genetic engineered food essay

September 1, 2013

13 min read

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

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

By David H. Freedman

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

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

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

On supporting science journalism

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

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

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

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

Benefits and worries

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

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

Credit: Jen Christiansen

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

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

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

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

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

A clean record

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent doubts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A way forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are GMOs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pros of GMOs

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

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

GMOs may have fewer pesticides 

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

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

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

GMOs are usually cheaper 

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

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

GMOs may have more nutrients 

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

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

Cons of GMOs

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

GMOs may cause allergic reactions

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

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

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

GMOs may increase antibiotic resistance

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

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

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

Insider's takeaway

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

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

• Main content

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

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

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

Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology

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

Potential GMO Applications

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

Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs

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

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

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

Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy

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

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

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

Unintended Economic Consequences

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

GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns

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

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

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

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

History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development

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

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

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

Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand

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

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

References and Recommended Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Add Content to Group

Article History

Flag inappropriate.

Email your Friend

•  |  Lead Editor:  Bob Moss

Within this Subject (34)

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

Other Topic Rooms

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

© 2014 Nature Education

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

Visual Browse

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

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

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

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

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

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

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

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

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

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

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

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

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

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

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

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment .

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

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

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

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

Are Genetically Modified Crops the Answer to World Hunger?

Hunger is a major world crisis for which a solution has not yet been found. Since their advent, genetically modified crops have been hailed as the key to solving world hunger.

Biology, Health, Conservation, Social Studies, Economics

Tearless GM Onion

GM crops may be modified to improve yield, enhance nutrition, or better adapt to environmental conditions. They can even be altered to resist pests or eliminate unwanted effects, like this type of onion that doesn't cause people to tear up when chopped.

Photograph by Redux Pictures LLC

Hunger is one of the greatest global challenges of the 21st century. Despite some improvements within the last two decades, global hunger is again on the rise, with 2016 data indicating that more than 800 million people around the world suffer from malnutrition . Children under five years of age represent 150 million of those affected, and for roughly three million of these children every year, the struggle ends in death. When faced with such staggering statistics, it is natural to wish for one simple solution to prevent these deaths and rid the world of hunger . Use of genetically modified (GM) crops is among the proposed solutions—but is it truly a viable solution? GM crops are plants that have been modified, using genetic engineering, to alter their DNA sequences to provide some beneficial trait. For example, genetic engineering can improve crop yield , resulting in greater production of the target crop. Scientists can also engineer pest-resistant crops, helping local farmers better withstand environmental challenges that might otherwise wipe out a whole season of produce . Crops can even be engineered to be more nutritious, providing critical vitamins to populations that struggle to get specific nutrients needed for healthy living. However, GM seeds are produced primarily by only a few large companies who own the intellectual property for the genetic variations. A transition to GM crops would closely align global food production with the activities of a few key companies. From an economic standpoint, that poses a risk to long-term food security by creating the potential for a single-point failure. If that company failed, then the crop it provides would not be available to the people who depend on that crop. Moreover, a large proportion of those affected by malnutrition are small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, where use of GM crops is less common. Since attitudes toward GM crops tend to correlate with education levels and access to information about the technology, there is a concern that sub-Saharan African farmers may be hesitant to adopt GM crops. More generally, public perception of GM foods is plagued by concerns of safety, from the potential for allergic response to the possible transfer of foreign DNA to non-GM plants in the area. None of these concerns are backed by evidence, but they persist nonetheless. Whether based on legitimate concerns or lack of scientific information and understanding, local rejection of GM crops has the potential to derail efforts to use these crops as a tool against malnutrition . However, there are case stories for success: Adoption of GM cotton in India has improved family income and, as a result, reduced hunger . While there are these controversies and complexities that pose challenges for the use of GM foods, these are secondary to a larger issue. We already live in a world that produces enough food to feed everyone. Thus, hunger results from inequity, not food shortage. Unequal distribution of quality food among communities suffering from poverty is the primary culprit in today’s world hunger , not abundance or quantity of food stocks. For those suffering from malnutrition , access to quality food depends on a variety of political, environmental, and socioeconomic factors—most notably, armed conflict and natural disasters . When viewed through this lens, GM crops may have a role to play in combatting global hunger , but merely increasing crop production or nutritional value (via any method) will not solve the larger problem of inequity in access to food. For example, farmers whose livelihoods depend on production of commercial crops rather than food staples may be able to increase their income by growing GM crops, affording them the financial resources to purchase more or higher-quality food. Moreover, GM crops might better withstand certain natural disasters , such as drought. However, since data shows that political unrest is the primary driver of hunger , it is unclear whether these farmers would be able to sell their products or use their income on nutritional food sources within a country plagued by conflict. Unfortunately, GM foods are not the cure-all to hunger the world needs. The path to eradicating global hunger is more complex than any one solution and is in fact far more complex than only addressing food quantity or quality. The United Nations Global Goals for Sustainable Development address world hunger in Goal 2: Zero Hunger , which aims to “end hunger , achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” This goal lays the foundation to combatting world hunger via a multipronged approach, including political action and reduction of violence, agricultural and technical innovations, efforts to end poverty , and educational initiatives. Luckily, with allies such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme, this grand challenge may be achievable—and maybe GM foods will play a role, but they cannot be relied upon as a magical solution.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

January 3, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Genetically Modified Food — Thesis Statement On Genetically Modified Foods

Thesis Statement on Genetically Modified Foods

• Categories: Genetically Modified Food

About this sample

Words: 500 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 500 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1118 words

4 pages / 2008 words

1 pages / 552 words

3 pages / 1444 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Genetically Modified Food

For several decades, philosophers, movements, and individuals have argued on the issue of consuming meat and all other animal products. The topic on the ethicality of eating meat is particularly interesting as questions are [...]

