170043

Bagla P (2010) Hardy cotton-munching pests are latest blow to GM crops. Sci 327:1439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.327.5972.1439

Barry GF, Kishore GM, Padgette SR, Stallings WC (1997) Glyphosate-tolerant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthases. US Patent 5633435. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5633435A/en

Bawa AS, Anilakumar KR (2013) Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review. J Food Sci Technol 50:1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1

Belhaj K, Chaparro-Garcia A, Kamoun S, Nekrasov V (2013) Plant genome editing made easy: targeted mutagenesis in model and crop plants using the CRISPR/Cas system. Plant Methods 9:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4811-9-39

Bevan MW, Flavell RB, Chilton MD (1983) A chimaeric antibiotic resistance gene as a selectable marker for plant cell transformation. Nature 304:184–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/304184a0

Bicar EH, Woodman CW, Sangtong V, Peterson JM, Yang SS, Lee M, Scott MP (2008) Transgenic maize endosperm containing a milk protein has improved amino acid balance. Transgenic Res 17:59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9081-3

Broadway RM, Duffey SS (1986) Plant proteinase inhibitors: Mechanism of action and effect on the growth and digestive physiology of larval Heliothis zea and Spodoptera exiqua . J Insect Physiol 32:827–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(86)90097-1

Brookes G, Barfoot P (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops Food 8:117–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brookes G, Barfoot P (2018) Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2016. GM Crops Food 9:59–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866

Brower LP, Taylor OR, Williams EH, Slayback DA, Zubieta RR, Ramirez MI (2012) Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk? Insect Conserv Diver 5:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00142.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Bucchini L, Goldman L (2002) Starlink Corn: A Risk analysis. Environ Health Perspect 110:5–13. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.021105

Business Wire (2016) Global Genetically Modified Seeds Market to Witness Growth Through 2020 Due to Rise in Adoption of Bio-fuels: Reports Technavio. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160830005089/en/Global-Genetically-Modified-Seeds-Market-Witness-Growth

Cai Y, Chen L, Liu X, Guo C, Sun S, Wu C, Jiang B, Han T, Hou W (2017) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of GmFT2a delays flowering time in soya bean. Plant Biotechnol J 16:176–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12758

Callaway E (2018) CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union. Nature 560:16. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05814-6

Carrière Y, Crowder DW, Tabashnik BE (2010) Evolutionary ecology of insect adaptation to Bt crops. Evol Appl 3:561–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00129.x

Castiglioni P, Warner D, Bensen RJ, Anstrom DC, Harrison J et al (2008) Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved grain yield in Maize under water-limited conditions. Plant Physiol 147:446–455. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.118828

Chaikam V (2012) In vivo maternal haploid induction in maize. In: B.M. Prasanna, V Chaikam, and G Mahuku, editors, Doubled haploid technology in maize breeding: Theory and practice. CIMMYT, D F, Mexico pp 9–13. https://hdl.handle.net/10883/1351

Chan RL, Cabello JV, Giacomelli JI (2013) HaHB11 provides improved plant yield and tolerance to abiotic stress. WO2013116750A1. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013116750A1

Chawla R, Shakya R, Rommens CM (2012) Tuber-specific silencing of asparagine synthetase-1 reduces the acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown in the field without affecting tuber shape and yield. Plant Biotechnol J 10:913–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2012.00720.x

Chen JS, Dagdas YS, Kleinstiver BP, Welch MM, Sousa AA, Harrington LB, Sternberg SH, Joung JK, Yildiz A, Doudna JA (2017) Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR–Cas9 targeting accuracy. Nature 550:407–410. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24268

Chen LJ, Lee DS, Song ZP, Suh HS, Lu B (2004) Gene flow from cultivated rice ( Oryza sativa ) to its weedy and wild relatives. Ann Bot 93:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mch006

Chen TH, Murata N (2002) Enhancement of tolerance of abiotic stress by metabolic engineering of betaines and other compatible solutes. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1369-5266(02)00255-8

Chilton MD, Drummond MH, Merlo DJ, Sciaky D, Montoya AL, Gordon MP et al (1977) Stable incorporation of plasmid DNA into higher plant cells: the molecular basis of crown gall tumorigenesis. Cell 11:263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(77)90043-5

Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL, Schmidt C, Zhang F, Hummel A, Bogdanove AJ, Voytas DF (2010) Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genetics 186:757–761. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.110.120717

Christian M, Qi Y, Zhang Y, Voytas DF (2013) Targeted mutagenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana using engineered TAL effector nucleases. G3 3:1697–1705. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.113.007104

Chan RL, Cabello JV, Giacomelli JI (2013) Enhancement of tolerance of abiotic stress by metabolic engineering of betaines and other compatible solutes. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5(3):250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00255-8

Clasen BM, Stoddard TJ, Luo S, Demorest ZL, Li J, Cedrone F, Tibebu R, Davison S, Ray EE, Daulhac A, Coffman A, Yabandith A, Retterath A, Haun W, Baltes NJ, Mathis L, Voytas DF, Zhang F (2016) Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol J 14:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12370

Cremer J, Treptow C, Eggeling L, Sahm H (1988) Regulation of enzymes of lysine biosynthesis in Corynebacterium glutamicum . Appl Environ Microbiol 134:3221–3229. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-134-12-3221

Curtin SJ, Xiong Y, Michno JM et al (2018) CRISPR/Cas9 and TALENs generate heritable mutations for genes involved in small RNA processing of Glycine max and Medicago truncatula . Plant Biotechnol J 16:1125–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12857

Dang W, Wei ZM (2007) An optimized Agrobacterium -mediated transformation for soybean for expression of binary insect resistance genes. Plant Sci 173:381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.06.010

Davison J (2010) GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Sci 178:94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005

De Vos CJ, Swanenburg M (2018) Health effects of feeding genetically modified (GM) crops to livestock animals: A review. Food Chem Toxicol 117:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.031

Dezar CA, Gago GM, González DH, Chan RL (2005) Hahb-4 , a sunflower homeobox-leucine zipper gene, is a developmental regulator and confers drought tolerance to Arabidopsis thaliana plants. Transgenic Res 14:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-005-5076-0

Dill GM, CaJacob CA, Padgette SR (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Manag Sci 64:326–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1501

Dively GP, Rose R, Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Calvin DD, Russo JM, Anderson PL (2004) Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous exposure to Cry1Ab-expression corn during anthesis. Envn Entomol 33:1116–1125. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x-33.4.1116

Domingo JL (2016) Safety assessment of GM plants: an updated review of the scientific literature. Food Chem Toxicol 95:12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.06.013

Dong L, Li L, Liu C, Liu C, Geng S, Li X, Huang C, Mao L, Chen S, Xie C (2018) Genome editing and double-fluorescence proteins enable robust maternal haploid induction and identification in maize. Mol Plant 11:1214–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2018.06.011

Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR–Cas9. Science 346:1258096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096

Du H, Zeng X, Zhao M, Cui X, Wang Q, Yang H, Cheng H, Yu D (2016) Efficient targeted mutagenesis in soybean by TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9. J Biotechnol 217:90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.11.005

Duan X, Li X, Xue Q, Abo-El-Saad M, Xu D, Wu R (1996) Transgenic rice plants harboring an introduced potato Proteinase inhibitor II gene are insect resistant. Nat Biotechnol 14:494–498. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0496-494

Dufourmantel N, Tissot G, Goutorbe F, Garcon F, Jansens S, Pelissier B, Peltier G, Dubald M (2005) Generation and analysis of soybean plastid transformants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protoxin. Plant Mol Biol 58:659–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-005-7405-3

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (2012) Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA J 10(2561):33. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2561

FAO (2010) Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition. Report of an expert consultation. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. 10–14 November 2008, Geneva. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 91. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2016049106

Fang J, Xu X, Wang P, Zhao JZ, Shelton AM, Cheng J, Shen Z (2007) Characterization of chimeric Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3 toxins. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:956–961. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02079-06

Faria JC, Albino MMC, Dias BBA, Cancado LJ, Cunha NB, Silva LM, Vianna GR, Aragão FJL (2006) Partial resistance to Bean golden mosaic virus in a transgenic common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) line expressing a mutated rep gene. Plant Sci 171:565–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2006.06.010

Ferreira SA, Pitz KY, Manshardt R, Zee F, Fitch M, Gonsalves D (2002) Virus coat protein transgenic papaya provides practical control of papaya ringspot virus in hawaii. Plant Dis 86:101–105. https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis.2002.86.2.101

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ford CS, Allainguillaume J, Grilli-Chantler P, Cuccato J, Allender CJ, Wilkinson MJ (2006) Spontaneous gene flow from rapeseed ( Brassica napus ) to wild Brassica oleracea . Proc Biol Sci 273:3111–3115. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3686

Foster SJ, Park TH, Pel M, Brigneti G, Sliwka J, Jagger L, Vossen EVD, Jones JD (2009) Rpi-vnt1.1, a Tm-2 2 homolog from Solanum venturii , confers resistance to potato late blight. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22:589–600. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-22-5-0589

Fraley RT, Rogers SG, Horsch RB, Sanders PR, Flick JS et al (1983) Expression of bacterial genes in plant cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:4803–4807. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.15.4803

Fujimoto H, Itoh K, Yamamoto M, Kyozuka J, Shimamoto K (1993) Insect resistant rice generated by introduction of a modifed δ-endotoxin gene of Bacillus thuringiensis . Nat Biotechnol 11:1151–1155. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1093-1151

Gago GM, Almoguera C, Jordano J, Gonzalez DH, Chan RL (2002) Hahb-4, a homeobox leucine zipper gene potentially involved in abscisic acid-dependent responses to water stress in sunflower. Plant Cell Environ 25:633–640. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2002.00853.x

Galili G (1995) Regulation of lysine and threonine synthesis. Plant Cell 7:899–906. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.7.7.899

Gao JP, Chao DY, Lin HX (2007) Understanding abiotic stress tolerance mechanisms: recent studies on stress response in rice. J Integr Plant Biol 49:742–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00495.x

Gassmann AJ, Petzold-Maxwell JL, Keweshan RS, Dunbar MW (2011) Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm. PLoS ONE 6:e22629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022629

Geiger HH (2009) Doubled haploids. In: Bennetzen JL, Hake S (eds) Maize handbook-volume II: genetics and genomics. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 641–657

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Geliebter A, Torbay N, Bracco EF, Hashim SA, Van Itallie TB (1983) Overfeeding with medium-chain triglyceride diet results in diminished deposition of fat. Am J Clin Nutr 37:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/37.1.1

Gilbert N (2013) A hard look at GM crops. Nature 497:24–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/497024a

Gill SS, Tuteja N (2010) Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 48:909–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016

Gocal G (2015a) Non-transgenic trait development in crop plants using oligo-directed mutagenesis: Cibus’ Rapid Trait Development System. In: NABC Report 26. New DNA-Editing Approaches: Methods, Applications and Policy for Agriculture. pp 97–105. North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, NY. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/51428/nabc26_10_Gocal.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .

Gocal GFW, Schopke C, Beetham PR (2015) Oligomediated targeting gene editing. In: Puchta H, Thompson JG (eds) Advances in New Technology for Targeted Modification of Plant Genomes (Zhang F, Puchta H and Thompson JG Eds). Springer, New York, pp 73–89

Google Scholar  

Green JM (2012) The benefits of herbicide-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 68:1323–1331. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3374

Griffiths AJF, Wessler SR, Lewontin RC, Gelbart WM, Suzuki DT, Miller JH (2005) Introduction to genetic analysis. 8th (ed.) FreemanWH, New York. https://www.bio.bg.ac.rs/materijali_predmeta/med-eng-griffiths-an-introduction-to-genetic-analysis.pdf

Guilinger JP, Pattanayak V, Reyon D, Tsai SQ, Sander JD, Joung JK, Liu DR (2014) Broad specificity profiling of TALENs results in engineered nucleases with improved DNA-cleavage specificity. Nat Methods 11:429–435. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2845

Guilinger JP, Thompson DB, Liu DR (2014) Fusion of catalytically inactive Cas9 to FokI nuclease improves the specificity of genome modification. Nat Biotechnol 32:577–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2909

Guo J, Litao Y, Xin L, Xiaoyan G, Lingxi J, Dabing Z (2009) Characterization of the exogenous insert and development of event-specific PCR detection methods for genetically modified Huanong No. 1 Papaya. J Agric Food Chem 57:7205–7212. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901198x

Guo Y, Xu Q, Canzio D, Shou J, Li J, Gorkin DU, Jung I et al (2015) CRISPR inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and enhancer/promoter function. Cell 162:900–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.038

Gupta B, Tripathi AK, Joshi R, Pareek A, Singla-Pareek SL (2015) Designing climate smart future crops employing signal transduction components. In: Pandey GK (ed) Elucidation of abiotic stress signaling in plants: functional genomics perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 393–414

Halfill MD, Richards HA, Mabon SA, Stewart CN (2001) Expression of GFP and Bt transgenes in Brassica napus and hybridization with Brassica rapa . Theor Appl Genet 103:659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220100613

Han SM, Lee B, Won OJ, Hwang KS, Suh SJ, Kim C, Park KW (2015) Gene flow from herbicide resistant genetically modified rice to conventional rice ( Oryza sativa L.) cultivars. J Ecol Environ 38:397–403. https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2015.042

Haun W, Coffman A, Clasen BM, Demorest ZL, Lowy A, Ray E, Retterath A, Stoddard T, Juillerat A, Cedrone F, Mathis L, Voytas DF, Zhang F (2014) Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family. Plant Biotechnol J 12:934–940. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12201

Haverkort J, Struik PC, Visser RGF, Jacobsen E (2009) Applied Biotechnology to Combat Late Blight in Potato Caused by Phytophthora Infestans . Potato Res 52:249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-009-9136-3

Heap I (2014) Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 70:1306–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3696

Heap I, Duke SO (2018) Overview of glyphosate-resistant weeds worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 74:1040–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4760

Heritage J (2004) The fate of transgenes in the human gut. Nat Biotechnol 22:170–172. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0204-170

Herrera-Estrella L, Block MD, Messens E, Hernalsteens JP, Montagu MV, Schell J (1983) Chimeric genes as dominant selectable markers in plant cells. EMBO J 2:987–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1983.tb01532.x

Herrera-Estrella L, Depicker A, Montagu MV, Schell J (1983) Expression of chimaeric genes transfered into plant cells using a Ti-plasmid-derived vector. Nature 303:209–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/303209a0

Hilder VA, Gatehouse AMR, Sheerman SE, Barker RF, Boulter D (1987) A novel mechanism of insect resistance engineered into tobacco. Nature 330:160–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/330160a0

Hilton IB, D’Ippolito AM, Vockley CM, Thakore PI, Crawford GE, Reddy TE, Gersbach CA (2015) Epigenome editing by a CRISPR–Cas9-based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat Biotechnol 33:510–517. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3199

Holme IB, Dionisio G, Brinch-Pedersen H, Wendt T, Madsen CK, Vincze E, Holm PB (2012) Cisgenic barley with improved phytase activity. Plant Biotechnol J 10:237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2011.00660.x

Indurker S, Misra HS, Eapen S (2007) Genetic transformation of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) with insecticidal crystal protein gene using particle gun bombardment. Plant Cell Rep 26:755–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-006-0283-6

ISAAA (2017) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years. ISAAA Brief No. 53. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/53/

ISAAA (2018) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2018: Biotech Crops Continue to Help Meet the Challenges of Increased Population and Climate Change. ISAAA Brief No . 54. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/54/executivesummary/pdf/B54-ExecSum-English.pdf

ISAAA database (2019) GM Approval Database retrieved on 17 Nov 2019. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp

James C (1997) Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997. ISAAA Brief No. 5. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. pp 31. https://www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&Control=IB005-1997

James C (2013) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief No.46. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/

James C (2015) 20th Anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the Global Commercialization of Biotech Crops and Biotech Crop Highlights in 2015. ISAAA Brief No. 51. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. https://isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/51/default.asp

Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:816–821. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829

Jones HD (2015) Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nature Plants 1:14011. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2014.11

Joung JK, Sander JD (2013) TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3486

Kalla R, Shimamoto K, Potter R, Nielsen PS, Linnestad C, Olsen OA (1994) The promoter of the barley aleurone-specific gene encoding a putative 7 kDa lipid transfer protein confers aleurone cell specific expression in transgenic rice. Plant J 6:849–860. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1994.6060849.x

Kaniewski W, Lawson C, Sammons B, Haley L, Hart J, Delannay X, Tumer NE (1990) Field resistance of transgenic russet burbank potato to effects of infection by potato virus X and potato virus Y. Nat Biotechnol 8:750–754. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0890-750

Karlson D, Nakaminami K, Toyomasu T, Imai R (2002) A cold-regulated nucleic acid-binding protein of winter wheat shares a domain with bacterial cold shock proteins. J Biol Chem 277:35248–35256. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m205774200

Keese P (2008) Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environ Biosaf Res 7:123–149. https://doi.org/10.1051/ebr:2008014

Kelliher T, Starr D, Richbourg L, Chintamanani S, Delzer B, Nuccio ML, Green J, Chen Z, McCuiston J, Wang W, Liebler T, Bullock P, Martin B (2017) MATRILINEAL, a sperm-specific phospholipase, triggers maize haploid induction. Nature 542:105–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20827

Kereša S, Grdiša M, Barić M, Barčić J, Marchetti S (2008) Transgenic plants expressing insect resistance genes. Sjemenarstvo 25:139–153. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/43734

Khan MS, Yu X, Kikuchi A, Asahina M, Watanabe KN (2009) Genetic engineering of glycinebetaine biosynthesis to enhance abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant Biotechnol 26:125–134. https://doi.org/10.5511/plantbiotechnology.26.125

Kim JS, Park SJ, Kwak KJ, Kim YO, Song J, Jang B, Jung CH, Kang H (2007) Cold shock domain proteins and glycine-rich RNA-binding proteins from Arabidopsis thaliana can promote cold adaptation process in Escherichia Coli . Nucleic Acids Res 35:506–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl1076

Kim MH, Sato S, Sasaki K, Saburi W, Matsui H, Imai R (2013) Cold shock domain protein 3 is involved in salt and drought stress tolerance in Arabidopsis . FEBS Open Biol 3:438–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fob.2013.10.003

Kim H, Kim JS (2014) A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat Rev Genet 15:321–334. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3686

Kim Y, Kweon J, Kim JS (2013) TALENs and ZFNs are associated with different mutation signatures. Nat Methods 10:185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2364

Kim YG, Cha J, Chandrasegaran S (1996) Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to FokI cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:1156–1160. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.3.1156

Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE 9:e111629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Koul B, Srivastava S, Sanya I, Tripathi B, Sharma V, Amla DV (2014) Transgenic tomato line expressing modified Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ab gene showing complete resistance to two lepidopteran pests. Springer Plus 3:84. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-84

Koussevitzky S, Suzuki N, Huntington S, Armijo L, Sha W, Cortes D, Shulaev V, Mittler R (2008) Ascorbate peroxidase 1 plays a key role in the response of Arabidopsis thaliana to stress combination. J Biol Chem 283:34197–34203. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M806337200

Koziel MG, Beland GL, Bowman C, Carozzi NB, Crenshaw C, Crossland L, Dawson J, Desai N, Hill M, Kadwell S et al (1993) Field performance of elite transgenic maize plants expressing an insecticidal protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis . Nat Biotechnol 11:194–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0293-194

Kumar H, Kumar V (2004) Tomato expressing Cry1A(b) insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis protected against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) damage in the laboratory, greenhouse and field. Crop Prot 23:135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2003.08.006

Kumar K, Aggarwal C, Sapna B, Singh I, Yadava P (2018) Microbial genes in crop improvement. Crop improvement through microbial biotechnology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp 39–56

Lawrenson T, Shorinola O, Stacey N, Li C, Østergaard L, Patron N, Uauy C, Harwood W (2015) Induction of targeted, heritable mutations in barley and Brassica oleracea using RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease. Genome Biol 16:258. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0826-7

Lea PJ, Joy KW, Ramos JL, Guerrero MG (1984) The action of 2-amino-4-(methylphosphinyl)-butanoic acid (phosphinothricin) and its 2-oxo-derivative on the metabolism of cyanobacteria and higher plants. Phytochemistry 23:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9422(84)83066-6

Li C, Zong Y, Wang Y, Jin S, Zhang D, Song Q, Zhang R, Gao C (2018) Expanded base editing in rice and wheat using a Cas9–adenosine deaminase fusion. Genome Biol 19:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1443-z

Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B (2012) High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistance rice. Nat Biotechnol 30:390–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2199

Li Z, Zhang D, Xiong X, Yan B, Xie W, Sheen J, Li JF (2017) A potent Cas9-derived gene activator for plant and mammalian cells. Nat Plants 3:930–936. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-017-0046-0

Liang Z, Chen K, Li T, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhao Q, Liu J et al (2017) ARTICLE Efficient DNA-free genome editing of bread wheat using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun 8:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14261

Liu C, Li X, Meng D, Zhong Y, Chen C, Dong X, Xu X, Chen B, Li W, Li L et al (2017) A 4-bp insertion at ZmPLA1 encoding a putative phospholipase A generates haploid induction in maize. Mol Plant 10:520–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2017.01.011

Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214. https://doi.org/10.1038/20338

Lowder LG, Paul JW, Qi Y (2017) Multiplexed transcriptional activation or repression in plants using CRISPR–dCas9-based Systems. In: Mueller-Roeber B, Kaufmann K (eds) Plant gene regulatory networks. Methods in molecular biology. Humana Press, New York, pp 167–184

Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, Wyckhuys KAG, Guo Y (2010) Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science 328:1151–1154. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187881

Luttrell RG, Ali I, Allen KC, Young III SY, Szalanski A, Williams K, Lorenz G, Parker Jr CD, Blanco C, (2004) Resistance to Bt in Arkansas populations of cotton bollworm, pp. 1373–1383. In Richter DA [ed.], Proceedings, 2004 Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 5–9 January 2004, San Antonio, TX, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/12012/PDF

Lovei GL, Bøhn T, Hilbeck A (2010) Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Genetically Modified Organisms Third World Network, 131 Macalister Road 10400 Penang, Malaysia. ISBN: 978-967-5412-13-4. https://www.twn.my/title2/biosafety/pdf/bio10.pdf

Ma L, Zhu F, Li Z, Zhang J, Li X, Dong J, Wang T (2015) TALEN-Based mutagenesis of lipoxygenase LOX3 enhances the storage tolerance of rice ( Oryza sativa ) seeds. PLoS ONE 10:e0143877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143877

Ma L, Zhang D, Miao Q, Yang J, Xuan Y, Hu Y (2017) Essential role of sugar transporter OsSWEET11 during the early stage of rice grain filling. Plant Cell Physiol 58:863–873. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcx040

Mahfouz MM, Li L, Piatek M et al (2012) Targeted transcriptional repression using a chimeric TALE-SRDX repressor protein. Plant Molecular Biol 78:311–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-011-9866-x

Majeed A, Makhdoom R, Husnain T, Riazuddin S (2011) Assessment of potato proteinase inhibitor-II gene as an antifungal and insecticidal agent. Acta Agric Scand Sect 61:92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710903433777

Malinovski T, Cambra M, Capote N, Zawadska B, Gorris T, Scorza R, Ravelonandro M (2006) Field trials of plum clones transformed with Plum pox virus coat protein (PPV CP) gene. Plant Dis 90:1012–1018. https://doi.org/10.1094/pd-90-1012

Mandaokar AD, Goyal RK, Shukla A, Bisaria S, Bhalla R, Reddy VS, Chaurasia A, Sharma RP, Altosaar I, Ananda Kumar P (2000) Transgenic tomato plants resistant to fruit borer ( Helicoverpa armigera Hübner). Crop Prot 19:307–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.01.010

Marc F, Dennis G (1995) Resistance of transgenic hybrid squash zw-20 expressing the coat protein genes of zucchini yellow mosaic virus and watermelon mosaic virus 2 to mixed infections by both potyviruses. Nat Biotechnol 13:1466–1473. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1295-1466

McDougall P (2011) The Cost and Time Involved in the Discovery, Development and Authorisation of a New Plant Biotechnology Derived Trait. In: A Consultancy Study for Crop Life International, Pathhead, Midlothin, UK. https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdf

McPherson SA, Perlak FJ, Fuchs RL, Marrone PG, Lavrik PB, Fischho DA (1988) Characterization of the coleopteran specific protein gene of Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis . Nat Biotechnol 6:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0188-61

Mehrotra M, Singh AK, Sanyal I, Altosaar I, Amla DV (2011) Pyramiding of modified cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes of Bacillus thuringiensis in transgenic chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) for improved resistance to pod borer insect Helicoverpa armigera . Euphytica 182:87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0501-3

Mertens M (2008) Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified Plants. BfN- Skripten 217. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, New York, USA. https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/skript217.pdf

Miller JC, Holmes MC, Wang J, Guschin DY, Lee YL et al (2007) An improved zinc-finger nuclease architecture for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 25:778–785. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1319

Miller JC, Tan S, Qiao G, Barlow KA, Wang J et al (2011) A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 29:143–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1755

Miller JK, Bradford KJ (2010) The regulatory bottleneck for biotech specialty crops. Nat Biotechnol 28:1012–1014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1010-1012

Mikami M, Toki S, Endo M (2016) Precision targeted mutagenesis via Cas9 paired nickases in Rice. Plant Cell Physiol 57(5):1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcw049

Moradpour M, Abdulah SNA (2019) CRISPR/dCas9 platforms in plants: strategies and applications beyond genome editing. Plant Biotechnol J. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13232

Morineau C, Bellec Y, Tellier F, Gissot L, Kelemen Z, Nogue F, Faure JD (2017) Selective gene dosage by CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing in hexaploid Camelina sativa . Plant Biotechnol J 15:729–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12671

Murai N, Sutton DW, Murray MG, Slightom JL, Merlo DJ, Reichert NA, Sengupta-Gopalan C, Stock CA, Barker RF, Kemp JD, Hall TC (1983) Phaseolin gene from bean is expressed after transfer to sunflower via tumor-inducing plasmid vectors. Science 222:476–482. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4623.476

Nahar K, Hasanuzzaman M, Fujita M (2016) Roles of osmolytes in plant adaptation to drought and salinity. In: Iqbal N, Nazar R, Khan AN (eds) Osmolytes and plants acclimation to changing environment: emerging omics technologies. Springer, New Delhi pp: 37–68

Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O'Donnell AG, Gockling S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ (2004) Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol 22:204–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt934

Oliva R, Ji C, Atienza-Grande G et al (2019) Broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight in rice using genome editing. Nat Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0267-z

Onaga G, Wydra K (2016) Advances in plant tolerance to biotic stresses, plant genomics, Ibrokhim Y. Abdurakhmonov, Intech Open. https://doi.org/10.5772/64351 . https://www.intechopen.com/books/plant-genomics/advances-in-plant-tolerance-to-biotic-stresses

Osakabe K, Osakabe Y, Toki S (2010) Site-directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis using custom-designed zinc finger nucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:12034–12039. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000234107

Osakabe Y, Watanabe T, Sugano SS et al (2016) Optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to modify abiotic stress responses in plants. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26685

Padgette SR, Kolacz KH, Delannay X, Re DB, LaVallee BJ, Tinius CN, Rhodes WK, Otero YI, Barry GF, Eichholz DA et al (1995) Development, identification and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci 35:1451–1461. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183x003500050032x

Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S et al (2005) Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nat Biotechnol 223:482–487. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1082

Parrott WA, All JN, Adang MJ, Bailey MA, Boerma HR, Stewart CN Jr (1994) Recovery and evaluation of soybean plants transgenic for a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki insecticidal gene. Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 30:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02632204

Perlak FJ, Fuchs RL, Dean DA, McPherson SL, Fischho DA (1991) Modifcation of the coding sequence enhances plant expression of insect control protein genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:3324–3328. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.88.8.3324

Perotti MF, Ribone PA, Chan RL (2017) Plant transcription factors from the homeodomain-leucine zipper family I. Role in development and stress responses. IUBMB Life 69:280–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/iub.1619

Rahman M, Hussain K, Khan MA, Bakhsh A, Rao AQ (2012) An insight of cotton leaf curl virus: a devastating plant pathogenic begomovirus. Pure Appl Bio 1:52–58. https://doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2012.13001

Ramachandran S, Buntin GD, All JN, Tabashnik BE, Raymer PL, Adang MJ, Pulliam DA, Stewart CN Jr (1998) Survival, development, and oviposition of resistant diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae ) on transgenic canola producing a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. J Econ Entomol 91:1239–1244. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/91.6.1239

Rascón-Cruz Q, Sinagawa-García S, Osuna-Castro JA, Bohorova N, ParedesLopez O (2004) Accumulation, assembly, and digestibility of amarantin expressed in transgenic tropical maize. Theor Appl Genet 108:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-003-1430-x

Rasmussen S, Barah P, Suarez-Rodriguez MC, Bressendorff S, Friis P, Costantino P, Bones AM, Nielsen HB, Mundy J (2013) Transcriptome responses to combinations of stresses in Arabidopsis . Plant Physiol 161:1783–1794. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.210773

Ravelonandro M, Scorza R, Bachelier JC, Labonne G, Levy L, Damsteegt V, Callahan AM, Dunez J (1997) Resistance of transgenic Prunus domestica to Plum pox virus infection. Plant Dis 81:1231–1235. https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis.1997.81.11.1231

Ran FA, Hsu PD, Lin CY, Gootenberg JS, Konermann S, Trevino AE, Scott DA, Inoue A, Matoba S, Zhang Y, Zhang F (2013) Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154(6):1380–1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.021

Raza A, Razzaq A, Mehmood SS, Zou X, Zhang X, Lv Y, Xu J (2019) Impact of climate change on crops adaptation and strategies to tackle its outcome: a review. Plants 8:34. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8020034

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rensburg JBJ (2007) First report of field resistance by the stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. S Afr J Plant Soil 27:147–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2007.10634798

Rizhsky L, Liang H, Shuman J, Shulaev V, Davletova S, Mittler R (2004) When defense pathways collide. The response of Arabidopsis to a combination of drought and heat stress. Plant Physiol 134:1683–1696. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.033431

Rommens CM, Haring MA, Swords K, Davies HV (2007) The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends Plant Sci 12:397–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.001

Ruiz-Lopez N, Haslam RP, Napier JA, Sayanova O (2014) Successful high-level accumulation of fish oil omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in a transgenic oilseed crop. Plant J 77:198–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12378

Sander JD, Dahlborg EJ, Goodwin MJ, Cade L, Zhang F, Cifuentes D, Curtin SJ, Blackburn JS, Thibodeau-Beganny S, Qi Y et al (2011) Selection-free zinc-finger-nuclease engineering by context-dependent assembly (CoDA). Nat Methods 8:67–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1542

Sanyal I, Singh AK, Kaushik M, Amla DV (2005) Agrobacterium mediated transformation of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) with Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ac gene for resistance against pod borer insect Helicoverpa armigera . Plant Sci 168:1135–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.12.015

Sauer H, Wild A, Ruhle W (1987) The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis II. The cause of inhibition of photosynthesis. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 42:270–278. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1987-0317

Sauer NJ, Mozoruk J, Miller RB, Warburg ZJ, Walker KA, Beetham PR et al (2016) Oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis for precision gene editing. Plant Biotechnol J 14:496–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12496

Schiml S, Fauser F, Puchta H (2014) The CRISPR/Cas system can be used as nuclease for in planta gene targeting and as paired nickases for directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis resulting in heritable progeny. Plant J 80:1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12704

Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006) Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Rep 7:750–753. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400769

Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11937–11942. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211329998

Seralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol 50:4221–4231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.11.047

Seralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS (2014) Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ Sci Eur 26:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5

Shan Q, Zhang Y, Chen K, Zhang K, Gao C (2015) Creation of fragrant rice by targeted knockout of the OsBADH2 gene using TALEN technology. Plant Biotechnol J 13:791–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12312

Shen L, Hua Y, Fu Y, Li J, Liu Q, Jiao X et al (2017) Rapid generation of genetic diversity by multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in rice. Sci China Life Sci 60:506–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-017-9008-8

Shen L, Wang C, Fu Y, Wang J, Liu Q, Zhang X et al (2018) QTL editing confers opposing yield performance in different rice varieties. J Integr Plant Biol 60:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12501

Sherkow JS (2018) The CRISPR patent landscape: past, present and future. CRISPR J 1:5–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2017.0013

Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, DeKelver RC, Moehle EA, Worden SE, Mitchell JC, Arnold NL, Gopalan S, Meng X, Choi VM, Rock JM, Wu YY, Katibah GE, Zhifang G, McCaskill D, Simpson MA, Blakeslee B, Greenwalt SA, Butler HJ, Hinkley SJ, Zhang L, Rebar EJ, Gregory PD, Urnov FD (2009) Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459:437–441. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07992

Sindhu AS, Zheng ZW, Murai N (1997) The pea seed storage protein legumin was synthesized, processed and accumulated stably in transgenic rice endosperm. Plant Sci 130:189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(97)00219-7

Singh M, Kumar J, Singh S, Singh VP, Prasad SM (2015) Roles of osmoprotectants in improving salinity and drought tolerance in plants: A review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 14:407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9372-8

Smart RD, Blum M, Wesseler J (2017) Trends in approval times for genetically engineered crops in the United States and the European Union. J Agricul Econ 68:182–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12171

Songstad DD, Petolino JF, Voytas DF, Reichert NA (2017) Genome Editing of Plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 36:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2017.1281663

Stewart CN Jr, Adang MJ, All JA, Raymer PL, Ramachandran S, Parrott WA (1996) Insect control and dosage effects in transgenic canola containing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cryIAC gene. Plant Physiol 112:115–120. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.1.115

St-Onge M, Jones P (2003) Greater rise in fat oxidation with medium-chain triglyceride consumption relative to long-chain triglyceride is associated with lower initial body weight and greater loss of subcutaneous adipose tissue. Int J Obes 27:1565–1571. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802467

Stöger E, Parker M, Christou P, Casey R (2001) Pea legumin overexpressed in wheat endosperm assembles into an ordered para Crystalline matrix. Plant Physiol 125:1732–1742. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.125.4.1732

Storer NP, Babcock JM, Schlenz M, Meade T, Thompson GD, Bing JW, Huckaba RM (2010) Discovery and characterization of field resistance to Bt maize: Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Puerto Rico. J Econ Entomol 103:1031–1038. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec10040

Suzie K, Ma JKC, Drake PMW (2008) Genetically modified plants and human health. J R Soc Med 101:290–298. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372

Suzuki N, Rivero RM, Shulaev V, Blumwald E, Mittler R (2014) Abiotic and biotic stress combinations. New Phytol 203:32–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12797

Swarts DC, Jinek M (2018) Cas9 versus Cas12a/Cpf1: Structure–function comparisons and implications for genome editing. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA 9:e1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrna.1481

Tabashnik BE, Gassman AJ, Crowder DW, Carriere Y (2008) Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nat Biotechnol 26:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1382

Tabashnik BE, Finson N, Johnson MW, Moar WJ (1993) Resistance to toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki causes minimal cross-resistance to B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Appl Environ Microbiol 59:1332–1335. https://aem.asm.org/content/59/5/1332

Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y (2010) Field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton: Bollworm in the US and pink bollworm in India. Southwest Entomologist 35:417–424. https://doi.org/10.3958/059.035.0326

Tabashnik BE, Brévault T, Carrière Y (2013) Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres. Nat Biotechnol 31:510–521. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2597

Tachibana K, Watanabe T, Sekizawa Y, Takematsu T (1986) Action mechanism of bialaphos 2. Accumulation of ammonia in plants treated with bialaphos. J Pestic Sci 1:33–37. https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.11.33

Takabe T, Nakamura T, Nomura M, Hayashi Y, Ishitani M, Muramoto Y, Tanaka A, Takabe T (1998) 8-Glycinebetaine and the genetic engineering of salinity tolerance in plants. Stress responses of photosynthetic organisms. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-82884-2.50011-x

Thomas PE, Lawson EC, Zalewski JC, Reed GL, Kaniewski WK (2000) Extreme resistance to Potato leafroll virus in potato cv. Russet Burbank mediated by the viral replicase gene. Virus Res 71:49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1702(00)00187-8

Tohidfar M, Zare N, Jouzani GS, Efekhari SM (2013) Agrobacterium mediated transformation of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) using a synthetic cry3a gene to enhance resistance against alfalfa weevil. Plant Cell Tiss Org 113:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-012-0262-2

Tricoli DM, Carney KJ, Russell PF, McMaster JR, Groff DW et al (1995) Field evaluation of transgenic squash containing single or multiple virus coat protein gene constructs for resistance to cucumber mosaic virus, watermelon mosaic virus 2 and zucchini yellow mosaic virus. Nat Biotechnol 13:1458–1465. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1295-1458

Tsai SQ, Wyvekens N, Khayter C, Foden JA, Thapar V, Reyon D, Goodwin MJ, Aryee MJ, Joung JK (2014) Dimeric CRISPR RNA-guided FokI nucleases for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 32:569–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2908