As the first western fast food company to enter china in 1987, KFC has become the MODERN blueprint for /of internationalisation (Knowledge.insead.edu, 2016). Engaging in a combination of high control methods of market entry, [...]

In recent decades, the production and consumption of genetically modified (GM) foods have sparked intense debates worldwide. While proponents argue that GM foods can address food security challenges and reduce the need for [...]

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2019). Genetic Engineering of Crops. Retrieved from

The average life expectancy and the population have increased throughout the world. “The conventional projection by the UK is overseeing the world population. The current average population is 7.7 billion and expected to [...]

Food is the nutrients that people or animals eat or drink or that plant absorbs to maintain life and growth. With the huge increasing population of the world, the food production from natural resources could not meet their [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

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

Be careful. This essay is not unique

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

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

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

Article contents

Pros and cons of gmo crop farming.

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

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

• genetically modified
• herbicide tolerance
• insect resistance

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Pros of GMO Crop Farming

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

Productivity of GM Crops

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

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

Tillage Systems

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

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

Herbicide Tolerance and Pest Management

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

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

Human Health

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

Environmental Benefits

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

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

The Economy

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

Cons of GMO Crop Farming

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

Cross-Pollination

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

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

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

Pest Resistance

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

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

Environment

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

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

Productivity

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

date: 21 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.150.64]
• 185.80.150.64

Character limit 500 /500

Should our future food be genetically engineered?

Genetically modified crops can help cut carbon emissions, research shows — but they still face major hurdles.

The Philippines’ Department of Agriculture has a vision: to become the first country to allow the commercial production of golden rice , a 20-year-old genetically modified crop that could prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of childhood blindness around the world.

But the country’s appeals court came to a very different decision last month. The court banned cultivating the crop, named for the yellow color that comes from the addition of vitamin A , as well as a genetically modified eggplant.

“This decision is a monumental win for Filipino farmers and Filipino people who have for decades stood up against genetically modified (GM) crops,” Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a Southeast Asia campaigner for Greenpeace, an advocacy group that has opposed genetically modified crops for decades, said in a statement .

Although genetically modified crops may still provoke fear and uncertainty, some scientists argue that not only can they help to alleviate human health concerns, but they might also be able to help fight climate change. And as new tools like CRISPR , which can make targeted cuts in DNA, gain traction, genetic food engineering could be on the cusp of a quantum leap.

“It’s all political,” Stuart Smyth, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Saskatchewan, said of the Philippines’ decision. “It’s not based on science.”

Genetically modified crops are ones that have had genetic material inserted from another species of organism. For example, the first genetically modified food product — a tomato introduced to the public in 1994 as the “Flavr Savr” — had two genes added. One conferred antibiotic resistance, and another gave the tomato a longer shelf life. (The company manufacturing the Flavr Savr, Calgene, had to cease production in 1997 because of rising costs.)

Today, there are only a few genetically modified crops in production, but those that exist are widely grown. In the United States, 94 percent of all soybeans, 96 percent of all cotton and 92 percent of all corn were genetically modified as of 2020, according to the Food and Drug Administration . These crops became popular because of their ability to withstand glyphosate, a key ingredient in the herbicide known as Roundup. Other countries that grow genetically modified crops widely include Canada, Brazil and India.

No major scientific research has found that genetically modified crops cause health problems in humans. In a 400-plus-page report published in 2016, the National Academies of Science found that “no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.” The report urged analysis of such foods by the traits that they include, rather than how they were created.

Yet engineered crops remain unpopular. According to a Pew Research Center poll published in 2020, 38 percent of Americans believe genetically modified crops are unsafe, compared with 27 percent who believe they are safe. Thanks to a law passed by Congress in 2016, foods in the United States are required to be labeled as bioengineered if they involved genetic engineering beyond what could be accomplished with conventional breeding techniques. One analysis showed that consumers are willing to pay 20 percent more to avoid GM foods.

At the same time, a small but growing body of research has argued that GM foods could play a significant role in cutting carbon emissions. In a study published in 2022, researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany and the Berkeley, Calif.-based Breakthrough Institute found that widespread use of these crops in Europe could cut the agricultural sector’s emissions by 7.5 percent.

Another study found that the use of GM crops globally saves around 23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year — equal to removing around half of the registered vehicles from roads in the United Kingdom.

There are two primary ways genetically engineered crops could cut carbon emissions.

First, they can be more productive, creating higher yields for farmers and allowing them to grow more food on less land. One global analysis found that GM crops on average lead to a 22 percent increase in yields. At the same time, one-third of all emissions from agriculture are from deforestation and the destruction of other natural areas; as farmers expand and grow more crops, they cut down trees that are storing CO2 in their trunks and leaves.

If farmers can grow their crops on less land, less forest is converted into farmland, allowing trees and landscapes to store more carbon. “That decrease in deforestation is the big reason why yield increases cut emissions,” said Emma Kovak, a senior food and agriculture analyst for the Breakthrough Institute.

Other scientists say crops with herbicide resistance can require less tilling. “Every time soil is tilled, it releases carbon back into the atmosphere,” Smyth said. Herbicide-resistant corn, for example, can endure being sprayed by weed-killing agents, preventing farmers from having to till the land to remove weeds.

But the environmental community is split. Some activists say focusing on climate change obscures the real problem with genetically modified crops: the role of big corporations in controlling food production.

“We see GMOs as a tool of the major corporations that already have a stranglehold on our food system,” said Amanda Starbuck, research director at Food & Water Watch. Many genetically modified crops, Starbuck says, go toward feeding animals for meat production — and improvements in yield won’t change the fact that humans need to move away from eating so much meat. “We need to move to significantly reduce that consumption,” she added.

Research into alleviating climate change with genetically modified crops has just begun. “On a scale of one to 100, I’d say it’s single digits,” Smyth said. Scientists say they need more analysis of how GM crops change land use and carbon sequestration, as well as studies that take place over longer periods of time.

But even in areas where the science is relatively settled, genetically engineered foods have struggled to gain acceptance. Golden rice was developed in the late 20th century by a Swiss scientist; it was intended to combat the estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children every year who go blind from vitamin A deficiency. More than two decades later, however, the crop has not entered widespread cultivation, thanks in part to regulatory battles in Asia and resistance from environmentalists.

In its decision to ban genetically modified crops, the appeals court cited a Philippine legal principle granting the right to a healthy environment.

For opponents of genetically engineered crops, that is a victory; for some scientists, it is a missed opportunity. “It’s sad that something someone developed in the 1980s to solve a problem — a really bad problem, children going blind — is still relevant,” Kovak said.

And while the battle lines around genetically modified crops have been set for decades, new technologies may shake things up. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR allow scientists to make tweaks, deletions or changes in a genome without inserting genes from another species. Researchers are already working on gene-edited crops that could speed up photosynthesis and increase crop yields.

Changing a genome without adding a component from another species could be more palatable to consumers — but some environmental groups believe it is just a way to rebrand the same type of work.

“Industry could say: ‘Well, it’s not GMO. It’s gene-edited,’” Starbuck said. “It’s just another smokescreen.”

The shift could also complicate existing regulations, which have been tied to older definitions of genetic modification.

“It’s frustrating,” Smyth said. “We need to make all of these changes to cut carbon emissions. But how are we supposed to meet the Paris accord with one hand tied behind our back?”

A previous version of this article incorrectly said when a study from researchers at the University of Bonn and the Breakthrough Institute was published. It was 2022, not 2023. The article has been corrected.

More on climate change

Understanding our climate: Global warming is a real phenomenon , and weather disasters are undeniably linked to it . As temperatures rise, heat waves are more often sweeping the globe — and parts of the world are becoming too hot to survive .

What can be done? The Post is tracking a variety of climate solutions , as well as the Biden administration’s actions on environmental issues . It can feel overwhelming facing the impacts of climate change, but there are ways to cope with climate anxiety .

Inventive solutions: Some people have built off-the-grid homes from trash to stand up to a changing climate. As seas rise, others are exploring how to harness marine energy .

What about your role in climate change? Our climate coach Michael J. Coren is answering questions about environmental choices in our everyday lives. Submit yours here. You can also sign up for our Climate Coach newsletter .

• Tuesday, May 21, 2024

© 2023 - Businessday NG. All Rights Reserved.

Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against Essay

Introduction, legislation, a way to stop it.

First of all it is necessary to mention that the development of the genetic engineering has originated the appearing of genetically modified foods and organisms. Originally, the genetically modified foods are derived from the organisms. The fact is that, genetic modification is the changing of the DNA code by the means of the genetic engineering, thus, the genes of the organisms are deviating from the normal genes of similar organisms, consequently, these organisms may be regarded as mutants.

It is stated that the genetically modified foods first appeared on the market in 1990s. These products were soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil, but animal products have been developed. Thus, Stewart (2004, 56) sates the following: “ in 2006 a pig engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene was controversially produced. Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%. ”

It is stated that while the technological and scientific progress and development in the sphere of biology and molecular researches promises an essential potential for the benefits of the humanity in the sphere of deeper understanding of nature and its laws, the humanity imposes essential risks on the health of peoples and ecological safety of thee environment. The existing biological diversity is the largest treasure of the planet, and, there is strong necessity to save it intact: without removing or adding anything.

For Genetic Modification

Originally, the discussion on the matters of the GMO is rather broad and burning. It should be stated that the benefits of the genetic modification are discussed and stated much rarer than the harms. Consequently, it is necessary to discuss the benefits first. The fact is that, the benefits are rather promising and sound excitingly. These are the foods which grow faster, they are not subjected to insect attacks. There may be several harvests in a season: the genetic modification is aimed to struggle with hunger and poverty in the driest regions and regions where locust or other plant pests make serious obstacles for gathering sufficient harvests.