Tsatsakis AM, Nawaz MA, Kouretas D, Balias G, Savolainen K, Tutelyan VA, Golokhvast KS, Lee JD, Yang SH, Chung G (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: a review. Food Chem Toxicol 156:818–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.011

Tuteja N, Gill SS (2014) Climate change and plant abiotic stress tolerance. Wiley-Blackwell, Amsterdam p 1208. ISBN: 978-3-527-33491-9. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Climate+Change+and+Plant+Abiotic+Stress+Tolerance-p-9783527334919

Tuteja N, Verma S, Sahoo R, Raveendar S, Reddy I (2012) Recent advances in development of marker free transgenic plants: regulation and biosafety concern. J Biosci 37:167–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-012-9187-5

US EPA (2017) Starlink™ corn regulatory information. Pesticides. US EPA. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pip/starlink_corn.htm#proposal

USDA APHIS (2020) https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/am-i-regulated

Usher S, Han L, Haslam RP, Michaelson LV, Sturtevant D, Aziz M, Chapman KD, Sayanova O, Napier JA (2017) Tailoring seed oil composition in the real world: optimising omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid accumulation in transgenic Camelina sativa . Sci Rep 7:6570. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06838-0

Vanblaere T, Szankowski I, Schaart J, Schouten H, Flachowsky H, Broggini GA, Gessler C (2011) The development of a cisgenic apple plant. J Biotechnol 154:304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.05.013

Vaughn T, Cavato T, Brar G, Coombe T, DeGooyer T, Ford S, Groth M, Howe A, Johnson S, Kolacz K et al (2005) A method of controlling corn rootworm feeding using a Bacillus thuringiensis protein expressed in transgenic maize. Crop Sci 45:931–938. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0304

Vauterin M, Frankard V, Jacobs M (2000) Functional rescue of a bacterial dapA auxotroph with a plant cDNA library selects for mutant clones encoding a feedback-insensitive dihydrodipicolinate synthase. Plant J 21:239–248. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00668.x

Veillet F, Perrot L, Chauvin L, Kermarrec MP, Guyon-Debast A, Chauvin JE, Nogue F, Mazier M (2019) Transgene-free genome editing in tomato and potato plants using agrobacterium-mediated delivery of a CRISPR/Cas9 cytidine base editor. Int J Mol Sci 20:402. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20020402

Wang B, Zhu L, Zhao B, Zhao Y, Xie Y, Zheng Z, Li Y, Sun J, Wang H (2019) Development of a haploid-inducer mediated genome editing (IMGE) system for accelerating maize breeding. Mol Plant 12:597–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2019.03.006

Wang Y, Cheng X, Shan Q, Zhang Y, Liu J, Gao C et al (2014) Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat Biotechnol 32:947–951. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2969

Waltz E (2014) Beating the heat. Nat Biotechnol 32:610–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2948

Waltz E (2015) USDA approves next-generation GM potato. Nat Biotechnol 33:12–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0115-12

Waltz E (2016) CRISPR-edited crops free to enter market, skip regulation. Nat Biotechnol 34:582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0616-582

Waltz E (2018) With a free pass, CRISPR-edited plants reach market in record time. Nat Biotechnol 36:6–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0118-6b

Waltz E (2019) Appetite grows for biotech foods with health benefits. Nat Biotechnol 37:573–580. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41587-019-00012-9

Watrud LS, Lee EH, Fairbrother A, Burdick C, Reichman JR, Bollman M, Storm M, King G, van de Water PK (2004) Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:14533–14538. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405154101

Whelan AI, Lema MA (2015) Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops Food 6:253–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2015.1114698

WHO (2008) Interim summary of conclusions and dietary recommendations on total fat and fatty acids, from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on fats and fatty acids in human nutrition. 10–14 November 2008, WHO: Geneva. https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdf

WHO (2009) Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995–2005. WHO global database on vitamin A deficiency. Geneva, World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/micronutrients/vitamin_a_deficiency/9789241598019/en/

Wolt JD, Wang K, Yang B (2016) The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotechnol J 14:510–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12444

Wunn J, Kloti A, Burkhardt PK, Biswas GCG, Launis K, Iglesias VA, Potrykus I (1996) Transgenic Indica rice breeding line IR58 expressing a synthetic cryIA(b) gene from Bacillus thuringiensis provides effective insect pest control. BioTechnol 14:171–176. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0296-171

Yamamoto T, McLaughlin RE (1981) Isolation of a protein from the parasporal crystal of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki toxic to the mosquito larva Aedes taeniorhynchus . Biochem Biophys Res Commun 103:414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-291x(81)90468-x

Yan F, Zhang WW, Xiao H, Li SF, Cheng ZM (2007) Transgenic wheat expressing virus-derived hairpin RNA is resistant to Barley yellow dwarf virus. Yi Chuan 29:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1360/yc-007-0097 .  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17284432

Yan S, Zhu J, Zhu W, Li Z, Shelton AM, Luo J, Cui J, Zhang Q, Liu X (2015) Pollen-mediated gene flow from transgenic cotton under greenhouse conditions is dependent on different pollinators. Sci Rep 5:15917. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15917

Yang RC, Xu HL, Yu WG, Lu CG, Long MS, Liu CQ, Pan NS, Chen ZL (1995) Transgenic tomato plants expressing cucumber mosaic virus coat protein (CMV-cp) and their resistance to cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Acta Agric Jiangsu 11:42–46

Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (2000) Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303–305. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5451.303

Zhang C, Wohlhueter R, Zhang H (2016) Genetically modified foods: a critical review of their promise and problems. Food Sci Hum Wellness 5:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002

Zhou J, Xin X, He Y, Chen H, Li Q, Tang X et al (2018) Multiplex QTL editing of grain-related genes improves yield in elite rice varieties. Plant Cell Rep 38:475–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-018-2340-3

Zhu YX, Ou-Yang WJ, Zhang YF, Chen ZL (1996) Transgenic sweet pepper plants from Agrobacterium mediated transformation. Plant Cell Rep 16:71–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002990050179

Zong Y, Wang Y, Li C, Zhang R, Chen K, Ran Y, Qiu JL, Wang D, Gao C (2017) Precise base editing in rice, wheat and maize with a Cas9–cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat Biotechnol 35:438–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3811

Download references

Acknowledgements

The maize transformation and genome editing work in the laboratory of the corresponding author is funded by National Agricultural Science Fund (NASF; competitive Grant no. NASF/GTR-5004/2015-16/204). The funds from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are gratefully acknowledged. GG, AD and AKJ acknowledge NASF support in the form of SRF, RA and LA fellowships, respectively.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi, 110012, India

Krishan Kumar, Geetika Gambhir, Abhishek Dass, Abhishek Kumar Jha & Pranjal Yadava

National Institute for Research in Environmental Health, Bhopal, 462001, India

Amit Kumar Tripathi

ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, PAU Campus, Ludhiana, 141004, India

Alla Singh, Mukesh Choudhary & Sujay Rakshit

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krishan Kumar .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 460 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A. et al. Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta 251 , 91 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2019

Accepted : 28 February 2020

Published : 31 March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Transgenics
• Public concerns
• Intragenesis
• Genome editing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 05 June 2018

Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study

• Kai Cui 1 , 2 &
• Sharon P. Shoemaker 1  

npj Science of Food volume  2 , Article number:  10 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

92k Accesses

128 Citations

109 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Environmental biotechnology

After more than 25 years of research and development on the genetic modification of a wide range of crops for food and fodder, China has reached a decision point as to whether it should accept, reject, or go slow with the use of genetically modified (GM) technology to produce the food and feed needed to sustain its population growth and economic renaissance. Here, we report a consumer survey on GM food that includes input from all provinces in China. Chinese consumers were surveyed for their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM food. The survey resulted in 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7% of respondents having a positive, neutral, or negative view on GM food, respectively. A minority of respondents (11.7%) claimed they understood the basic principles of GM technology, while most were either “neutral” or “unfamiliar with GM technology”. Most respondents (69.3%) obtained their information on GM food through the Internet and 64.3% of respondents thought that media coverage was predominately negative on GM food. The reasons given by consumers in favor of, or against, the use of GM food, were complex, as seen by the response of 13.8% of respondents who felt GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China. China’s Ministry of Agriculture and the science community generally expressed a positive attitude toward GM food, but the percentage of respondents that trusted the government and scientists was only 11.7 and 23.2%, respectively. Post-survey comments of respondents made suggestions on how the industrialization of GM technology might impact the future of China’s food supply and value chains. Finally, the impact of emerging technologies like genome editing and genome-edited organisms (GEOs) on the GM food debate is discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Python farming as a flexible and efficient form of agricultural food security

D. Natusch, P. W. Aust, … T. Coulson

Digital Regenerative Agriculture

Tom O’Donoghue, Budiman Minasny & Alex McBratney

Resistant starch intake facilitates weight loss in humans by reshaping the gut microbiota

Huating Li, Lei Zhang, … Weiping Jia

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) technology is a highly controversial topic for today’s global food consumer. The commercial development of GM crops began in 1996 with GM corn and has expanded every year with the cultivation of GM crops. In 2016, global land use for GM crops reached 185.1 million hectors. 1 Although GM foods had helped sustain the nutritional needs of human beings and farm animals and mounting evidence showed that GM foods were substantially equivalent to traditionally bred food sources, it has also sparked fierce debate about its safety. This has generated worldwide interest in finding a common and harmonious narrative to deal with new opportunities and challenges of biotechnology. A recent review of public perceptions of animal biotechnology, 2 provides an excellent context for understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and perception of GM Food in China.

China comprises 20% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s grain output, 7% of the world’s arable land, and 35% of the world’s use of agricultural chemicals. 3 Consequently, China faces risks to its food security and pollution of the environment. The government has invested heavily in research and development of technologies to improve quality and increase the output of its foodstuffs, especially grains. GM technology provides a such feasible approach 4 , 5 to realize these goals. As the complexity of the GM issue mounts, the controversy surrounding GM food has moved farther away from science. While China’s president calls for its scientists to “boldly research and innovate [and] dominate the high points of GMO techniques”, 6 the people of China are largely opposed to GMO foods, but are not sure why. 7 Thus, this nationwide survey on the current Chinese public perception of GM food should be helpful to policy-makers, technology developers, as well as to consumers.

Consumer attitudes about GM food are complex and interwoven with the consumer’s knowledge of the science, lifestyle and public perception. Since 2002, surveys have been conducted in China on public acceptance of GM food from the perspective of consumer behavior, such as intent to purchase, presence of GM markers, and sensitivity to price point 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 (Table 1 ). There has been a general lack of fundamental studies on the public’s scientific perception and policy interpretation of GM food. Moreover, the scope of previous surveys has been limited to a few of the largest cities in developed areas of China, with little or no coverage of rural areas. In all cases, the number of respondents in most of these earlier surveys was less than 1000. This study summarizes the status of GM food in China and provides the results of questionnaires that surveyed consumers from every province on their knowledge level, present attitudes, and future thoughts of GM food in China. A statistically relevant sample size of 2063 questionnaires were satisfactorily completed. The findings in this survey provide insight into Chinese consumers and offer a possible path for “smart” industrialization of GM technologies in China.

General consumer attitudes of GM food

The first six questions of the survey asked about the respondent’s background, followed by 18 questions that addressed their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM Foods. The seventh question asked, “In general, will you support GM food?” The percentage of those who supported, opposed or were neutral were 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7%, respectively. These results suggest that the overall attitude of the Chinese consumer is cautious of GM food.

GM technology was first introduced in the pharmaceutical industry and then applied to agriculture. Did the public’s skepticism originate from GM food safety or GM technology itself? Question #8 was designed to address this question. “If GM technology is applied in medical area to produce medicine, such as insulin and hepatitis B vaccine, what is your opinion?” The percentage of those who supported, opposed or were neutral to GM pharmaceuticals was 46.8, 12.8, and 40.4%, respectively. Support for GM pharmaceuticals was higher than that found for GM food and again, there were many in the neutral category. This result suggests that some respondents were against GM food but not against GM technology. Still, there were 12.8% of respondents that took a negative view about GM pharmaceuticals, although they may not have known that the insulin and hepatitis B vaccine widely used today are GM-derived pharmaceuticals.

Since 2002, the year when China implemented legislation mandating the labeling of GM food products, numerous surveys in China were carried out to gain insight into the public’s attitude to GM food. The results from these early surveys were compared to the results of the present survey (Table 1 ). Significant differences were found between the surveys, likely due, in part, to differences in the number of respondents, where they resided, and when the surveys were conducted. The results were also difficult to interpret because of differences in content of each survey and in the respondents. The respondents in the surveys represented the public, media, private enterprise and government. Overall, the trends were interesting even with this inherent variability, and reflected consumer preferences about GM food. The ratio of “support” vs. “oppose” GM food was used as a measure to compare the different surveys (Table 1 ). This measure suggests an interesting trend in that the ratios before 2012 were larger than 1.0 (with one exception) and thereafter, were less than 1.0. The survey reported here gave the lowest ratio, 0.29. In summary, the initial positive attitude towards GM food in 2002 generally decreased in subsequent years.

To gain further insight into consumer attitudes toward GM food among the respondents, six factors were selected as research variables. As shown in Table 2 , respondent’s attitudes towards GM food were correlated to their age, sampling location, educational level, major in college and income. A negative attitude toward GM food was more frequent among those respondents born before 1969 (59.3%). The public-sector group from Western China reported 51.3% against GM food, compared to 29.7% from those located in the center and in northeastern China. The percentage of those respondents with college degrees who supported GM food was 9.5%, which was the lowest number relative to any other group. The percentage of respondents with a positive attitude was higher for those with a science background (14.1%) compared to those with a liberal arts background (7.5%). The percentage of respondents with a negative attitude was higher (51.6%) with those who reported an annual household income above one million Chinese Yuan (RMB), compared to those with an annual household income below 80,000 RMB (34.2%). Gender was not found to be a factor in shaping attitudes towards GM food.

We further queried the state of Chinese public opinions on GM food and determined the main reasons for the either their support (Question #9) or opposition-against (Question #10) to GM food, from what was known previously. The statistical results showed that the total number of “support” and “oppose” was 3248 and 4751, respectively. This demonstrates again that the public is cautious about GM food. The relative percentage of choice, “frequency” (defined as the number in support or against divided by the total number in the respective area) is listed in Table 3 .

GM technology is potentially a paradigm shift for farmers in developing countries and is an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, climate change, and the challenge of feeding 9.7 billion people by 2050. Some studies suggested that efforts to change consumer perception about GM food should address risk perception factors and promote the beneficial effects of biotech crops. 24 As a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Intelligence Squared U.S held a TV debate on December 4, 2014 on whether the world is better off with or without GM food. The discussion was whether GM food is safe, how it impacts the environment and can it improve food security). Both the positive and negative sides had experts debating for or against GM food. Among the attendees who were present, the percentages in favor or against “genetically modified food” were 32 and 30%, respectively, before the debate, but this changed to 60 and 31%, respectively, after 100 min of debating the topic. This result suggests that efforts to change public perception about GM food should address risk perception factors and promote the beneficial effects of biotech crops. It should be noted that some opponents of GM food have started to rethink their prior attitudes about GM food. 25 On the other hand, some research suggested that many opponents are evidence-insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks vs. benefits. 26 Food Evolution, a 2017 documentary film directed by Scott Hamilton Kennedy and sponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) vividly illustrated the polarizing worldwide debate, “for and against” GM food. Its fact based, story telling narrative delivered a powerful educational message on new technologies and the process of acceptance by consumers. People involved in the making of the film tried to encourage audiences to think critically and reexamine their information sources and beliefs regarding GM food.

Factors shaping public perception of GM food

How much did the public know about GM technologies? Some earlier studies 12 , 17 , 27 , 28 , 29 based their conclusions on individual and subjective questioning, and only asked the respondents: “Do you know GM technologies?” The authors in this study agree with Hallman 30 that the self-reported awareness of GM does not necessarily mean respondents understand the principles and purpose of GM food. Thus, Question #11 was asked in this survey: “Do you know the principle of GMO such as introducing foreign genes, genetic recombination and gene expression? “

The result of our survey showed only 11.7% of the respondents self-reported that they were familiar with the general scientific principles of GM technology, contrasted to 49.5 and 38.8% saying they know something and nothing, respectively, about the subject. In the absence of sufficient understanding of biotechnology, the public’s attitude towards GM food safety can be misleading. Thus, we carried out a correlation analysis between the public’s perception (Question #11) and attitudes towards GM technology (Question #7). The results are given in Table 4 .

The design of this questionnaire was based on the following hypothesis: The opinion of consumers to GM food will be related to their knowledge of GM food. This was confirmed in this survey. There were positive correlations between “know a lot” and “support”, “know nothing” and “oppose”. At the same time, there were negative correlations between “know a lot” and “oppose”, “know nothing” and “support”. The lower the understanding of GM technology, the more hesitant the respondents were to accept GM food. These results also highlight the influence and importance of studies on the public perception of science in China.

Chinese food safety scandals have been a growing concern for Chinese consumers in recent years. The incidences of illegal “gutter oil” used in cooking, pesticide residue contamination, use of feed additives and polluted water along the food chain are common problems and even with proper regulatory oversight, the risk for criminal activity is ever present. The consumers in China, as well as consumers in other parts of the world, are increasingly risk adverse and seek out “clean, natural food”. Thus, the perceived risk of GM food was heightened because of these scandals, even though perceived risk of GM food is mostly based in perception rather than in practice. How deeply does the Chinese public think about the safety of GM food? Question #12 was asked to reflect this: “Compared to other food safety issues in China, such as illegal cooking oil, pesticide residue, feed additive and water pollution, your concerns on the safety of GM foods are?” The result illustrated that 20% of respondents thought the safety issue of GM food was more severe than other issues compared 31.8% of respondents thought “nearly the same”, 22.5% of respondents thought “not as severe” and 25.7% of respondents “have no idea”. These results mean that more than half of the respondents were concerned about the safety of GM food, of which 20% were deeply concerned, above and beyond any other food issue facing China.

Source of information on GM foods

The respondents were asked, “Have you actively searched for information on GMO’s using web search, reading books and verbal inquiries after graduation?” (Question #13). The result showed that 38.7% chose “yes”, compared 36.2% who chose “No, but I really care about GMO”, and lastly, 25.2% who chose “No, I don’t care about GMO”. When asked, “How do you acquire information on GM Food?” (Question #14), the result showed that 69.3% of respondents acquire information from the Internet as compared to 45.3% from television, 27.8% from books and periodicals, 22.8% from communication from relatives and friends, 22.4% from learning at school and 9.6% from public lectures. It is well known that GM food is a complex issue, and information from the Internet is often unverified and inaccurate. Thus, there is an urgent need in China to educate the public on GM technology and GM food by providing balanced, evidence-based perspectives of the technology to consumers through presentations, written materials, documentaries and educational courses that are made widely available through various media. The government can play a key leadership role by supporting educational programs, particularly targeting young people. It also crucial to put in place safeguards and the communication needed to ensure to the public that GM foods are thoroughly tested and regarded as safe. Regulatory groups worldwide must demonstrate their ability to ensure the safety of “new” foods and food ingredients, in a harmonious and transparent manner. Another question (#15) asked was, “Based on your experience, you have found that the media reports and Internet rumors about GM Food generally tend to be?” The results showed that respondents answered the question of media atmosphere as negative (64.3%), positive (11.5%) or neutral (24.2%).