Here, all the potential benefits are exhausted, and the severe truth begins. It is necessary to mention that the impact of the genetically modified foods on the human organism has not been studied properly. The consequences of artificial genetic diversity are not known for the ecosystem of our planet. The ecologic safety has not been approved, as there were no tests for it.

Against Genetic modification

Still, the facts, which are the most stubborn thing in this world, approve the danger of genetic modification, as it is the direct violation of the laws of the nature. Thus, since 2004 some cotton plantation workers are subjected to serious allergic reactions to Bt cotton (genetically modified breed), and experience no reaction contacting with normal cotton. Moreover, the longer the contact was, the severer the consequences and the reaction of the organism. Doctors report that nearly 100 cases were registered in 2004, and more than 150 in 2005. The symptoms are the itching, and red swollen eyes.

As for the allergic reactions, Deal and Baird (2003) in his research stated the following: “ The increased concentrations of tryptophan in the ferment or may in turn have led to increased production of trace impurities. Shortcuts had been taken in the purification process to reduce costs. For example, a purification step that used charcoal adsorption to remove impurities had been modified to reduce the amount of charcoal used. It is possible that one or more of these modifications and/or the environment for manufacture allowed new or greater impurities through the purification system. ”

Taking into account the world statistics, it should be stated that 37 lethal cases have been already registered because of genetically modified foods consumption. Close to 1500 people were disabled. As for the facts against GMO, they are in general the following:

• Allergens are contained in extreme proportions in GMO. There is no doubt, that allergens are transferred to plants by the means of genetic modification.
• The genetic modification by the means of such called horizontal gene transfer and recombination my become the reason of appearing genetically new bacteria and viruses. Taking into account that the humanity does not have immunity for such threats, the consequences may be fatal.
• If new types of viruses and bacteria appear, the immunity is not the only thing that will not be able to fight it. There will be no remedy against it, as all the antibiotics (even the wide spectrum of action) are effective against known bacteria. All the remedies will become useless.

Taking into account the danger of genetically modified bacteriological danger, it will be necessary to cite Stewart (2004): “ BSE demonstrates how little we understand. We assume feed contaminated with animal remains caused it, but organophosphates may be implicated too. There is uncertainty how it is passed on. We do not know how to cure it. We do not even know how to test for it. Now we are creating thousands of transgenic life forms, releasing them into the environment, eating them, and we are supposed to believe they can guarantee no disasters. ” Nothing will be left but hoping for the best.

Originally, the main danger is covered in the fact that genetic modification is the process of creating the genetic mazes and manipulating the genetic codes in the ways, which are not natural. The processes, which are not natural, can not be totally controlled by a human, as the natural surrounding differs from a laboratory one on the one hand, and the genetics has not reached the high levels yet on the other hand. Thus, the fact of genetic pollution is quite possible. This means that GMO’s may spread all over the world and influence the genetic codes of natural organisms by interbreeding with them. Thus, the not modified environment may become genetically polluted, and the destiny of future generations appears to be unforeseeable and uncontrollable. There will be no way back, as if the interbreeding starts, it will be impossible to stop it, thus, the environment will change essentially and forever.

The fact that because of the commercial interest the fact of the presence of GMO in foods is concealed and not labeled makes everyone alerted. Surely, it may be reasoned by the general fear of genetically modified foods on the one hand, still, the fears are not unreasonable. Generally speaking, the people have the right to know what they are buying and eating, nevertheless, the public is deprived of the right to know about the presence of the GMOs, thus, there is no possibility to avoid them. However, the legislation in some states and world countries obliges the food industries mark their foods.

Moreover, some countries are supporting the idea of total prohibition of genetic modification of foods and organisms in general. Thus, In March 1996 the European Parliament voted against full and complete labeling of genetic modified food. Currently, there are numerous organizations all over the world, who aim to shed some light on the issues of genetic modifications, the benefits and dangers of GMOs and the potential consequences. Some of them are Greenpeace, Biowatch South Africa, and True Food Network.

Originally, the only way to stop the spread of GMOs is to stop researches in these spheres. The way to stop the research process is to restrict it with the intellectual property rights. Stewart (2004) emphasizes the following: “ The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists”

Finally it is necessary to mention that the genetic modification of the foods brings more dangers and hazards than benefits. Originally, these are the games with the laws and rules of nature, and the humanity is not able to realize the danger of such games in its full measure. The fact is that, there is strong necessity to protect the existing biological diversity and respect it as the global heritage. As North American Indians told “we did not inherit our planet from our ancestors – we borrowed it from our progenies”.

The fact is that, there are numerous obstacles, which prevent genetic modification experiments from being stopped: these are the commercial interests, the strong belief that genetic modification will help to benefit, and some others. Still, there are movements and tendencies in some States for prohibiting the experiments and production of the genetically modified foods, as the statistics and the facts are not consoling.

Deal, Walter F., and Stephen L. Baird. “Genetically Modified Foods: A Growing Need Plant Biotechnology Can Help to Overcome the World’s Concern for Feeding Its Ever-Growing Population.” The Technology Teacher 62.7 (2003): 18.

Stewart, C. Neal. Genetically Modified Planet: Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Plants. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 2). Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/

"Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." IvyPanda , 2 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against'. 2 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." November 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." November 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against." November 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-for-and-against/.