Other studies have shown that the public tends to build upon its negative impression of GM food even in the face of positive information. 31 , 32 The lack of understanding of the principles and benefits of GM technology, make the general population more susceptible to negative media reports. The debate around GM food has become increasingly one-sided in recent years, with activists spreading misinformation via social media about the human health dangers of GM food as well as the negative environmental impact of GM crops on transitional agricultural eco-systems. Additional negative information on social media had a great impact, driving down the willingness to accept GM food. This led to food-centered non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) directing their attention to generating debates, educational packages and other formats to reach out to the general public (e.g., work of US based Farmer’s and Rancher’s Association and IFT). Research supported by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences showed that rumors about food security accounted for 45% of all Internet rumors which severely influenced the public’s trust. 33 Our study also attempted to probe into the public attitudes toward rumors about GM food on the Internet. For example, in China, rice is the main staple food for 60% of its people, and hybrid rice accounts for about half the planting area of rice. Rumors were spread that hybrid rice is a GM crop. Through self-interest, some non-GMO food producers condemned GM food with malicious gossip and misplaced nationalism, fomenting the notion that GM technology originated in the U.S. as a form of bioterrorism against China. What did the public think about this? (Question #16, 17 and 18). The result (Table 5 ) showed that 15.8% of respondents think that hybrid rice is one kind of GM crop, 25% of respondents think that there is unfair business competition with GM food, 13.8% of respondents agree that GM technology maybe considered as bioterrorism to China. These results pointed to an underlying problem that the debate on GM food in China has deteriorated. It is worth mentioning, however, that more than half of the respondents (54.4%) believed that debate on GM food should be based on science. This is the basis for why the debate about GM food should be based on scientific evidence.

Since the GM food debate should be evidence-based, the public needs to put more trust in scientific explanations and research data that can be understood by the average consumer. Many scientists including 110 Nobel Prize winners openly support GMO technology in the recent years. The 2016 Report 34 issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops.” What do the American public think about the above report? A survey carried out by University of Pennsylvania 35 showed that only 22% of those surveyed agreed that scientists have not found any risks to human health from eating GM foods, while 48% of the people disagreed with that statement. What is the situation in China? The result (Question #19) showed that 23.2% of the respondents chose to “believe in biologist’s opinion” compared to 45.5% who chose to “do not trust biologist’s opinion” and 31.3% who chose to “have no idea about this.” This result reflects that scientists are “under suspicion” on the issue of GM food both in China and the US. The film, Food Evolution, and other educational materials are helping to change this viewpoint. “What is the most important information that the public wants to know about GM food?” We asked this question (#20) in the survey. The result (Table 6 ) showed that more than two out of three respondents (68.9%) wanted to know more about the safety of GM food.

Public perception and attitude to policy

The Dean and Shepherd study 36 found that participants’ perceptions of risk lessened when governmental agencies presented a consistent message to the public. China’s Ministry of Agriculture claimed in 2016 that there is no substantiated evidence showing that genetically modified foods are unsafe during the past 20 years of commercial cultivation. But according to our survey (Question #21), only 11.7% of respondents thought that the government’s statement was an “authoritative interpretation”, compared 10.9% who chose “that is concealing the truth” and 77.4% who chose “No evidence now does not mean no evidence in the future. We should still be cautious to GM foods.” To a certain extent this result demonstrates that the public does not consider the government as a credible source of information on the issue of GM food.

Question #22 addressed the following, “What kind of GM crops were approved by the government to cultivate and produce in China?” Seven options were provided, including corn, rice, wheat, soybean, cotton, rape, and papaya. Only GM cotton and GM papaya have been approved for commercial cultivation in China. According to our survey, disappointingly few, only 1.2% of respondents chose the right answers. Apparently, government sources of information on GM crops has not been effective in educating the Chinese public about GM food.

In Question #23, the respondents were asked “What do you think of the force of government supervision for the production and import of GM food?” The result showed that 47.1% of respondents felt that the government should “strengthen supervision force, it is best to totally ban the GM foods”, compared that 43.3% felt “supervision force is appropriate” and 9.6% felt “supervision force is too tight.”

“The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture claimed that GM crops and GM food are advanced technologies that can serve as the foundation of a new industrial sector with broad implications for human health and wellbeing. As a large agricultural county, China should have a place for transgenic (GMO) technologies. What do you think about this?” (Question #24) The result showed that only 28.8% of respondents “support” this policy, compared 18.9% that chose “opposed” and 52.3% that chose “neutral”. In the face of widespread suspicion and misinformation about GM foods, more effort is needed to gain the confidence, trust and support from the public domain.

GM crops and the foods derived from them are considered the most immediate solution to alleviate global hunger and malnutrition. The benefits of GM crops such as greater productivity, reduced need for pesticides and herbicides, increased economic benefits for large and small farmers alike, have been extensively reviewed. 37 However, public attitudes toward GM food from country to country in different regions of the world continue to vary. The recent review by Van Eenennaam and Young 2 gives an excellent summary of the complexity of surveying and interpreting global public opinion on GM foods. In short, the authors noted the negative view of GM food in Europe, was exacerbated by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis first in the late 1980s and again in the 1990s. It was thought that GM technology might be used to mask the effects of poor housing of animals, not to mention the sense of supporting global agro-business rather than smaller family farms which are typical in Europe. In contrast, the United States, Canada and some Latin American countries (namely Brazil and Argentina) have widely adopted GM crops. Brazil is the second only to the United States in the land used for GM food crops. A review of acceptance, policies and actions in the African countries illustrated the complex and myriad issues that slow the adoption of GM food, thereby deleteriously impacting African countries. 38 Though the progress is slow, there seems to be a new receptiveness for GM food amongst some of the African countries. It is interesting to note that a study in Africa in 2005, showed that of the 7000 people surveyed, 80% did not know the meaning of the word “biotechnology”. 2 In Asian countries, it has been noted that China’s initial lead position in GM food has slowed over time due to global resistance 39 to GM food. However, signs of acceptance of GM food in China are encouraging. 40 , 41 Finally, Van Eenennaam and Young 2 compared China with other Asia countries (India, The Philippines) where bans on GM foods or vandalism on GM crops have occurred. On the other hand, Bangladesh has successfully adopted insect-resistant GM eggplant and has become a success story for the adoption of GM crops. 2 , 42

In our analysis, public attitudes toward GM food continue to swing widely across China from opposition to acceptance. On one side, some socialistic organic farmers, environmentalists and NGO’s have questioned the security of GM food, with some even calling for a ban on growing most GM crops. On the other side, agricultural specialists and biotech industry representatives highlight the benefits of GM technology to concerned consumers. The survey reported here was intended to be very broad in the type and range of questions asked. The authors plan to follow up with a more focused survey on safety issues related to GM food. Transparent and harmonious regulatory oversight is helping to further ensure the safety of GM technology and GM food but this must be understood and agreed by consumers as well as scientists. We should not expect, however, any convergence of opinions in the very near future. Based on the results of this study, suggestions about the future industrialization of GM technologies and GM food in China are presented as follows.

Strengthen communication to the public, making order out of confusion

Chinese consumers, in general, were found to be unfamiliar with GM technologies and the benefits they provide. They were also skeptical of scientists and the government on the topic of GMO, GM technologies and GM food. Fortunately, there is consensus in the public domain that more discussion on GMO and GM technologies is needed to better understand the scientific and social implications of GM food. Accordingly, public lectures and other educational formats need to be expanded in China to help the public develop evidence-based attitudes about GM foods. Until public doubts about GM food are addressed in a balanced and evidence-based manner, it will be difficult for China to develop sound policies and programs that will benefit the agribusiness industry and consumers. All forms of the media in China should be encouraged to incorporate scientific facts in their reporting and to discourage exaggerated reports and “fake” news. There should be a constructive vision and plan for building a future society that includes rational attitudes and a foundation for a food secure global society with adequate safety safeguards in place.

Government work should transform passivity into initiatives

China’s central government recently issued a document calling for more research, development and supervision of agricultural GMO and GM technologies, and the careful promotion of GM food that is safe, affordable, and healthy. From the result of the surveys taken in recent years, it was found that the percentage of respondents who opposed GM food is on the rise, and significant effort is needed to overcome that trend. The issue of GM food is very sensitive in China, GM policies have wavered among concerns over the bio-safety debate and development goals, such as food security, poverty reduction and the approval of transgenic commercial planting that was brought to a halt in recent years. In the long run, GM policies will influence the international competitiveness of the seed industry and agricultural development in China. As mentioned above, the safety of GM food should be based on science, and a modern society should not judge the safety of one kind of food by the way of a referendum. The government should enhance communications with the public and strive for the understanding and support of the public for China’s GMO policy.

Respect public opinion, improve gradually

Throughout history, many innovations have experienced both headwinds and tailwinds before being accepted by society. There is a persistent gap between expert knowledge of scientific issues and public perception of these issues. The conclusion of natural sciences usually is only truth, although the culture and attitudes can be diversified, being influenced by religious beliefs and/or political parties. Differences in public opinion towards GMO, GM technologies, and GM food should be respected. What is needed is government leadership in constructing a transparent system for evaluation of these technologies for commercial use while, at the same time, upholding the public’s right to have a choice by labeling GM food products. This will enable the public to make their own choices about GM food.

Lurking in the background, however, are new technologies that can produce genetic modifications in plants and animals in ways that are different and more precise that traditional GM technologies. The CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology 43 together with new signal DNA base editing 44 and RNA base editing 45 are currently revolutionizing the fields of agriculture, medicine and basic research. Unlike the traditional GM technology that adds foreign DNA to the recipient organism as part of the process, genome-editing, and base-editing simply switch out mutated or otherwise undesirable DNA bases that detract from the overall fitness, productivity, quality and usefulness of the organism, in question. Regulatory policies in the United States were written nearly 30 years ago and do not address the safety of genome-edited or base-edited organisms (GEOs). Currently, regulatory agencies are declaring these “edited” organisms and foods as safe and they are exempt from testing and labeling requirements. GM technology opponents have already spoken out against these forms of genetic modification and now that public must make their voices heard.

Only time will tell if foods derived from GM technology or genome-edited and base-edited organisms will be the best solution to achieving food safety, security, and sustainability. At least for GM foods, the lack of any documented adverse effects is encouraging. With the improvement of the scientific literacy, the debate about GM food should return to a rational one and one that will shape the future Chinese society.

Questionnaire development

The initial design, order and questions used in this questionnaire were based on both past information 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 and input from 40 interviewees, representing consumers, agricultural officials, seed companies, farmers, biologists, and sociologists. From this input, 28 questions were generated as a pre-survey test to address the public perception of GM Food. The pre-survey was carried out in March 2016 with 100 respondents. Based on their feedback, the questionnaire was refined further into the final survey of 24 questions used in this study. The goal was to gain insight into the following four questions through this survey:

In general, what are consumer’s attitudes to GM food in China?

How does public perception of GM food correlate to the science behind GM food?

What is their source of information on GM foods and how does this source influence their perception?

How does the public’s perception and attitude correlate to policy?

The survey was designed to offer a range of questions to determine the respondent’s demographics, educational level, knowledge of GM food. The survey was conducted in both public and private meeting rooms between May 2016 and October 2016. The questionnaires were distributed altogether in 38 different venues. All questionnaires were handed out to individuals and collected after 10 min by Dr. Kai Cui.

Participants

A summary of the participants in the survey is given in Table 2 . They were all Chinese citizens over the age of 15, from 193 cities and, in total, included representation from all 31 provinces in China.

Approach to distribution

The questionnaires were distributed as part of a course on investment and finance. The course was conducted by the sole instructor, Dr. Kai Cui. After the course participants became familiar with the instructor (1–2 days) and understood the purpose of the course, they were administered the questionnaires. While instructing the course, students were asked to fill out a questionnaire to give their opinions on the level of understanding of GM technology in China from a consumer’s perspective. A total of 2200 questionnaires were distributed during this 6-month period with 2063 questionnaires satisfactorily completed.

Statistical analysis

Analysis of the survey results was done using the software program package - Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS)19.0.

Data availability statement

A sample of the questionnaire. translated into English, is available in supplementary information at npj: Science of Food’s website. The completed 2063 questionnaires and the resulting database for the statistical analyses are in mandarin are not publicly available but can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

James, C. Global developing trends in biotechnology/genetically modified crop in 2015. China Biotechnol. 36 , 1–11 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Van Eenennaam, A., & Young, A. E. in Animal Biotechnology 2: eEmerging breeding technologies (eds Niemann, H. & Wrenzycki, C.) Ch. 13 (Springer, in press).

Cui, K. & Shoemaker, S. P. A look at food security in China. npj Sci. Food 2 , 4 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Carter, C. A., Zhong, F. & Zhu, J. Advances in Chinese agriculture and its global implications. Appl. Econ. Pers. Policy 34 , 1–36 (2012).

Wang, Q. China’s scientists must engage the public on GM. Nature 519 , 7 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Roberts, D. & Bjerga, A. China does an about-face on GMOs. Bloom. News . http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/china-does-an-about-face-on-gmos (2015).

Prakash, C. S. GM crops in the media. GM Crops & Food 6 , 63–68 (2015).

Huang, J. Awareness, acceptance and willingness to buy genetically modified food in urban China. China Soft Sci. 2 , 61–67 (2006).

Liu, Z., Wang, C., Li, N., Zhang, J. & Zhang, K. Investigation and analysis for Jinan consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. Rev. China Agric. Sci. Technol. 1 , 52–58 (2007).

Zhou, M. & Liu, Q. Investigation for Changsha consumers’ recognition and attitude to genetically modified food. Consum. Econ. 3 , 51–53 (2009).

Fan, L., Wei, W. & Zhu, Z. Investigation and thinking for consumers’ recognition to GMfood. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 20 , 80–85 (2010).

Shen, J., Yan, M., Tian, Z. & Zhu, X. The survey on consumer perception about GM food in Nanjing City. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 39 , 10909–10912 (2011).

Li, P. Consumer awareness and acceptance of GM foods in Guangzou city. Mark. Mod. 19 , 70–72 (2010).

Feng, L., Qi, Z., Tian, Y. & Zhou, H. Analysis on the impact factors of consumers’ purchase intention of GMfood. J. China Agric. Univ. 3 , 7–14 (2012).

Wu, W. Consumer awareness of genetically modified foods and consumer attitude survey analysis of the situation. J. Southwest Univ. Natl 5 , 771–775 (2011).

Xue, X. Investigation for Hangzhou urban population’s recognition and attitude to GM Food. Mod. Prop. Mgmt. 1 , 84–85 (2012).

Ruan, J., Chen, Chen, L., Guo, S. & La, W. Investigation and analysis of consumer recognition of genetically modified foods and transgenic labeling—a case study of Shenzhen city. Mod. Food Sci. Technol . 4 , 848–852 (2013).

Zheng, K., Wende, Chen & Jiayin., Xu Investigation and analysis for Chengdu consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 33 , 12966–12968 (2013).

Zhang, Y., Zheng, Z. & Gao, Y. Consumer perception and acceptance of GMfood. China Rural Surv. 6 , 49–61 (2015).

Li, Q., Wang, Q., Liu, Y., Ma, L. & Ma, M. Analysis of the perception and purchase of GM food in Anhui Province. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 35 , 116–121 (2015).

Zhang, X., Liu, X. & Deng, M. GMfood: a study of Chinese public’s recognition and attitude. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 20 , 6783–6786 (2014).

Guo, L. An investigation on cognition attitudes of the consumers towards GM foods in Zhuzhou. Mod. Food 21 , 12–15 (2015).

Meng, L., Yang, L. & Cheng, J. Survey of consumer recognition of GM food in Shanxi province. Food Saf. Guide 24 , 55–57 (2016).

Evans, E. A., & Ballen, F. H. A synopsis of US consumer perception of genetically modified crops. Univ. Florida IFAS Extension - Document FE934 . http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe934 (2016).

Barrows, G., Sexton, S. & Zilberman, D. Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. J. Econ. Perspect. 1 , 99–120 (2014).

Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11 , 315–324 (2016).

Wang, Y. Investigation and analysis for consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. Environ. Prot. 3 , 46–52 (2005).

Shi, S. Survey of consumer recognition of GM food in Wenzhou City. Mark. Mod. 30 , 9–10 (2015).

Tang, Y., Zuo, C., Zhao, S., Li, X. & Wang, X. Analyses of public GM food acceptance in Xian City. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 34 , 267–270 (2015).

Hallman, W. K, HebdenW. C. & AquinoH. L. Public Perception of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. (Food Policy Institute, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, 2003). Report Number RR-1003-1004.

Ho, P. & Vermeer, E. B. Food safety concerns and biotechnology: consumers’ attitudes to genetically modified products in urban China. AgbioForum 4 , 158–175 (2004).

Zheng, Z. The effects of information on consumer behavior: citing GM rice. J. World Econ. 9 , 146–167 (2015).

Hu, Y. Why Rumors of Food Security have the Market? Beijing Youth Daily . (2016).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospect . (The National Academies Press, 2016) https://doi.org/10.17226/23395 .

Jamieson K. H. and Winneg, K., Annenberg Science Knowledge Survey: Americans support GMO food labels but don’t know much about safety of GM foods. (2016) https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-support-gmo-food-labels-but-dont-know-much-about-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/ .

Dean, M. & Shepherd, R. Effects from sources in conflict and in consensus on perceptions of genetically modified food. Food Qual. Prefer. 18 , 460–469 (2007).

Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition and health. New Biotechnol. 27 , 552–557 (2010).

Wesseler, J., Smart, R. D., Thomson, J. & Ziberman, D. Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 12 , e0181353 (2017).

Jayaranman, K. & Jia, H. GM phobia spreads in South Asia. Natl Biotechnol. 30 , 1017–1019 (2012).

Li, R., Wang, Q. & McHughen, A. Chinese government reaffirms backing for GM products. Natl Biotechnol. 33 , 1029 (2015).

Vazquez–Salat, N. & Houdebine, L. Will GM animals follow the GM planet fate? Transgen. Res. 22 , 5–13 (2013).

ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech GM Crops: 2016 . (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY, 2016).

Carroll, D. Genome editing: past, present and future. Yale J. Biol. Med. 90 , 663–659 (2017).

Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A.T to G.C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551 , 464–471 (2017).

Cox, D. B. T. et al. RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science 358 , 1019–1027 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 7157317). The corresponding author would like to express the gratitude to Hui Meng (Professor of Eastern China Normal University), Dr. Xiaojun Lv (Associate Professor of Shanghai Jiaotong University) and Dr. Yan Liu (Associate Professor of Indiana University) for their suggestions in the design of the questionnaire and also acknowledge Beina Zhang and Yongyong Yang (Master students of Shanghai Normal University) for their support in data analysis. The co-author would like to gratefully acknowledge Professors Raymond Rodriguez, Professor Alison Van Eeneenaam and Christine Bruhn from the University of California, Davis, for their editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71573173).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California Davis, Davis, USA

Kai Cui & Sharon P. Shoemaker

Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Shi, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Kai Cui, corresponding author, designed the questionnaire and delivered it to groups he met with in China. He secured the help for the statistical evaluation of the respondents in the survey. Dr. Sharon Shoemaker provided advice and collaboration in the fundamentals and consumer attitudes of GM technology. She was Dr. Cui’s mentor while he was at the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research (CIFAR), UC Davis, and she provided basic understanding on the topic of GM Food and biotechnology, in general. She also contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript in English.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Cui .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cui, K., Shoemaker, S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. npj Sci Food 2 , 10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2017

Revised : 28 January 2018

Accepted : 09 April 2018

Published : 05 June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessing knowledge and willingness to use genetically modified crops in uganda.

• Abubakar Sadik Mustafa
• Jamilu E. Ssenku
• Godwin Anywar

Agriculture & Food Security (2023)

From present to prosperity: assessing the current status and envisioning opportunities in the industrial-scale cultivation of Haematococcus pluvialis for astaxanthin production

• Thilini U. Ariyadasa
• Bavatharny Thevarajah
• Wanni Arachchige Jalitha Wasath

Phytochemistry Reviews (2023)

The decision to buy genetically modified foods in China: what makes the difference?

• Weizhuo Wang
• Christopher Gan
• Quang Thi Thieu Nguyen

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2023)

Information seeking about genetically modified foods: readability of online information

• Lalitha Samuel
• Sawyer I. Basch
• Joseph Fera

Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2023)

Genetic modification strategies for enhancing plant resilience to abiotic stresses in the context of climate change

• Amman KhokharVoytas
• Muhammad Shahbaz
• Manal Abdullah AlShaqhaa

Functional & Integrative Genomics (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Introduction

Characteristics and scope of gmo food products, nutritional aspects of bioengineered foods, gmos in infant nutrition, pesticide-related issues, scope of use of glyphosate-containing compounds in gmo foods, risks related to use of glyphosate-containing compounds in gmo foods, labeling and regulatory requirements, organic foods, an approach for pediatricians supporting families, summary and recommendations, lead authors, committee on nutrition, 2021–2022, council on environmental health and climate change executive committee, 2021–2022, use of genetically modified organism (gmo)-containing food products in children.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Steven A. Abrams , Jaclyn Lewis Albin , Philip J. Landrigan , COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION , COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE; Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children. Pediatrics January 2024; 153 (1): e2023064774. 10.1542/peds.2023-064774

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Families increasingly raise questions about the use of genetically modified organism (GMO)-containing food products. These products are widely found in the US food supply but originate from a narrow list of crops. Although GMO technology could be used to increase the micronutrient content of foods, this does not occur in the United States; instead, GMO technology has been used to make crops resistant to chemical herbicides. As a result, herbicide use has increased exponentially. The World Health Organization’s International Agency on Research for Cancer has determined that glyphosate, an herbicide widely used in producing GMO food crops, is a probable human carcinogen. Measurable quantities of glyphosate are detected in some GMO foods. Families who wish to minimize GMO food products can do so by focusing on a dietary pattern of primarily whole, plant-based foods while minimizing ultra-processed foods. Pediatricians play a vital role in their efforts to minimize fear-based messaging and support families through shared decision-making. Pediatrician awareness of GMO labeling can guide individualized conversations, particularly that non-GMO labeling does not indicate organic status and that increased cost of some non-GMO foods, especially if also organic, may limit this choice for many families.

Feeding a child has become increasingly complicated as parents navigate time and cost barriers, concerns about food allergy and sensitivity, questions about organic food and food sourcing, and the potential health effects of genetic modification of food. Labeling on packaged foods is especially complex and contains multiple mystifying terms and descriptors. Families looking to avoid allergens or to monitor for a particular nutrient or calorie source are familiar with the process of checking the label, but many aspects of food labeling reflect marketing rather than provision of health information. 1   As a result, families often struggle to select affordable, nutritious foods, identify relevant health information, and prepare practical meals. 2 – 7   Pediatricians have opportunities in this context to lead conversations with families about the health impact of certain foods, provide nutritional guidance, and help filter the overwhelming volume of information.

The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetic engineering or bioengineering, in food has emerged as an area of concern and confusion for parents and families. 8 – 11   The term GMO refers to foods (or other products) designed through genetic engineering, a process that introduces a desired trait into the product by inserting novel DNA from a separate organism. Many foods are now labeled as “GMO,” “non-GMO,” or “GMO-free.”

Globally, the techniques of biotechnology are widely used to enhance herbicide tolerance, promote higher crop yield, and extend shelf life. In some settings, they are also used to enhance the micronutrient content of crops. The guidance in this report is based on the use of GMOs in the United States. Determination of benefit in other countries needs to be considered within their context, but we currently have no evidence for a benefit to GMO usage internationally, with cost surfacing as a substantial deterrent. The potential health implications of genetic modification are an emerging science, and families need evidence-based guidance as well as transparency about what remains unknown to support decision-making about food choices.

Many families express concerns about the safety of GMO-containing foods, especially regarding the possible effects of the herbicides used in large quantities in their production. 7 – 9   Lingering concerns and new scientific findings may trigger questions to pediatricians—Is it safe to serve my children food containing GMO ingredients? What about genetically engineered salmon? In this report, key issues related to GMO-containing foods are reviewed and information about the health benefits and risks that may be associated with their use is provided. The report focuses on foods marketed in the United States but also includes some discussion of global issues. Current controversies regarding GMO labeling are discussed, and an overview of the risks associated with the use of herbicides to produce GMO corn, soy, alfalfa, and other crops is provided.

The use of genetic engineering to produce GMO food crops builds on the ancient agricultural practice of selective breeding. However, unlike selective breeding, genetic engineering vastly expands the range of genetic traits that can be moved into plants as well as the speed of their introduction. Depending on the traits selected, genetically engineered crops could be designed to increase crop yields, incorporate essential micronutrients, tolerate drought, thrive when irrigated with salt water, or produce fruits and vegetables resistant to mold and rot. 12   Foods containing GMOs or grown from genetically modified seeds have become widespread in the United States and throughout the world. Most of the soybean and corn crops grown today are genetically modified, and the majority of ultraprocessed foods sold in the United States contain GMO ingredients. 13  

Food crops with genetically engineered tolerance to herbicides were first introduced in the 1990s. In 1994, the first GMO produce item, a tomato, became available for sale. 14   GMO tomatoes were later removed from the market in 1997 and are no longer produced in the United States. However, additional GMO produce items followed throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, including the now ubiquitous GMO corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets. 15   In the United States, the most commonly grown GMO food crops are corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup). 12   The introduction of genes that make crops resistant to insects has also become widespread, and plant geneticists have moved bacterial genes that synthesize Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins into corn and cotton to increase insect resistance. Bt toxins accumulate in GMO crops as well as in food grain and silage derived from these crops.

Until recently, the genetic traits that the seed biotechnology industries have chosen to introduce into food crops in the United States have been limited to herbicide resistance and insect resistance, and the National Academy of Sciences concludes that there are not adequate data to support increase in crop yields as a result of GMO agriculture. 16   This singular focus reflects the fact that the major producers of GMO seeds are multinational chemical corporations that also manufacture some of the world’s most widely used herbicides and insecticides. 12 , 17   The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides an annual review of the use of bioengineered food products, 15   tracking their use since 1996. Currently, more than 90% of soybean and corn crops in the United States contain herbicide resistance and/or insect resistance genes, and these traits have also been genetically engineered in canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sugar beet crops. Although the agricultural industry is a large consumer of GMO products for animal feed, many GMO ingredients derived from corn and soybean grain are also found in processed food products, including those made with processed cornstarch, soybean-based oils, and high-fructose corn syrup. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a list with descriptions of the use of many of these products. 18   In 2016, genetic engineering of potatoes introduced genetic traits to reduce browning, and they similarly integrated nonbrowning genetic traits in apples in 2017. 19  

Given the ubiquitous application of GMO technology to corn and soybean crops that have many uses in food, agriculture (livestock and poultry feed), and industrial contexts (fuel ethanol, adhesives, building materials, printing ink, cosmetics, and others), consumers often misunderstand the use of bioengineering to be more widespread in food. Notably, there are currently only 10 permitted GMO food crop products in the United States ( Table 1 ). 20  

Potentially GMO-Containing Food Crops Permitted in the United States

Although some GMO crops may be grown outside the United States and imported, the United States is the largest producer of GMO crops, followed by Brazil. 21   The narrow focus of the crops grown with GMO technology is important to emphasize; consumers often experience confusion about foods that are not grown with genetic engineering in any context, such as tomatoes, wheat, and strawberries. Families also express uncertainty about the presence of GMO in foods that are ultra-processed or have multiple components, which increases the likelihood of GMO ingredients. 11 , 22  

In 2015, genetically engineered salmon (AquAdvantage) was marketed after review by the FDA. 14   This salmon was engineered to allow it to be bred throughout the year in fish farms, not just in the usual seasons of spring and summer. AquAdvantage salmon also grow more quickly than wild and traditionally farmed salmon, shortening their distance and time to market. The approval of this salmon was highly controversial, and The Institute for Fisheries Resources challenged the FDA’s decision in a federal court in 2020, leading to a court order that disallowed use of the product until completion of further safety investigations. 23   The court order expressed particular concern about the escape of the genetically engineered salmon from the fish farms into the general salmon community, potentially harming the endangered wild salmon varieties. The company producing AquAdvantage salmon reassured consumers that their fish are all female, sterile, and raised entirely in land-based facilities with minimal escape risk, and the FDA has provided additional reassurance. 24   The genetically engineered fish entered the US market in May of 2021. 25  

The use of GMO technology to enhance the nutritional value of specific crops has been a central aspect of GMO consideration. 16   The primary example of this is the product commonly called “golden rice.” Developed by plant physiologists in Germany in the 1990s, this product uses genes from maize inserted into a rice product to create a strain of rice high in beta-carotene. 26   Researchers have documented its efficacy in providing vitamin A to humans, and there are similar findings for transgenic maize. 27   However, because of lower yields and deep-set cultural preferences, golden rice has not been widely grown, even in areas with substantial deficiency in vitamin A. 28   Potential use in Bangladesh, the Philippines, and other countries remains caught up in regulatory discussions. Although technically approved in the United States, golden rice is not currently part of the food system. Globally, the ethical challenges of the use of golden rice as a beta-carotene source in nutrition research has complicated implementation. 29  

Recently, other nutrients have also been considered for enhancement in crops using GMO techniques. Iron remains the most common nutrient deficiency globally, and GMO cassava has increased the amount of iron in this crop. 30   This technology may also enhance zinc bioavailability, an especially important nutrient in Africa, where cassava is a key component of the diet. Recent research has evaluated the role of wheat as a possible crop for increased iron and zinc using GMO techniques. 31   From a US perspective, iron and zinc remain important nutrients of concern for both children and adults. However, standard fortification techniques are widely used in US food products, and GMO techniques are not likely to become a substantial source for further increasing micronutrient intake.

Although nutritional modifications have garnered international attention, there is no evidence that genetic engineering impacts the taste, smell, or appearance of the products used as food in the United States. Consumers typically do not notice a difference between GMO and non-GMO foods. 11  

There are no specific sources of GMO foods in infant feeding products. However, most infant formulas contain some amount of corn syrup, soy, or other products that may be made from GMO components. Other additives in infant formula, including docosahexaenoic acid 32   and prebiotics, are synthesized or made from sources including algae but are not considered GMO. Although some have challenged the non-GMO designation of some of the docosahexaenoic acid products, the US government has ruled that these additives are non-GMO, and they are allowed to be used in GMO-free and organic-labeled products.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, the use of corn, soybeans, and other crops with genetically engineered tolerance to glyphosate (“Roundup-ready” crops) has expanded steeply, and glyphosate use has increased in parallel ( Fig 1 ). 33   In the United States, glyphosate use has increased more than 250-fold—from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased more than 10-fold and continues to rise. 12   Herbicide-tolerant GMO seeds and herbicides are typically sold in tandem. 12 , 17   Glyphosate is now the world’s most widely used herbicide.

Global glyphosate use, 1990 to 2014. Source: based on data from Benbrook CM. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ Sci Eur . 2016;28(1):3.

The advantage of herbicide-resistant GMO crops is that in the first years after their introduction, they substantially simplify weed management. Farmers are no longer required to do mechanical weeding and instead can spray herbicides before spring planting and again up to 3 times during the growing season, leaving their crops unharmed. 12  

An unfortunate consequence of the increasingly heavy use of herbicides late in the growing season on herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans is that measurable quantities of glyphosate and other herbicides, termed “residues,” remain present in GMO grains at harvest. As a result, glyphosate residues have been detected with increasing frequency in recent years in foods commonly consumed by children 34 , 35   as well as in drinking water. 36   The Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently found that 42.3% of 7955 food samples tested contained detectable levels of glyphosate; however, 99.4% of these samples met the current Canadian compliance rate. 37   Residues of glyphosate and other herbicides have also been detected in corn silage and animal feeds made from herbicide-tolerant crops, thus increasing risk of contamination of meat and dairy products. 38  

The presence of glyphosate and other chemical herbicides in food products derived from GMO crops increases risk of human exposure. A review of 19 studies on glyphosate exposure published since 2007 found glyphosate and its metabolites in urine samples obtained in the general population with levels ranging from 0.16 to 7.6 μg/L. 39   Two of these studies measured temporal trends in exposure, and both found increasing proportions of persons with detectable levels of glyphosate in urine in more recent years. 39   A recent pilot study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that 80% of urine samples collected in the United States contained detectable levels of glyphosate. In this study, glyphosate levels were significantly higher among 40 individuals reporting pesticide exposure (0.63 μg/L) than among 50 persons consuming organic diets (0.42 μg/L). 40  

The presence of glyphosate and other toxic herbicides in food products is the main hazard to children’s health associated with the consumption of GMO-based foods. The toxic and carcinogenic hazards of herbicide exposures are reviewed in the following section of this report. These toxic and carcinogenic risks substantially overshadow any theoretical risks to children’s health that may be associated with the introduction of novel genes into corn, soybeans, and other food crops.

A second unfortunate consequence of the wide-scale and repeated use of glyphosate in the production of GMO crops has been the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds. More than 250 weed species in 70 countries are now known to be resistant to at least 1 herbicide, including at least 48 species resistant to glyphosate 41   ( Fig 2 ). In the United States, glyphosate-resistant weeds are found today on over 200 million acres, and many fields harbor 2 or more resistant weeds. As more weeds survived heavier applications of glyphosate-based herbicides, farmers turned to treating crops with multiple other herbicides. Herbicides now widely used in addition to glyphosate include dicamba and 2,4-D. 17   These are older, more highly toxic chemicals; 2,4-D was a component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War.

Increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds globally, 1996 to 2023. Source: based on data from Heap I. The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. Available at: www.weedscience.org . Accessed May 10, 2022.

To combat rising herbicide resistance, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a new combination herbicide, Enlist Duo, in 2014. Enlist Duo is composed of glyphosate plus 2,4-D. It is marketed in tandem with newly approved seeds that are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, 2,4-D, dicamba, and multiple other herbicides—referred to as “stacked” resistance. 12   A likely consequence of the use of multiple herbicides on GMO food crops is that residues of these multiple chemicals will be detected in crops at harvest and in food products made from these crops, thus further increasing cumulative risk of human exposure.

The National Academy of Sciences reviewed the safety of GMO food crops in the early 2000s. 42 , 43   Those early reviews focused almost entirely on the genetic aspects of biotechnology. They concluded that the novel genes introduced into GMO crops pose no unique hazards to human health. However, neither evaluation examined the potential health hazards of the herbicides used in production of GMO foods, nor did they examine the hazards potentially arising from the use of Bt endotoxins in GMO corn.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, undertook a major review of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and other herbicides used in production of GMO foods. This review was catalyzed by case reports and case-control studies suggesting an increased risk of hematolymphopoietic cancers in farmers occupationally exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides and by the fact that glyphosate had become the world’s most widely used herbicide. Through a highly structured review process based on comprehensive assessments of the published toxicologic and epidemiologic literature, IARC determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” 44 , 45   IARC also determined that 2,4-D and dicamba are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” 44 , 46   IARC reported that these herbicides cause dose-related increases in cancers in experimentally exposed animals. IARC found strong evidence that glyphosate is genotoxic, that it causes oxidative stress, and that these effects can occur in humans. In humans, IARC established a link between glyphosate and an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Two meta-analyses of the association between glyphosate and cancer published after the IARC review have examined more recently published epidemiologic data. Both studies confirm the association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Researchers specifically found a statistically significant, 40% to 41% increase in incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in persons exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides. 47 , 48   Similarly, a recently published pooled analysis of cohort studies of farmers exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides reported a statistically significant, 36% increase in incidence (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.85) of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 49  

In 2016, the National Academy of Sciences again reviewed the human safety data related to genetically engineered crops, restating their conclusions about a lack of substantiated evidence of a difference in risk to human health between conventional and genetically engineered crops. 16   The report acknowledged the challenges of identifying subtle and long-term health effects and similarly applies this concept to difficulty assessing long-term environmental impact. Notably, the report emphasized that there were no long-term, published epidemiologic studies directly assessing the potential health impact of genetically engineered food and associated herbicide exposure, so conclusions about health were largely made in the absence of available data.