• Genetically Modified Organisms in Canadian Agriculture
• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Food Production
• Ethical Issues Behind Feeding People With GMOs
• A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture
• Genetically Modified Foods: Pros or Cons
• How Politics Have Influenced Production of GMOs?
• Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides for Health
• Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger

Viewpoint: Aftershocks from American Academy of Pediatrics attack on glyphosate—‘Misinformation about the genetic engineering of crops hinders the development of sustainable agriculture technologies’

But it’s time we discuss the data on glyphosate.

Oh, and before we head off: I don’t work in agriculture at all. I am just a biomedical scientist who sees the harms of misinformation being a global public health threat. So why do I care about glyphosate and GMO (genetically modified organism) crops so much?

Because misinformation about glyphosate and the genetic engineering of crops directly hinders the development and adoption of sustainable agriculture technologies.

The climate crisis is accelerating. This has direct impacts on the stability and ability to grow crops in regions where they previously were able to. Droughts, floods, erosion, increasing temperatures. Plants that are needed to feed the planet don’t naturally adapt that quickly. So humans have to help them along if we are to continue to provide food to the billions around the world.

That means we need to adapt our agricultural methods.  Genetic tools could facilitate this.

For example, Argentina is one of the top producers of wheat in the world. But climate change has made production of wheat incredibly unstable, with prolonged periods of drought, excessive heat, and more impacting the growing season. To address this, an Argentinian-based biotech developed a genetically engineered (GE) wheat containing a gene from sunflowers that can increase resilience in drought. This wheat, HB4, completed a decade-long field trial and was  recently approved to be grown there and in Brazil . The  US regulatory agencies reviewed all of the data in 2022 and concluded there are no safety concerns about this wheat, but it is not currently approved to be grown here. Australia, Colombia, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Nigeria have all approved the import of processed wheat or finished products as well.

Note: there is NO commercial GE wheat grown anywhere else besides Argentina and Brazil, just so you know.

However, anti-biotech activist organizations propagate unfounded fears about GMO technologies and chemophobia about pesticides like glyphosate used on GE crops, while failing to acknowledge that many GE crops are created to REDUCE the number of pesticides that need to be applied exogenously. And remember:  organic farming , and even non-GMO conventional farming, use pesticides.

As such, this messaging ends up in the ears of legislators and policymakers and has directly hampered the adoption and integration of genetic technologies as sustainable tools to improve the stability and yield of our food production.

GMO crops are created to serve a specific purpose: to add an advantageous trait.

Just like with genetic technologies used to treat human diseases, genetic technologies for plants are used to impart some sort of benefit. Unfortunately, with anti-biotech messaging, this logic is lost. Commonly repeated refrains harp on false claims related to “farmers being able to douse things with pesticides,” when the opposite reality is actually the case.

Also: farmers are trying to produce food while not breaking the bank. Any pesticides that need to be used to control pests and ensure you can actually harvest food are going to be used at the lowest possible level to accomplish that. Because all of these inputs cost money, whether you’re talking conventional or organic pesticides. The more you need to use, the more money they’re spending. This is a basic business strategy.

I digress. As a result of this concerted anti-biotech effort,  we only have 13 foods that have GE options in the US  – one of which is not a crop:

Alfalfa, Arctic TM apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun eggplant, papaya, pink pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage® salmon, soybean, squash, sugarbeet, and Bt sugarcane. Even among these, they have different genetic traits. For example, papaya is engineered to resist the papaya ringspot virus, which all but wiped out papaya in Hawaii several decades ago. Without GMO papaya, farmers (and consumers) wouldn’t have papaya here.

Glyphosate is a specific herbicide that is used on glyphosate-tolerant GE crops.

So, of these, herbicide-tolerant crops exist for corn, cotton, soybeans, alfalfa, canola, and sugar beets. These crops are genetically altered to withstand herbicides that are considered broad spectrum: meaning, if applied to control weeds that are parasitizing crop fields and taking nutrients needed to grow foods, it would kill the crops as well. Previously, controlling weeds would require multiple different chemicals, manual labor, and soil tilling. These things have obvious cost, ecological impact, and safety concerns.

Enter: genetic tools that can improve farming.

Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops mean that farmers can use a broad-spectrum herbicide but it won’t target the crop, only the weeds. It also means farmers can reduce tilling of soil, which minimizes nutrient leaching, erosion, and other ecologically damaging processes. This all sounds beneficial, right? Absolutely. That’s why the resistance to these things is so baffling, but it is a result of a concerted disinformation campaign over decades.

The first herbicide-tolerant crop approved was soybean in 1996 in the US: nearly 30 years ago. Now, the majority of herbicide-tolerant crops grown are corn, cotton, and soybeans.

22 years before the GE soybean was approved, the herbicide in question, glyphosate, came to market. Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine] is a non-selective herbicide, which means it targets and can kill plant species indiscriminately. It was first on the market at RoundUp in 1974, but today, there are over 750 different pesticides that contain glyphosate  (also why the “RoundUp is toxic” claims are somewhat ironic).

Glyphosate inhibits an enzyme specific to plants.

Aside from the decades of data that demonstrate glyphosate does not pose a risk to humans, other mammals, insects, etc., let’s talk about the chemical mechanism.

Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with  5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) , an enzyme essential for the production of key amino acids. If plants can’t synthesize those amino acids, the plant can’t make proteins (many of those are structural), and the plant wilts and dies. All plants have this biochemical pathway, which is why glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide.

Humans do NOT have this pathway or this enzyme, nor do other animals, which is why glyphosate has no direct pharmacological impact on people.

300 expert institutions, dozens of international regulatory bodies, and over 5,500 studies demonstrate GMO crops and glyphosate are safe.

Glyphosate has no mechanism of action on people. That’s why dozens of international regulatory bodies have therefore recognized glyphosate as a low-toxicity chemical with infinitesimal risk at levels encountered.

For over three decades, GMO foods have been part of the global food supply. Extensive evidence from the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and many other countries suggests no health risks associated with these foods. Despite the consumption of hundreds of trillions of GMO meals, there has not been a single documented case of illness, either short or long-term, linked to GMO foods. There is no evidence suggesting a link to genetic mutations, cancers, organ damage, or fertility problems from GMO consumption. This is supported by nearly 300 expert institutions and over 5,500 studies, indicating robust scientific consensus.

There is no data to suggest glyphosate is linked to cancers of any time in humans.

Usually, people who claim glyphosate causes cancer are citing the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph that classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” which yes, could sound scary. But, if you recall from my piece on  IARC methodology , the IARC uses a hazard-based approach. This means they do not consider actual exposures or likelihood.

Over the years, IARC has evaluated more than 115 agents, finding all but one can “cause cancer”. IARC does not conduct original research; it only reviews existing data. On top of that, IARC even conceded in their summary that there was NO human evidence to suggest this classification.

This category, 2B,  is the same as eating red meat, drinking hot coffee, frying foods, going to a barber or hairdresser, and working the night shift.

It gets worse.

IARC members ignored robust data that demonstrated glyphosate was not linked to cancer.

In  2017, Reuters reported  that one of the members of the IARC committee tasked with evaluating glyphosate in 2015 did not disclose the largest study on pesticide applicators that demonstrated no link between glyphosate exposure as a farm worker and cancer.

Here,  the final published study  in question: a long-term longitudinal study of over 54,000 pesticide applicators which found no association between glyphosate and any solid or hematologic cancers (lymphomas).

Reuters found draft documents and compared them to the final published monograph and found that at the 11th hour, ten TEN significant changes were made that changed the narrative, as the panel was on the verge of concluding that glyphosate poses to cancer risks.. In each of those changes, data that demonstrated glyphosate was not associated with cancer were removed and replaced with weaker data that suggested a link.

Why did IARC omit this, the most robust epidemiological study, and instead use weak mouse and Petri dish studies to instill fear among the public? Potential conflicts of interest?

The reality: there is no risk of cancer associated with glyphosate for pesticide applicators or for people who might be consuming trace residues in finished foods.

Even with the IARC’s bizarre and unsupported classification of glyphosate, they found “limited evidence” of carcinogenicity in agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate. In science language, that means there isn’t causal evidence.

On top of that, there is no risk from the micro-traces that might be found in foods. We are talking parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion.  Remember: detection does not equal relevance, especially when using sensitive analytical chemistry tools.

Even IARC conceded that there is no known link between trace dietary glyphosate exposure and cancer.

On the flip side, twenty-three independent regulatory reviews that use risk assessment, meaning they actually assess the real-world likelihood of a chemical causing cancer, have found that there is no relationship between glyphosate and cancer ( summarized in the GLP graphic below ).

Why does this myth persist, even after over 30 years of data demonstrating glyphosate is not linked to cancers at all?

Clickbait headlines, frivolous lawsuits, and anti-science activist organizations.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard: “Look at the lawsuits: RoundUp causes cancer.” It’s critical to realize that lawsuits and jury trials are not scientific evidence of health effects, merely that a jury was persuaded by a convincing (i.e. emotional) appeal. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, and juries are not inherently scientific experts. This is a red herring that ignores 50 years of scientific evidence.  And, for the record, Monsanto (now Bayer) has won and lost lawsuits. Neither of those outcomes is scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, these falsehoods gain new legs when medical organizations like the AAP platform legitimize them. In their new Clinical Report, they do the same thing that the EWG has a history of doing. AAP ignores all of the data from those 20 global regulatory agencies and fixates on the IARC’s hazard assessment, which doesn’t even say the things the authors of the piece in Pediatrics  claim!

AAP ignores all the data the actual RISK of glyphosate exposure, which demonstrates that there is no relationship between glyphosate (even for farmers or applicators) and negative health outcomes.

Why does the AAP ignore the evidence and spread false messaging that will undoubtedly lead people to consume fewer fruits and vegetables?

I can’t say for sure, but some ideas relate to obvious conflicts of interest. One of the lead authors of the article, Philip Landrigan, has close ties to the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA) , an activist organization that has a long history of anti-GMO and conventional agriculture positions and is majority-funded by large organic agriculture corporations.

AAP is legitimizing  unsubstantiated falsehoods that will ultimately harm public health.

On top of the fact that there isn’t evidence that glyphosate poses a risk. Moreover, the AAP and other activist organizations insinuate that glyphosate is on fresh produce items that you’re going to buy at the store.