Similarly, few studies have examined the effects of glyphosate on the health of infants and children. A recent, nested case-control study within a large, ongoing epidemiologic cohort study in Puerto Rico investigated birth outcomes. The researchers discovered a statistically significant association between the presence of glyphosate and its metabolites in maternal urine samples (collected around the 26 th week of pregnancy) and incidence of preterm birth. 50   Preliminary findings from a multicenter cohort study in the United States suggest that prenatal exposure to glyphosate may be associated with longer anogenital distance at birth in female infants, but not male infants. 51   A longer anogenital distance at birth is a marker of masculinization in utero. This finding suggests that glyphosate may be a sex-specific endocrine disruptor in humans with androgenic effects and is consistent with additional recent findings of the endocrine effects of glyphosate in rodents. 52  

Although there has been some concern about the possibility of glyphosate being present in human milk, an early result suggesting this was not the case was reported but not published in the peer-reviewed literature. More recently, published peer-reviewed data do not suggest an appreciable concern that measurable levels of glyphosate occur in human milk. In a European study of 114 samples, none contained glyphosate above the detection level of the assay performed using highly sensitive mass spectrometric methods. 53  

This topic merits additional monitoring, particularly considering the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recent report that glyphosate is detected in 80% of Americans 6 years and older via urinary sampling. 54   Although urinary detection merely reflects exposure and does not analyze or determine health effects, it provides a foundation to better understand the context and impact of widespread exposure. Improving the understanding of the cumulative effect of glyphosate exposures on human health will be challenging, but public health merits continued scrutiny and agricultural innovation that optimizes both health and environmental sustainability. 55  

Until recently, the United States lagged behind most other countries in providing regulatory guidance or labeling requirements for GMO foods. The regulatory policy known as the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology was organized in 1986 and identified the FDA, USDA, and EPA as having coordinated regulatory roles. 16  

Under the umbrella of its food safety authority, the FDA oversees foods derived from GMOs. However, the ultimate responsibility for safety lies with the manufacturer. In 1992, the FDA determined that whole foods from GMO crops were essentially equivalent materially to conventional crops, and they issued a policy statement of presumptive safety or GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status. 56   As such, most GMO crops do not require review before marketing and sales, and labeling has been a voluntary process. 16  

As previously discussed, the vast majority of the approved GMO crops are genetically modified to promote herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, increased yield, or a combination of these traits. Thus, both the EPA and the USDA Animal and Plant Inspection Service manage assessment of environmental risks of GMO crops, including herbicide regulation and residue on food. Regulatory oversight often fails to detect changes that occur through agricultural experimentation in field trials, and these transgenic crop changes may inadvertently fall outside regulation when combined with previously approved crops. Because of the complexity and uncertainty around both regulation and possible health impact, transparency for consumers is important. Environmental health experts called for reconsideration of labeling in 2015, 12   while an international group of scientists drew attention to a lack of worldwide consensus about GMO safety, 57   and these expert voices led to successful legislative efforts in the United States.

In 2016, Congress passed legislation (known as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard) 58   requiring labeling of GMO-containing foods with the terminology “bioengineered” ( Fig 3 ) under guidance of the USDA. 59   Notably, the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA defines the foods that meet the requirement for labeling since the disclosure is a marketing label not intended to inform consumers about the health impact of the disclosed ingredients. 60   Required since January 1, 2022, this labeling mandate identifies certain foods by inclusion of either the text “bioengineered food,” a graphic symbol, 61   a QR code, or directions to learn more via text message or phone call.

USDA–mandated label for bioengineered food products. 61  

Most food manufacturers, importers, and retailers will need to ensure disclosure of bioengineered foods or ingredients, but notable exemptions include “very small” food manufacturers (annual receipts less than $2.5 million), restaurants, cafeterias, food trucks and stands, transportation services (on trains, airplanes), among others with labeling challenges, including cost concerns. There is an allowable 5% of bioengineered ingredients in a food product that does not require product labeling. Also excluded from the labeling requirements are meat and dairy products coming from animals that were fed bioengineered products. 58   With an intention to promote increased accessibility of animal biotechnology, the US Executive Branch tasked the USDA in December of 2020 to develop a regulatory framework for use of genetic engineering with farm animals. 62  

Because of consumer interest in transparency 10 , 63   and a lack of historic labeling requirements, some companies that voluntarily eliminated GMO ingredients added a label designating their products as “NON-GMO” after independent, third-party verification. A commonly used label requiring verification was designed by the NON-GMO Project, 64   a nonprofit organization dedicated to food transparency and sustaining a non-GMO food supply. This option will continue for companies that voluntarily submit their products for testing and participation in the NON-GMO Project labeling initiative.

As the new labeling regulations for bioengineered ingredients became mandatory on January 1, 2022, the USDA-mandated labels will join the many food products already voluntarily labeled as GMO-free. The distinction between foods labeled as not containing GMO ingredients versus foods labeled as bioengineered or USDA organic is likely to create confusion for many consumers. 22 , 65   A further aspect of confusion for consumers is the fact that companies can include the non-GMO label after testing on any product found to be free of GMO ingredients regardless of whether that product could ever be GMO. For example, salt can be labeled as non-GMO even though it would not be possible to genetically modify minerals.

Pediatricians can help families understand the scope of GMO products, labeling distinctions, and the key message that most minimally processed foods, including most produce, are not genetically engineered at baseline.

All USDA-certified organic foods are GMO-free as a condition of this certification. In organic agriculture, the farmer cannot use GMO seeds and cannot feed organic animals GMO foods. 66   To ensure ongoing integrity for the organic market in the United States and for international trade, USDA agents began to test products from organic farms in 2013 to ensure lack of antibiotics, GMOs, and residue from pesticides. 67   Thus, a GMO seed, crop, or fodder cannot be used in organic foods, and farmers and processors must demonstrate this throughout the process to meet USDA regulations for certified organic foods. 66  

A major benefit of organic food is that it substantially reduces dietary exposure to pesticides. Studies show that consuming a primarily organic diet reduces the body’s pesticide burden by about 90%. 68 – 71   Understanding the health impact of reduced pesticide exposure necessitates dedication to ongoing study of large epidemiologic cohorts.

Pediatricians support parents’ most basic decisions about nutrition choices beginning in infancy, and they convey evidence-based guidance about the role of food in health across the lifespan. In the context of widespread use of GMO ingredients in food, including nearly all ultra-processed foods in the United States, families may seek guidance from pediatricians about the potential health implications of GMO foods. As new regulations for labeling increase the identification of foods with bioengineered ingredients, the potential for enhanced confusion and marketing-based messaging will likely increase. The goal of this clinical report is to guide pediatricians through these complexities and, thus, enable them to provide sound information to parents.

Through a family-centered communication approach, pediatricians and families can align with the common goal of promoting optimal child health. Understanding each family’s access or barriers to food resources will guide nonjudgmental discussion. Providing fact-based information about the potential health effects of GMO-containing foods can motivate awareness, and connecting recommended changes with health goals will promote increased receptiveness to health advice about topics that can be controversial. 72  

Fortunately, conversations about complex subjects such as genetic engineering of food can open the door for conversations that emphasize the simplicity of a nourishing diet. These discussions also provide an opportunity to screen families for food security 73   and provide resources when needed. A suboptimal diet has emerged as a top risk factor for premature death and disability nationally and globally, 74 , 75   but pediatricians can frame this risk as an encouragement to focus on a simple, nourishing diet.

The most significant dietary contributors to poor health are the absence of beneficial foods, including fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, legumes or beans, herbs and spices, healthy fat sources, and whole grains. In their whole and minimally processed state, most of these foods are naturally non-GMO. Pediatricians can motivate reduction in consumption of ultra-processed convenience foods, 76   such as packaged treats, chips, and other calorie-dense, nutrient-poor options, while at the same time encouraging families to focus on affordable, accessible foods that are minimally processed, including legumes, nuts, whole grains, and seasonal or frozen produce. A positive message that encourages eating a variety of affordable, accessible, culturally relevant foods empowers families with knowledge of the benefits of promoting health through food.

Straightforward information with transparency about what is currently known and what is still under study is critical to prevent excessive concern and ensure ongoing trust in science. For families wishing to avoid GMOs in their food until more evidence is available, providing specific and individualized advice for simple changes is a great strategy. Some families may choose to prioritize purchase of organic foods to completely avoid GMOs, but many families lack access to organic foods for logistical or financial reasons.

GMO-containing food products are widely found in the food supply in the United States but originate from a relatively narrow list of 10 genetically engineered crops. GMO products are designed to increase crop outputs and not to affect the taste, smell, or appearance of food. Most of the food-based products derived from GMO crops are found in ultra-processed foods and animal feed.

GMO foods meeting certain criteria (there are many exceptions for smaller food companies, restaurants, and travel-based food distribution) must be labeled as GMO-containing since January 1, 2022. Stores can continue to sell older stocks of unlabeled foods.

Although GMO technology can be used to increase the micronutrient contents of foods, there is currently little use of these techniques to increase the nutritional value of foods and no reason to expect this to be a significant source of micronutrients in the US diet in the near future. At present, families in the United States should understand that genetic engineering has agricultural implications but does not increase the nutritional content of food.

Glyphosate, the principal herbicide used in the production of GMO food crops, has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” 44   meriting further study. Measurable quantities (residues) of glyphosate and other herbicides are now found in many GMO foods. Prenatal exposures to glyphosate are reported to be associated with increased risk of preterm birth and in utero endocrine disruption in children, but the impact of glyphosate residues on child health remains complex and incompletely understood.

Pediatricians who counsel families will find it helpful to be aware of the distinctions between organic, non-GMO, and bioengineered labeling. Organic labeling (which also guarantees non-GMO status) and the new bioengineered labeling standards and processes are regulated by the USDA. Non-GMO labeling remains voluntary and typically is managed by third-party organizations. Given the ability to label foods that cannot currently be genetically engineered, the presence of a non-GMO label does not indicate that unlabeled versions of the food necessarily contain GMO.

Families who wish to minimize GMO products can do so by focusing on a dietary pattern of primarily whole, plant-based foods while minimizing ultra-processed foods. The vast majority of unprocessed or minimally processed foods are naturally grown without genetic engineering, and both conventional and organic sources can be encouraged based on family preference and accessibility.

Families who desire to completely avoid GMO products can do so by purchasing organic products or those labeled as non-GMO based on third-party testing. Organic farmers are not allowed to use GMO seeds, GMO animal feed, GMO ingredients or conventional pesticides, antibiotics in farm animals, sewage sludge, and irradiation.

Each family makes the ultimate decision about whether to avoid GMO foods, but pediatricians can minimize fear-based messaging and support families through shared decision-making. Increased cost of some non-GMO foods, especially if also organic, may limit this choice for many families. It is important for caregivers, including pediatricians, to recognize the limitations that economics impose and emphasize the benefits of many minimally processed, affordable foods that are not bioengineered.

Schools and hospitals dedicated to the care of children can consider avoiding serving GMO foods to minimize glyphosate exposure when alternatives are available and affordable.

Further research opportunities are robust and include possible long-term health effects of GMO-containing foods, including carcinogenesis, as well as the potential benefits of nutritional modulation of foods using GMO technology. Additional research on the best approaches for consumer messaging is also highly relevant in the effort to improve child health through the continued promotion of fruits, vegetables, and other minimally processed, culturally concordant, nourishing foods.

Steven A. Abrams, MD, FAAP

Jaclyn Lewis Albin, MD, FAAP

Philip J. Landrigan, MD, FAAP

Mark R. Corkins, MD, FAAP, Chairperson

Cynthia L. Blanco, MD, FAAP

George J. Fuchs III, MD, FAAP

Praveen S. Godoy, MD, FAAP

Tamara S. Hannon, MD, FAAP

C. Wesley Lindsey, MD, FAAP

Ellen S. Rome, MD, MPH, FAAP

Andrew Bremer, MD, PhD, FAAP – National Institutes of Health

Andrea Lots, MD, FAAP – Food and Drug Administration

Coria Perrine, PhD – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Ana Sant’Anna, MD – Canadian Paediatric Society

Cheryl Funanich, MEd, RD, LD – United States Department of Agriculture

Debra L. Burrowes, MHA

Aparna Bole, MD, FAAP, Chairperson

Sophie J. Balk, MD, FAAP

Lori G. Byron, MD, FAAP

Gredia Maria Huerta-Montañez, MD, FAAP

Steven M. Marcus, MD, FAAP

Abby L. Nerlinger, MD, FAAP

Lisa H. Patel, MD, FAAP

Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, FAAP

Alan D. Woolf, MD, MPH, FAAP

Lauren Zajac, MD, MHP, FAAP

Kimberly A. Gray PhD – National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Jeanne Briskin – US Environmental Protection Agency

Nathaniel G. DeNicola, MD, MSc – American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

CDR Matt Karwowski, MD, MPH, FAAP – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Mary H. Ward, PhD – National Cancer Institute

All authors are responsible for the contents and have participated in the concept and design of the article, development of the content, and the drafting or revising of the manuscript, and all authors have approved the manuscript as submitted.

Clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics benefit from expertise and resources of liaisons and internal (AAP) and external reviewers. However, clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics may not reflect the views of the liaisons or the organizations or government agencies that they represent.

The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication.

FUNDING: No external funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: Dr Abrams has disclosed a Speaker’s relationship with Abbott; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Any relevant disclosures have been mitigated through a process approved by the AAP Board of Directors.

Bacillus thuringiensis

US Environmental Protection Agency

US Food and Drug Administration

genetically modified organism

International Agency for Research on Cancer

US Department of Agriculture

Concerning misinformation in this report

Response to dr. green, clinical report misinforms on gmos.

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Journal Blogs
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 1098-4275
• Print ISSN 0031-4005
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Case studies on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Potential risk scenarios and associated health indicators

Affiliations.

• 1 Istituto Superiore di Sanità, ISS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Central Veterinary Institute, Wageningen University and Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
• 3 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA, Paris, France.
• 4 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA, Rennes, France.
• 5 RIKILT Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
• 6 Istituto Superiore di Sanità, ISS, Rome, Italy.
• 7 Freie Universität Berlin, FUB, Berlin, Germany.
• 8 Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
• PMID: 28859885
• DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.033

Within the frame of the EU-funded MARLON project, background data were reviewed to explore the possibility of measuring health indicators during post-market monitoring for potential effects of feeds, particularly genetically modified (GM) feeds, on livestock animal health, if applicable. Four case studies (CSs) of potential health effects on livestock were framed and the current knowledge of a possible effect of GM feed was reviewed. Concerning allergenicity (CS-1), there are no case-reports of allergic reactions or immunotoxic effects resulting from GM feed consumption as compared with non-GM feed. The likelihood of horizontal gene transfer (HGT; CS-2) of GMO-related DNA to different species is not different from that for other DNA and is unlikely to raise health concerns. Concerning mycotoxins (CS-3), insect-resistant GM maize may reduce fumonisins contamination as a health benefit, yet other Fusarium toxins and aflatoxins show inconclusive results. For nutritionally altered crops (CS-4), the genetic modifications applied lead to compositional changes which require special considerations of their nutritional impacts. No health indicators were thus identified except for possible beneficial impacts of reduced mycotoxins and nutritional enhancement. More generally, veterinary health data should ideally be linked with animal exposure information so as to be able to establish cause-effect relationships.

Keywords: Allergenicity; Genetically modified -feed; Health indicators; Horizontal gene transfer; Mycotoxin-reduction; Nutritionally altered geneticalli modified crops.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Animal Feed / adverse effects*
• DNA, Plant / genetics
• European Union
• Food Hypersensitivity / etiology
• Food Hypersensitivity / veterinary*
• Gene Transfer, Horizontal*
• Livestock / physiology*
• Mycotoxins / toxicity*
• Nutritive Value
• Plants, Genetically Modified / adverse effects*
• Plants, Genetically Modified / genetics
• Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
• Risk Assessment

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Revealing the Truth about GMOs and its Controversy

Home » Papers » Research Paper on GMOs

Research Paper on GMOs

The Controversy of Genetically Modified Foods on Human Health

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are creatures in which their genetic make-up has been altered through genetic engineering or biotechnology in hopes of either obtaining favorable traits, eliminating unfavorable traits, or simply gene manipulation. Genetic engineering can be applied to plants, animals, bacteria, fish, and much more. Since its inception in 1973 (Goldbas), the use of genetic engineering brought us an increase in crop yields, increased our food supply, and enabled us to become more flexible in our resources in respect to climate change. In fact, about approximately 75%-80% of all genetically modified ingredients are present in processed foods (Imhoff). In addition, according to the Environmental Working Group, every American consumes about 193 pounds of genetically modified foods per year (Imhoff). Unfortunately, because the method was utilized for a short period of time and they’re a plethora of contradicting studies on GMOs’ impacts on health, the public have grown suspicious and fearful over the unknown risks that GMOs could have on human health in the future. Furthermore, the rise of large biotechnological companies that are capable of manipulating an enormous amount of our food supply with their own devised organisms fueled the public’s suspicion of what is exactly in their food. Thus, this led to a controversy of GMOs and the creation of two polarizing sides; One perspective depicting that GMOs can provide substantial changes to our lives and the other perspective being that our lives are on the line. In reality, however, most of the controversy of GMOs is derived from fear and speculation of the public and misinformation of various sources; Genetically modified foods are safe for consumption.

One of the main contributors that are fueling the controversy of GMOs on human health are the rhetoric that many sources use in order to frighten and sometimes make the audience perceive something in a specific way. For instance, an article from Natural News aggressively criticizes that Monsanto’s flaws in their own genetically modified corn MON810 that contains the Bt gene (Reynolds). In the article, the author includes words such as Franken-Food Company, and Franken-Food to imply that genetic engineering allows the creation of something hideous as it is equivalent to the creation of Frankenstein (Reynolds). Already, she is attacking the reputation of not only Monsanto, but other biotechnological companies that utilize genetic engineering. In addition, as she is directly attacking one of the largest biotechnological companies, she claimed that Monsanto had a twisted view of human ethics (Reynolds). Overall, the language that is being demonstrated is alarming and can persuade an audience to believe that they are in danger. Acknowledge the emotions that can erupt in response to such words; The power of words can be commanding. Another example would be the non-GMO Project, a popular non-profit organization that are dedicated to promoting a non-GMO food supply, that supports a study on the “GMOs Myths and Truths” created by 3 leading researchers at Earth Open Source (non-GMO Project). Even when the sources are utilizing their rhetoric in a professional fashion when describing their stance on going against GMOs, the words “unnatural” to describe the process of genetic engineering can instill a feeling of uneasiness in their audience. Anything that is not natural has to be something that is off. This may be the reason why the terms “organic” may make a product more appealing to consumers due to the fear of GMOs that are not deemed in that category. As a result, this may have fueled the unnecessary fear of GMOs’ impact on human health.