That is false. If you recall, the HT crops include soybeans, corn, and cotton – which are primarily used in animal feeds, non-edible consumer products, and cooking oils.  Glyphosate is NOT being used on fresh produce items.  Ironically, AAP’s solution is to buy organic produce – which, uses plenty of pesticides and echoes of the elitist and  unsubstantiated claims from EWG  and other  fear-mongering entities .

This type of messaging misleads people, scares them from perfectly safe and nutritious foods, and cements these lies as “facts” when they are nothing more than fabrications. More than that, these types of messages actually will cause people to consume fewer fruits and vegetables, which poses a far greater health impact than unfounded concerns about glyphosate (or other pesticides). This is a perfect illustration of the harms of the risk perception gap.

Dr. Andrea Love has a PhD in Immunology and Microbiology. Andrea is a subject-matter expert in infectious disease immunology, cancer immunology, and autoimmunity and is adept at translating complex scientific data and topics for the public and healthcare providers. Follow Andrea on X  @dr_andrealove

GLP Podcasts & Podcast Videos More...

Podcast: Indigenous people have been using biochar to fertilize soil for centuries. Could renewing this practice be a lasting solution for carbon sequestration?

Podcast: Do you buy organic milk because you believe organic farms treat their cows better? Here’s a reality check

Videos more....

Video: BBC uncovers massive deception by Britain’s ‘social egg freezing’ clinics

Bees & pollinators more....

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

Dissecting claims about Monsanto suing farmers for accidentally planting patented seeds

Analysis: Do neonicotinoid and glyphosate pesticides threaten bees? A reassessment

Infographics more....

Infographic: Could gut bacteria help us diagnose and treat diseases? This is on the horizon thanks to CRISPR gene editing

Gmo faqs more....

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Most popular.

Newsletter Subscription

• Weekly Newsletter (Wed)
• Daily Digest (Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri)
• Weekly Top Six (Sun)
• Featured Articles Only
• Human Articles Only
• Agriculture Articles Only
• All Types of Content

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.

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
• v.12(3); 2020 Mar

Genetically Modified Products, Perspectives and Challenges

Dimitrios t karalis.

1 Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Thessaly, Volos, GRC

Tilemachos Karalis

2 Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Hospital of Trikala, Trikala, GRC

Stergios Karalis

3 Internal Medicine, General Hospital of Trikala, Trikala, GRC

Angeliki S Kleisiari

4 Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Thessaly, Trikala, GRC

It is a common ground that humans have always modified the genome of both plants and animals. This intrusive process that has existed for thousands of years, many times through mistakes and failures, was initially carried out through the crossing of organisms with desirable features. This was done with the aim of creating and producing new plants and animals that would benefit humans, that is , they would offer better quality food, more opportunities for people to move and transport products, greater returns to work, resistance to diseases, etc. However, creating genetically modified organisms does not proceed without conflicts. One part of the equation concerns objections made by disputants of genetically modified organisms to the manipulation of life, as opposed to defenders who argue that it is essentially an extension of traditional plant cultivation and animal breeding techniques. There are also conflicts regarding the risks to the environment and human health from using genetically modified organisms. Concerns about the risks to the environment and human health from genetically modified products have been the subject of much debate, which has led to the development of regulatory frameworks for the evaluation of genetically modified crops. However, the absence of a globally accepted framework has the effect of slowing down technological development with negative consequences for areas of the world that could benefit from new technologies. So, while genetically modified crops can provide maximum benefits in food safety and in adapting crops to existing climate change, the absence of reforms, as well as the lack of harmonization of the frameworks and regulations about the genetic modifications results in all those expected benefits of using genetically modified crops being suspended. However, it is obvious that the evolution of genetically modified products is not going to stop. For that reason, research on the impact of genetic modification on medical technologies, agricultural production, commodity prices, land use and on the environment in general, should therefore continue.

Introduction and background

Biotechnology has developed many procedures that specialize in genetic recombination; the attempt to move genes from one organism to another or to change the genes present in a specific organism results in the expression of new attributes that originally were not there. The above procedures that allow gene alterations of a food or an organism result in Genetically Modified (GM) food or Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The concept of gene altering has initiated many debates, with one side criticising the unknown effects and risks on both public health and the environment, and the other supporting the genetic modification's benefits on economy and hunger elimination. This article attempts a literature review on Genetically Modified Products, and specifically the possible risks that they pose, the benefits of their production and use, as well as some basics concepts that have been described and analyzed in current published writings.

Possible risks of using genetically modified products

Environmental Hazards

There is strong evidence that genetically modified plants appear to interact with their environment [ 1 ]. This means that genes introduced into genetically modified plants may be transferred to other plants or even to other organisms in the ecosystem [ 2 - 3 ]. Gene transfer between plants, especially among related plants, results in genetic contamination and is carried out by the transport of pollen [ 4 ]. Because natural wild plant varieties are likely to have a competitive disadvantage against genetically modified crops, they may not be able to survive, resulting in the reduction or disappearance of wild varieties [ 5 ]. Changing biodiversity worldwide will result in increased resistance of several species of weeds, others to dominate and others to decline or disappear, thus creating a complete and general deregulation in ecosystems [ 6 ]. It is a common belief in scientific circles that research needs to be continued to assess the risks and benefits of crops more accurately and adequately.