A second reason to why GMOs are safe for consumption is because the majority of scientists believe that GMOs are safe to eat despite the distinct portion of the public being suspicious over GMOs. According to the New York Times, about approximately 90 percent of scientists believe that GMOs are safe, while on the hand, only a third of all consumers can agree (Brody). Clearly, there is a disconnection between the scientific community and the general public. To support their stand, they utilized logically reasoning; Despite all of the health concerns over potential allergies and toxins in which they have not been fully addressed, there are a plethora of genetic engineering experiments and people consuming many meals without any issues as said by Robert Goldberg in an interview from the Scientific American (Brody). In fact, since the creation of the earliest genetically modified foods, there hasn’t been any detrimental impacts or solidly confirmed evidence of any health risks (Brody). On the contrary, however, one excellent criticism on genetically modified foods is that since the inception of genetic engineering, we may not know the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms even though we already know that nothing has happened so far. This will involve long-term studies on comparing the consumption GMOs products and non-GMO products (Brody). This is why various organizations such as the non-GMO Project and the Organic Consumers Association are dedicated to protecting the people’s health such as providing information on possible detrimental effects of GMOs. In addition, the non-GMO Project is considered America’s third party verification source for GMOs (non-GMO Project). In response, however, it seems absurd and unnecessary to be cautious of the potential long-term effects of GMOs since the basic concept of genetically modifying our organisms have been going on for centuries through the use of cross breeding similar species or cross pollination of similar plants. From an article, “Genetically Modified Foods: A Taste of the Future,” the author describes how we have always had the capability to manipulate the genes of various species in our agriculture for a long period of time (Lessick et. al). The only contrast between genetic engineering and the traditional methods of genetic manipulation such as cross breeding and cross pollination is the manner in which the method is done. Cross breeding or cross pollination consists of mixing of genetic composition in hopes of creating an offspring with a favorable characteristic, but it is only the result of random choice as we cannot control which specific gene we want to cross over (Lessick et. al). Furthermore, this is only possible with species that are closely related (Lessick et. al). On the contrary, genetic engineering eliminates some of the setbacks of traditional breeding. Not only does genetic engineering allows us to transfer desirable genetic traits directly without resorting to the use of trial and errors, but we can expand our possibilities of transferring genes from virtually any organism to a completely different organism. An example of this phenomenon would be inserting a Bt gene from bacteria to enable corn to produce their own insecticide (Reynolds). Not once have we questioned or grew cautious over the possible effects of consuming GMOs that were devised through traditional genetic manipulation. To further support this statement, according to Channapatna S. Prakash, the Director of the Center for Plant Biodiversity, even through the use of traditional breeding such as corn containing one gene that was originally found in soybeans, it wouldn’t even make it any less hazardous (Guterman). He also stated that traditionally hybrid species were never questioned for their safety (Guterman). If even credible scientists find genetic engineering almost as analogous as previous traditional breeding methods, why is it that the public is still fearful of consuming GMOs derived through genetic engineering.

Aside from understanding that there may be no health risks with regards to GMOs as confirmed by many scientists and their various studies, there are proven benefits that counters the fears that comes along with it. For example, according to an article published in the International Journal of Childbirth Education called, “GMOs: What are they?,” Goldbas discusses some of the advances biotechnology has brought to agriculture, resulting in addressing some of the world’s problems such as malnutrition and starvation; “Breakthroughs include food plants which have been altered to be pest resistant and have greater nutritional values.” (Goldbas). One of these plants include the South African white corn that has the potential to be enriched with more protein (Goldbas). Golden rice that is enriched with Vitamin A and are a few other examples that can be enriched with more nutritious content. Furthermore, plants can be genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides, viruses, and withstand extreme environmental conditions (Goldbas). To support the previous statement, he mentions the genetically modified cassava plant, a starchy root that is normally eaten in tropical Africa, can offer its consumers enhanced minerals, vitamin A, and protein as oppose to their genetically modified counterparts (Goldbas). Thus, this can help to reduce weakened immune systems, childhood blindness, and iron deficiency anemia (Goldbas). Furthermore, as stated in the article from Medical Surgical Nursing, some of the benefits are not limited to an elimination of natural allergens found in certain agricultural products, improving the shelf life of food, enhancing taste, and becoming ingredients to help develop edible vaccines and pharmaceuticals (Lessick et. al). As demonstrated, GMOs can provide a new influx of solutions to address any of our problems and make what we already have even better. On the contrary, however, it is stated that there is no proven consensus on the safety of GMO consumption (non-GMO Project). Furthermore, there are studies that have been conducted that suggests that there may be GMOs may need more attention. According to an article from the Environmental Magazine, the author introduces Seralini’s study in which two groups of rats were either given genetically modified corn, their non-GMO counterparts, GMO corn with glyphosate, or glyphosate and water (Imhoff). This was done to replicate Monsanto’s study on their own genetically modified corn. As a result, the rats that consumed Monsanto’s GM corn and exposed to glyphosate caused more premature deaths, the development of tumors in some of the subjects, and increased liver damage, and kidney damage (Imhoff). Therefore, it may be necessary to be alarmed about what GMOs could potentially cause. In response, although the experiment did produce alarming results, there were a few inconsistencies throughout the experiment that may have skewed Seralini’s data. One can say that the sample size is too small for a toxicology study and the species of rats were already susceptible to developing cancers (Genetic Literacy). In addition, some of the rats that were exposed to genetically modified corn even outlived some of the rats that were in the group that weren’t exposed to GMOs (Genetic Literacy). Perhaps, we need to conduct more studies to confirm, but as of present day, the potential benefits of GMOs along with the current observation the people are consuming GMOs without any concrete problem is promising to confirm their safety and worth. Instead, imagine the endless possibilities in our agriculture and resources that GMOs can bring across the globe.

Currently, the controversy of GMOs remains strong today as many people ranging from various backgrounds have different perspectives on the health impacts that they can potentially impose on us. Fortunately, there hasn’t been any concrete evidence or any sign that people who consume GMOs on the daily basis have exhibited any illnesses or allergens in response to them. On the contrary, however, it may be ideal to continue conducting experiments on GMOs since they have only been around since the 1970s and there are recent contradicting studies, such as the Seralini’s experiment replicating the Monsanto’s GMO corn study, that may indicate GMOs may seem dangerous than it seems. Though, what is undeniable is that GMOs provide us with a plethora of benefits that can aid many of the world’s issues and advancements including malnutrition and medicine. Furthermore, along with the promising fact that the entire globe are consuming GMOs without any issue may be the one step forward to end the controversy of GMOs impact on human health.

MOST TRUSTED SEAL. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nongmoproject.org/

Brody, J. E. (2018, April 23). Are G.M.O. Foods Safe? Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html

Reynolds, J.L. (n.d.). Monsanto’s GMO corn has no improvements on yields or reduced crop damage, report claims. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from

https://www.naturalnews.com/052360_Monsanto_crop_yields_MON810.html

Goldbas, A. (20+). GMOs: What are they? International Journal of Childbirth Education, 29(3), 20+. Retrieved October 16, 2018.

( https://go-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=8&docId=GALE%7CA378248863&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA378248863&searchId=R32&userGroupName=cuny_ccny&inPS=true )

Guterman, L. (2000). Scientists leave the lab to defend bioengineered food. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(32), A29. Retrieved October 16, 2018.

( https://go-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=4&docId=GALE%7CA61878337&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegm )

Imhoff, D. (2013, March 1). Food Fight! Trying to Hold Back the Onslaught of Genetically Modified Foods-Or at Least Slap Them with a Label. E Magazine

Lessick, M., Keithley, J., Swanson, B., & Lemon, B. (2002, October 1). Genetically modified foods: A taste of the future. . MedSurg Nursing, 242+.

( https://go-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=4&docId=GALE%7CA93008223&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA93008223&searchId=R29&userGroupName=cuny_ccny&inPS=true )

“Gilles-Éric Séralini: Activist Professor and Face of Anti-GMO Industry.” Genetic Literacy Project, geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/gilles-eric-seralini-activist-professor-face-anti-gmo-industry/.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

Recent Posts

• Reflection on Research Paper on GMOs December 10, 2018
• Reflection on Rhetorical Analysis on GMOs & Theory of Writing December 10, 2018
• My Theory of Writing December 10, 2018
• Composition in 2 Genres Part 2 December 10, 2018
• Composition in 2 Genres Part 1 December 10, 2018

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM

Need help with the Commons?

Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:

• Terms of Service
• Accessibility
• Creative Commons (CC) license unless otherwise noted

114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples

To write a GMO argumentative essay, you will need an engaging topic that you will be able to explore in detail. Find it in the list below!

🏆 Best GMO Essay Topics & Examples

🔍 good gmo research paper topics, ✅ interesting gmo argumentative essay topics, ❓ research questions about gmo.

Our experts have gathered GMO essay topics that will be great for a variety of assignments. You can examine the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified foods. Or talk about the harmful effects of pesticides. Besides, click on the links to read GMO essay examples.

• Genetically Modified Food Essay In spite of the perceived benefits of genetic engineering technology in the agricultural sector, the production and use of genetically modified foods has triggered a number of issues pertaining to safety and consequences of consumption.
• Should All Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled? According to this scholar, members of the public are always comfortable with the idea of not labeling the genetically modified food.
• Growing GMO Seeds: Monsanto Corporation This paper analyzes Monsanto’s case by focusing on the company’s ethical culture, the costs and benefits of growing genetically modified seeds, and the management of harm caused to plants and animals.
• Green Acres Company and GMO Products The case at hand concerns Green Acres Inc, which is one of the largest multinational producers of canned fruit and vegetables, known for the use of organic suppliers of their products.
• GMO Production: Reasons and Potential Effects The purpose of this essay is to examine the reasons and possible effects of GMO production. People interfere in the DNA of organisms to improve their characteristics and make them more beneficial for humans.
• Ecological Effects of the Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms Beneficial soil organisms such as earthworms, mites, nematodes, woodlice among others are some of the soil living organisms that are adversely affected by introduction of genetically engineered organisms in the ecosystem since they introduce toxins […]
• The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Society and Environment First, whether or not genetically modified food provides a sustainable food security alternative; second, what the inferences are of genetically modified food for bio-safety in addition to for human safety and health; and third, the […]
• Proposition 37 and Genetically Engineered Foods The discussion of Proposition 37 by the public is based on the obvious gap between the “law on the books” and the “law in action” because Food Safety Law which is associated with the Proposition […]
• Genetically Modified Food of Monsanto Company However, over the years the company has found itself on the hot seat in regards to the safety of some of its products.
• Genetically Modified Corn in the United States of America This paper does not only asses the impact of GM maize to the agricultural sector but also highlights the risk and beneficial factors the technology has caused to both environment and the public health sector […]
• Genetically Modified Foods Projects The plan should be formed once the project’s participants have been chosen and it should be communicated to the members and should continuously be used as a reminder of the mission of the project when […]
• Genetically Modified Organisms and Controversial Discussions in Australia The controversy of the GMOs issue as mentioned above is as a result of the clash between the benefits and negative impacts where some people the anti-GMOs believe that the risks despite the number are […]
• Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food It is the use of selective breeding that allowed for the creation of wide varieties of plants and animals, however, “the process depended on nature to produce the desired gene”.
• Can Genetically Modified Food Feed the World: Agricultural and Biotechnological Perspective Undoubtedly, the practice of tissue culture and grafting in plants is never enough to quench the scientific evidence on the power of biotechnology to improve breeding and feeding in living organisms.
• Genetically Modified Foods Negative Aspects This paper highlights the negative aspects that are associated with genetically modified foods; genetically modified foods expose people and the environment to risks.
• Analyzing the Prospects of Genetically Modified Foods Despite being the leading producer and consumer of GMFs products across the world, the US practice of embracing GMFs has elicited a major dilemma in the country ranging from human health to environmental challenges.
• Will Genetically Modified Foods Doom Us All? One of the most desired outcomes from a crop is the ability to grow tolerance to the effects of herbicide. One of the more recent innovations in the field of GM foods is the invention […]
• Genetically Modified Foods and Environment It is on this background researchers that are in the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology have come up with a concept of genetic modification in attempt to address this limitation to farmers.
• The Debate Pertaining to Genetically Modified Food Products Some of the concerns raised are genuine, but then, the advantages of embracing the use of genetically modified food products outweigh the disadvantages.
• Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment? The following is a discussion of the benefits of using genetically modified foods. A different concern adjoining GM foods is the bringing in of new allergies.
• Consumer Judgment on Genetically Modified Foods A clear understanding of the genetically modified foods in terms of their risks and benefits could help determine the preferences of consumers for genetically modified foods and GM labeling policy.
• Business Ethics-Labeling Genetically Modified Food The consumer protection agency has done little to enhance the labeling given that they believe that these products that are genetically modified are just similar to the natural ones hence no need to be labeled […]
• Objection to the Production of Genetically Modified Foods Contrary to the objections presented by the public concerning the introduction and use of GM food, some of the big world organizations seem to be reading from different scripts.
• Is Genetically Engineered Food the Solution to the World’s Hunger Problems? However, the acceptance of GMO’s as the solution to the world’s food problem is not unanimously and there is still a multitude of opposition and suspicion of their use.
• Monsanto Agricultural Corporation and Genetically Modified Food Mandatory Labeling
• Genetically Modified Food: Monsters or Miracle?
• Genetically Modified Food: It’s the End of The World as We Know It
• Risk, Genetically Modified Food and the US and EU Divide
• Genetically Modified Food and Drug Administration
• The First Death Caused by Genetically Modified Food
• Banning Unlabeled Genetically Modified Food
• Comparing Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Food in Europe
• Arguments for and Against Genetically Modified Food
• The Issue Surrounding the Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Food
• The Harm Negative Effects of Genetically Modified Food
• Genetically Modified Food Must Be Regulated
• Genetically Modified Food and Its Effects on The Environment
• Genetically Modified Food and Its Effects on Humans
• Trade Standards and the Political Economy of Genetically Modified Food
• Advantages and Disadvantages About Genetically Modified Food
• The Genetically Modified Food as the Risk in the Society
• Controversy over Genetically Modified Food
• Cultural World View and Genetically Modified Food Policy Preferences
• Genetically Modified Food Are Pandora´s Box to Humans and the Environment
• Biogenetics: Genetically Modified Food and Food Supply
• Eat Genetically Modified Food: It ‘s Not Bad for You
• Positive and Negative Impact of Genetically Modified Food
• Potential Market Segments for Genetically Modified Food
• Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food
• Critique Genetically Modified Food Assignment
• Genetically Modified Food Are Not Good For the Human Race
• The Dangers and Safety of Genetically Modified Food
• Genetically Modified Food and Americans Right to Know
• Should Genetically Modified Food Be Labeled?
• Analyzing Anti GMO Golden Rice Argument
• Finding Common Ground Among the GMO Jungle
• Contested Accountability Claims and GMO Regulation in the European Union
• Controversy Surrounding GMO and the Food Industry
• Genetic Engineering: Using Biotechnology in GMO
• GMO and Its Effects on Health, Super Weeds, and the Impact
• GMO Food and Distribution Should Be Illegal
• GMO: Nutrition and Genetically Modified Foods
• GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of Standards
• GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade
• HGH for Humans Like GMO’S for Food
• How Does GMO Affect on Us and Our Health?
• Market and Welfare Effects of GMO Introduction in Small Exporting Countries
• Labeling Genetically Modified Organisms
• Natural Versus Artificial Selection and the Issues of the GMO
• Analyzing Non-GMO Plant Breeding Techniques
• Psychological and Sociological Effects of GMO
• The Common Ingredients Derived from GMO Risk Crops
• The Flaws and Failure of Genetically Modified Organisms
• The Great GMO Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms
• Untested, Unsafe and Unhealthy GMO Foods
• China’s GMO and Adoption of New Technology
• Consumer Preference and Market Simulations of Food and Non-Food GMO Introductions
• Europe’s Regions Demand Power-Sharing over GMO Crop Decision
• Frankenfood: GMO Foods and Their Effects on Us and the Planet
• Genetic Testing and the Human GMO
• GMO and Its Effects on the Economy
• GMO Biology Basis, Social and Ethical Dilemmas Associated with GMO
• GMO Contamination Price Effects in the U.S. Corn Market
• GMO Products Needs for Be Regulated, and Product Packaging Needs
• Should Government Enforce GMO Labeling?
• Why Are GMO Products So Harmful?
• Who Pays the Costs of Non-GMO Segregation and Identity Preservation?
• What Are the Similarities and Differences Between Genetically Modified Organism and Organic Food?
• What Are the Flaws and Failure of Genetically Modified Organisms?
• Can Systematic Reviews Inform GMO Risk Assessment and Risk Management?
• What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of GMOs?
• Are GMO Policies “Trade-Related”?
• How Does GMOs Affect Us and Our Health?
• What Are the Requirements for Transparency in the GMO Industry?
• Why Are GMO Foods Bad?
• How Genetically Modified Organisms?
• Should Mandatory GMO Labeling Really Hurt the Economy?
• Are GMO Genetically Modified Organisms?
• What Are the Safety and Health Effects of Eating GMO Foods?
• Beef Labeling After BSE: Do Consumers Care About BSE Testing and GMO Labeling?
• What Are GMOs and How Are They Affecting Consumers?
• Are GMO Foods Better Than Organic Foods?
• Technological Risks: GMO, Gene Editing, What Is the Problem with Europe?
• “Does Contain” VS “Does Not Contain”: Does It Matter Which GMO Label Is Used?
• Are GMOs the Silent Killer?
• How GMO Effect Life?
• Are GMO Products Really That Harmful?
• Why All the Fuss over GMO Foods?
• Without GMO Food Crops, Will We Have Enough Food?
• Are GMO Foods Safe?
• Why Should GMO Labeling Exist?
• How Will the GMO Debate Affect the WTO and Farm Trade Reform?
• How Is Visual Unsupported Claims Used by Simply Anti-GMO Proponents – Genetical?
• Which is the Labeling For GMO Foods?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 30). 114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gmo-essay-examples/

"114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 30 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gmo-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples'. 30 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gmo-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gmo-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "114 GMO Essay Topics & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/gmo-essay-examples/.

• Food & Beverage Topics
• Obesity Ideas
• Disease Questions
• Childhood Obesity Research Ideas
• Eating Disorders Questions
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Biochemistry Research Topics
• Corn Paper Topics
• Metabolic Disorders Questions
• World Hunger Research Topics
• Cooking Questions
• Fast Food Essay Titles
• Grocery Store Essay Topics
• Health Topics
• Poisoning Essay Ideas

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• GM Crops Food
• v.13(1); 2022

The state of the ‘GMO’ debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

Sarah evanega.

a The Alliance for Science, the Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA

Joan Conrow

Jordan adams.

b Cision Global Insights, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called ‘GMOs’) were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.

Introduction

Major international and national expert institutions and academies accept the scientific consensus that food produced from genetically modified (GM) crops is as safe as any other, and that no specific safety risks or health concerns can be attributed to consumption of so-called GMOs. 1 , 2 However, public opinion across the world has been markedly skeptical of GMOs since they were first introduced into the food supply in 1994. Some of the most frequently cited concerns are fears about food safety, corporate control of seeds and the food supply, potential pesticide use associated with the crops, and the welfare of smallholder farmers.

In China, for example, a survey carried out in 2016 found that 47% of people held a negative view of GMOs, with nearly 14% believing that “GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China.” 3 In Kenya, where the government initiated a ban on GM imports in 2013 but has recently permitted farmers to begin growing GM cotton, about a third of those polled held a negative opinion of GMOs as long ago as 2003. 4 In some European countries, opposition to GMOs can be particularly high: in Poland, a 2016 survey found that over 60% of respondents opposed the production and distribution of GM foods in the country. 5

This public suspicion is not shared by most scientists. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in the United States in 2015 detected a wider gap between scientists and the public on attitudes toward GMOs than any other area of science-related controversy, including vaccines, nuclear power, and pesticides. Specifically, only 37% of the general public thought that GM foods were safe to eat, compared to 88% of AAAS scientists. 6 Pew also found in 2016 that the US public was almost entirely unaware of the high level of consensus on GMO safety that exists in the scientific community, with only 14% of people concurring that “almost all of scientists agree that GM foods are safe to eat.” 7

Newer studies indicate more favorable public sentiment toward GM products. These include a study by the European Food Safety Authority that saw the percentage of Europeans choosing GMOs as a food safety concern drop from 66% in 2010 to just 27% in 2019 8 and an October 2019 Pew poll that found a majority of Americans surveyed believe it is likely that GM crops will increase the global food supply and result in more affordable food prices. 9

This study seeks to evaluate the volume, reach, and sentiment of the social and traditional media conversation around GMOs over a three-year period between January 2018 and December 2020. It aims to shed light on such questions as how media coverage may influence public perceptions, whether media share scientific perceptions around GMOs, how traditional and social media cover the issue, the influence of certain companies in affecting the tone of the conversation, the role of bots and cyborgs in the conversation, how the volume of coverage has shifted, and attitudes toward emerging tools in agricultural biotechnology.

Source data was gathered by Cision Media Insights, which combined 200 pre-defined top tier English-language media and 75,000 online media with social media to analyze trends in the GMO debate globally. Based on media availability, content is sourced via an in-house clipping service, automated feeds based on keywords (third-party API), manual searches for online content behind paywalls and database-sourced print media. Social media coverage includes English-language Twitter feeds and public Facebook pages. Content was captured using relevant keywords (See Supplementary Information for a list of top-tier media and keywords).

This content was subjected to automated computer analysis in real time, using Cision’s natural language processing and custom dictionaries, including a black/white list to help eliminate irrelevant content. Human analysis was included for relevance and sentiment validation of 10,800 top-tier English language articles and 54,000 social media posts, with analysis of the remainder being automated. In total 103,084 traditional media articles covering GMOs were analyzed, alongside 1,716,071 pieces of social media content.

For sentiment analysis, content was assigned a ‘positive’ tag if the statement generally would likely leave the reader feeling more positive about the corporations, individuals, or issues mentioned or if the journalist took a positive stance. A ‘negative’ tag was assigned if a statement would leave the reader likely feeling more critical or if the journalist took a negative stance. Factual explanations of the benefits of biotechnology would count as ‘positive,’ for example, while critiques would count as ‘negative.’ A neutral statement would express no position and the reader would likely not be swayed in any direction. The overall favorability value combines ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’ sentiment into a single value. We also use the ‘mixed’ or ‘ambivalent’ sentiment designation for lines of text that contain a positive and negative element. For an example, a statement such as “while studies have shown that GMO foods are safe to eat, or even safer than organic foods, their relationship to pesticides is a dangerous concern.” Full details of the Cision sentiment analysis method are given in Supplementary Information.

We use the term ‘gross reach’ to indicate the total potential audience of a media item, meaning the number of people who might have had the opportunity to see an original article or social media post, including reposts, replies, and retweets/shares of a social post. For print this includes the number of printed copies of a publication multiplied by the average number of readers per copy. For online this includes monthly page impressions of the URL of the given outlet (including sub-page impressions separately where possible) divided by the average number of published articles for that outlet. These readership and page impression counts for print and online are provided by third parties such as Nielsen. For social media, reach is based on the number of followers of the social media account.

As Fig. 1 shows, the volume of coverage of the GMO issue more than tripled in the time period we studied, from January 2018 (1320 articles) to December 2020 (4502 articles).

Volume of agricultural biotechnology GMO conversation in traditional media 2018–2020, showing the number of stories published.

The volume of social media interactions in the GMO conversation moved in the opposite direction however, showing a large decline between 2018 and 2020, falling from nearly 1.2 million to just under 200,000 in that time period, a decline of 82% ( Fig. 2 ).

Volume of agricultural biotechnology social media interactions media 2018–2020.

The overall tone of the traditional and social media GMO conversation during the 2018 to 2020 period is generally favorable ( Fig. 3 ). Favorability is defined as ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’ coverage as a percentage of the overall coverage, including ‘negative’ and ‘ambivalent’ coverage (see Methods). It is notable that the data are relatively noisy with high variance between the months in our sequence, ranging from a low of 47% in April 2019 to a high of 90% in April 2020. Overall favorability has increased somewhat over the three-year period, although the noisy data and relatively low R-squared value indicate low confidence in the robustness of this trend.

Sentiment analysis showing the favorability of the GMO conversation across all media (social and traditional combined) over a three-year period from Jan 2018 to Dec 2020.

The sentiment breakdown of the conversation on traditional and social media (combined) for the period of the study is depicted in Fig. 4 . The data for Fig. 4 are the same as Fig. 3 , with sentiment broken out into ‘negative,’ ‘positive,’ ‘ambivalent’ and ‘neutral’ categories rather than combined into a single overall favorability number for each month.

A monthly breakdown of sentiment across all media for the period Jan 2018 to Dec 2020.

While Figs. 3 and 4 look at the favorability of all media with traditional and social combined, Figs. 5 and 6 deal with the sentiment of traditional and social media separately. The sentiment of the traditional media conversation around GMOs was slightly more positive than that of social media during the study period, averaging 75% favorable if neutral and overtly positive reporting are combined ( Fig. 5 ) as compared with 67% favorability in social media ( Fig. 6 ). Average monthly values as high as 96% favorable are found in traditional media, while throughout the whole period favorability never dropped below 50% ( Fig. 5 ). However, as with the overall GMO conversation depicted in Figs. 3 and 5 shows noisy data with little confidence in the overall trend, with an R-squared value of 0.0479.

Traditional media sentiment analysis for the GMO conversation.

Social media sentiment analysis for the GMO conversation.

While sentiment toward GMOs in social media was substantially more variable than in traditional media, monthly values averaged in the 36-month time frame of the study show a strong long-term trend toward more positive social media coverage. While there were months in 2018 and 2019 when the favorability rating dropped to lows of 26% and 33%, it never dropped below 57% in 2020 ( Fig. 5 ). Figure 5 appears to show a more robust linear trend toward greater favorability in social media than traditional media, with an R-squared value of 0.2125 accounting for 21% of the variance by time.

Figure 7 shows annual averages of sentiment, broken into ‘positive,’ ‘negative,’ ‘neutral’ and ‘mixed’ categories for each year. As indicated above, one feature for 2018 and 2019 seems to be a substantially more negative sentiment seen in social media, although the two were almost equal in 2020.

Average sentiment per year across traditional media and social media for 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Figure 8 shows the key metrics for the GMO conversation. In terms of volume of content, there was an increase from 2018 to 2020, with 20,300 traditional media stories covering GMOs in 2018 ( Fig. 8a ) rising to 34,000 in 2019 ( Fig. 8b ) and 48,600 stories in 2020 ( Fig. 8c ). When assessed in terms of gross reach, the increase was from 1.8 billion to 3.7 billion over the same time period. There was a sharp downward trend in the visibility of the GMO issue on social media, however, from 1.2 million social posts in 2018 to 197,000 in 2020. This may suggest that despite an increase in ongoing traditional media coverage there is less salience in the GMO debate in the wider population as indicated in the sharp decline in the volume of social media posts, particularly when combined with the strong trend toward increased social media favorability seen in Fig. 6 .

Key metrics for the GMO conversation in 2018 (a), 2019 (b) and 2020 (c), showing volume, gross reach and sentiment breakdown.

The Monsanto/Bayer Effect

Monsanto (now part of Bayer) and its association with pesticides, notably glyphosate, appears to strongly drive negative perceptions toward GMOs. Coverage of Monsanto/Bayer in both traditional and social media was consistently and considerably more negative than coverage of GMOs overall. In some months almost the entirety of the social media conversation took a negative tone, such as April 2019 and November 2020, with only 1% favorability. ( Fig. 9 ).

The favorability of the coverage of Monsanto/Bayer over the three-year period in traditional (blue) and social (green) media.

As with the general GMO issue, traditional media coverage of Monsanto/Bayer was substantially more favorable than social, reaching highs of 100% on occasion. About a quarter of the overall GMO debate involved mentions of glyphosate as an issue, whereas a third to nearly half of traditional media coverage of GMOs involved Monsanto/Bayer. References to glyphosate in social media declined by 3% over that period, while the figure is 4% for traditional media (Figure not shown).

Influence of Twitter Bots and Cyborgs

Bot accounts represented 10% of Twitter users engaged in GMO discussions between 2018 and 2020 and contributed 10% of overall tweet volume. Bot accounts had much lower salience than human-operated accounts, contributing only 1% of gross reach. However, three out of the top ten Twitter accounts for volume of GMO content in 2019 were at least partially automated (listed as “undetermined” in Botometer scores) and so may appear to have influence due to the sheer volume of coverage (not shown). These cyborg accounts (human accounts that use automated posting for a large proportion of their content) were about 20% of overall accounts and were substantially more influential than bots. Combined, this suggests that about a third of users engaged in the GMO debate were cyborgs and bots. In addition, bots and cyborgs were substantially more negative in sentiment toward GMOs than human accounts. ( Fig. 10 )

Role of Bots in GMO coverage 2018–2020.

GMOs in Africa and South Asia

The GMO conversation was different in Africa and South Asia than in the United States, which dominated in terms of overall volume and gross reach. The gross reach for the 2018 GMO conversation in the US was 3.6 billion, compared to 116 million in Kenya and 113 million in the Philippines, the two next largest geographies. It was just 2.6 million in Bangladesh (data not shown).

In terms of sentiment analysis, though the conversation was generally favorable in all countries, it was more favorable in the US, with the Philippines registering the highest percentage of negative coverage ( Fig. 11 ).

Sentiment analysis of GMO coverage (traditional and social media) in six geographies from 2018–2020.

In 2019, the average favorability increased over 2018, though there was a decline in some geographies in 2020. In the US and Kenya, the favorability remained relatively stable across the three years, whereas it dropped in Uganda and Bangladesh over time. In Nigeria and the Philippines, the favorability was greatest in 2019 ( Fig. 12 ).

Favorability trends in six geographies.

Although there has been substantial academic attention given to the course of the biotechnology debate in the media, previous assessments have typically been based on small data samples analyzed by hand, including at most a few hundred articles. We believe this analysis to be the first that attempts to portray a rough aggregate picture of the whole debate in the English language over a broad time period, using machine-learning tools to assess many thousands of articles with a potential reach of billions of combined views. To our knowledge it is also the first to include social media in this analysis and compare it w ith trends in traditional media over several years.

Previous studies have analyzed news reporting on GMOs, though often only for a small snapshot of time and without a comprehensive evaluation of media coverage. A 2010 paper, for example, analyzed six UK newspapers for the first three months of 2004, finding that scientists at the time were presented simply as one competing interest group with no special claim to truth. 10 A study of Kenyan and international newspapers carrying biotechnology-related stories between 2010 and 2014 found that the publication of the 2012 Seralini study significantly increased the risk messaging in Kenyan reporting on the subject. 11 Stephen Morse conducted an analysis of global newspaper reporting on genetically modified crops between 1996 and 2013, finding – perhaps surprisingly – mildly positive coverage during the period. 12 Another long-term study, published more recently, looked at the Swedish GMO debate between 1994 and 2017. 13 In volume terms, the number of articles rose to a broad peak in 2003–05, falling gradually until 2017. The researchers also found a clear trend from negative to positive during the period. Leonie Marks and colleagues, in a 2007 analysis of UK and US traditional media, found that coverage of biotechnology was markedly more positive for medical than agricultural applications. 14

This type of analysis could be useful because high levels of skepticism about GM crops may be related to media coverage on the issue, which would thereby play an important role in shaping public opinion. In China, for instance, attitudes turned sharply negative following a 2012 scandal about a nutrition study involving genetically modified rice and Chinese children, which was brought to the fore by Greenpeace and widely reported with a narrative suggesting that genetically modified crops are instruments of Western control and imperialism. 15 Prior to that, Chinese newspaper attitudes had been either positive or neutral toward GMOs. 16 Media framing has also been strongly associated with a trend toward more negative public attitudes to GMOs in Russia in the years leading up to a ban imposed in 2016. 17 These are not all recent trends: one study found that in Hungary, media framing of the GM issue largely favored the ‘anti’ side between 2007 and 2009. 18

Media coverage of GMO issues does not arise in a vacuum. Instead, it reflects political, ideological, and economic contests in societies. In some cases, as in China, geopolitical anxieties can drive widespread public belief in conspiracy theories about Western aggression via genetic technologies. The Russian government, which is often accused of waging an information warfare campaign against the West, has also promoted fears and conspiracy theories about GMOs. A 2018 study found that the Russian state news networks RT and Sputnik produced many more articles on GMOs than Western media outlets, most of which were sharply negative. 19 Some of these Russian-promoted stories featured conspiracy theories that were unlikely to gain exposure in conventional news, such as one headline in 2016: “GMO mosquitoes could be cause of Zika outbreak, critics say.” 20

Negative coverage may also originate from groups ideologically opposed to genetic engineering, or NGOs that seek to raise campaign funds by spreading misinformation. This latter strategy has been termed the ‘monetization of disinformation’ and may raise millions of dollars per year for groups that employ this strategy as a fundraising tool. A recent study analyzing 95,000 online articles found that those receiving the most attention appeared not in conventional media but were published by “a small group of alternative health and pro-conspiracy sites.” 21

Much of the controversy now takes place in the social media sphere, where trolls and bots can increase polarization and spread misinformation exponentially. A 2018 study of the vaccine issue found that trolls and bots often supported both sides in order to amplify controversy and create “false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.” 22

Our analysis suggests that traditional media coverage of GMOs is consistently and substantially more neutral or positive than public perceptions as reported from polling data. This finding is in keeping with the media’s traditional role of aiming for neutral or impartial coverage. Because monthly favorability ratings rise and fall as different stories break, there is only a weak long-term trend toward more favorable coverage in traditional media seen in our data.

The situation is somewhat different on social media. In social media, extreme or one-sided positions can pass unchallenged and strong statements, regardless of whether they are true or false, tend to be ‘liked’ or shared more often. Yet even in this ‘free for all’ environment, monthly values averaged in the 36-month time frame of the study show a robust long-term trend toward more positive social media coverage.

In volume terms, there was a significant increase from 2018 to 2020 in traditional media coverage of the GMO issue. There was a sharp downward trend in the volume of GMO-related posts on social media, however. This suggests that the GMO issue is perhaps becoming somewhat less salient over time in terms of public engagement. This decline could however also be due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have occupied the attention of social media users during 2020. It also suggests that while traditional media coverage of the issue is typically driven by events happening in the news cycle, social media commentators are less driven by mainstream news coverage of the issue. It is notable that traditional and social media visibility peaks do not tend to occur at the same time, suggesting that the debates operate somewhat independently of each other.

A familiar factor in the GMO conversation is the antipathy directed specifically toward Monsanto, with the company becoming a bogeyman for anti-GMO activists and its flagship ‘RoundupReady’ crops coming to symbolize overall objections to the technology. Though Monsanto has since been purchased by Bayer and its name retired, the stigma seems to remain. We found that coverage of Monsanto/Bayer in both traditional and social media is consistently and considerably more negative than coverage of GMOs overall. This likely reflects ongoing negative portrayals of the company regarding pesticides and issues of corporate control of seeds, and thus food. In some months over the two-year period of January 2018 through December 2019, almost the entirety of the social media conversation took a negative tone, though favorable spikes were also recorded both years. The fact that the Monsanto/Bayer conversation was substantially more negative in terms of social media sentiment analysis than other areas helps validate our methods, as it confirms what might be expected given our broader understanding of the debate.

Geographically, the United States dominates the GMO conversation, both in terms of volume and reach. This may be because the technology is widely employed in US agriculture, which also has a robust presence in traditional and social media. The conversation is generally favorable in the US, Africa, and South Asia, though it remains divided in the Philippines, where GM corn has been adopted but international controversies remain over the recent adoption of GM Golden Rice. In Africa, the conversation is most negative in Uganda. These differences may be due to the fact that Nigeria and Kenya have recently adopted GM crops, with farmers and media seeing the positive results of field trials, while Uganda still lacks a biosafety law that would permit introduction of GM crops.

Our analysis shows that traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, though that gap disappeared in 2020. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media.

Notably, the same positive favorability was observed in Africa, where countries are just beginning to adopt the technology. The favorable conversation in Kenya and Nigeria may be due to the fact that farmers have been able to witness field trials as well as plant GM seeds on their own farms. It may also be that anti-GMO activists lessen their activities in countries where the technology has been adopted, either turning to other issues or devoting their attention to countries that are still undecided.

Our analysis also found that cyborgs and bots represent about a third of the users engaged in the GMO social media debate. Furthermore, their posts are substantially more negative in sentiment toward GMOs than human accounts. This suggests that cyborgs and bots may be intentionally used by nefarious actors to sow dissent and make the GMO conversation appear more negative and polarized than it is.

The decline in volume of social media posts combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population, even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag biotech overall.

Despite these encouraging results, it is clear that the scientific community still faces major communications challenges in addressing gaps between traditional and social media debates and the actual scientific consensus around the safety and desirability of agricultural biotechnology. Although the situation appears to be improving, there is no guarantee that this will continue as the influence of negative sentiments and actors continues to weigh on the debate and skew public perceptions away from perspectives that are based on genuine scientific evidence.

Funding Statement

The Cornell Alliance for Science is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A list of other donors can be found at https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/funders/. Cision, Inc. is a company that performs media analysis and provides other communication services for paying clients across a variety of sectors, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This study contains the authors’ objective analysis and may not reflect the views or attitudes of Cision or Cision’s clients. No other competing interests are declared by the authors.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).