Risks to Human Health

There may be allergenic effects - especially in people who are predisposed to allergies - or other adverse effects on human health [ 7 ]. Experimental studies in animals have shown weight gain, changes in the pancreas and kidneys, toxic effects to the immune system, changes in blood biochemistry among other effects [ 8 , 9 ]. Moreover, the lack of large-scale long-term epidemiological studies that lead to safe conclusions about the allergenic effects of genetically modified plants makes researchers skeptical about the use of genetically modified products. This is because the introduction of a gene that expresses a non-allergenic protein does not mean that it will produce a product without allergenic action. Also, allergies from genetically modified products may be more intense and dangerous, as the allergenic potential of these foods is stronger than that of conventional plants [ 10 , 11 ].

Resistance to Antibiotics

We must note from the outset that the use of antibiotic-resistant genes has stopped in most mutated products. The main problem now lies in the widespread use of antibiotics in feed which, as a natural consequence, end up in the human body through the consumption of dairy products and meat, and thus create resistant germs in the human digestive system [ 12 ]. However, more research and studies are needed to determine the differences between transgenic plants from traditional plants and whether genetically modified plants pose additional risks to the consumer public [ 13 , 14 ].

Benefits of using genetically modified products

Hunger Elimination

One of the arguments put forward by advocates of genetically modified products is to eliminate world hunger, a perception that has encountered various reactions [ 15 - 16 ]. A series of extensive and long-term research has shown that the benefits of growing genetically modified crops in the fight against global food shortages and hunger have been significant. The steady increase in the global population has led researchers to focus on the benefits of developing genetically modified products, rather than the potential risks they pose each time [ 17 ].

Economic Benefits

A number of studies show the economic benefits of using genetically modified products. Between 1996 and 2011, farmers' income worldwide increased by $92 million from the use of genetically modified crops. Part of the revenue is due to the more efficient treatment of weeds and insects, while another part is due to lower overall production costs. The greatest economic benefits have been achieved in the US, Argentina, China and India, while at the same time, production costs have fallen sharply [ 18 ]. At this point, however, there are conflicting reports [ 19 ].

Insect Resistance

Bacillus thuringiensis (or BT) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide. During sporulation, many BT strains produce crystal proteins (proteinaceous inclusions), called δ-endotoxins, that have insecticidal action. This has led to their use as insecticides, and more recently, to genetically modified crops using BT genes, such as BT corn. The main target of these plants is to combat the European Corn Borer insect which is responsible for the destruction of maize crops with a loss of up to one billion dollars a year [ 20 ].

Nematode Resistance

Parasitic nematodes are responsible for much of the crop losses. They attack many different plants by destroying the root system. Nematodes, which are essentially a worm species, survive in the soil in very difficult conditions for many years. Chemical control of nematodes is prohibited because there is a high environmental risk. The only natural way to deal with this is through crop rotation (the practice of growing a series of dissimilar or different types of crops in the same area in sequenced seasons), but this is often not possible due to the high financial cost [ 21 ]. Thus, the introduction of genes from nematode-resistant plants seems to be the only way to deal with the problem [ 22 ]. 

Resistance to Herbicide Round Up

It is common ground that the use of herbicides and pesticides in general causes serious problems for the environment and, consequently, for human health. We know that in areas where wheat is cultivated, that is, where the use of herbicides is increased, the number of child births is clearly decreasing, complications in childbirth occur, and children are born with serious health problems mainly related to mental retardation and autism spectrum [ 23 ]. Genetically modified products enable farmers to use a smaller amount of herbicides. Genetically modified soy beans produce an enzyme resistant to the action of the herbicide. The herbicide Round Up destroys the action of a plant enzyme, thereby destroying the plant. Genetically modified plants, however, produce a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, making it resistant and not affected by the action of the herbicide [ 24 - 25 ]. Researchers are divided on the effects on human health and animals [ 26 ].

Cold Resistance

An important advantage of genetically modified plants is the creation of varieties that are resistant to cold temperatures that would normally result in the plant freezing and destroying the plant, thereby losing production. Since the mid-2010s, because of the rapid global change in climate and because plants cannot adapt to rapid temperature changes, scientists have turned to transgenic plants to address the problem [ 27 ].

Heat Resistance

In the near future, continuous global warming (as scientists at least claim) will have disastrous consequences for plants, especially in areas where water shortages are already occurring. Creation of modified genes (Sh2 and Bt2) can help plants withstand high temperatures [ 28 - 29 ].

Basic concepts related to genetically modified products

The Notion of Substantial Equivalence

The concept of substantive equivalence has been introduced in the debate on genetically modified products to ensure that these foods are safe [ 30 ]. The principle of substantive equivalence holds that if the genetically modified product contains substantially equivalent ingredients present in the conventional product, then no further safety rules are required. In this way the principle of substantial equivalence is a method of evaluating genetically modified products and finding negative factors (such as allergens due to the presence of new proteins) [ 31 , 32 ].

The Precautionary Principle

According to the precautionary principle, any new genetically modified product should not be made available to consumers unless there is first-hand evidence that the product is safe or if there are serious conflicts and conflicting opinions of researchers on the safety of the product in question [ 33 ]. Many researchers, however, have argued that the precautionary principle can act as a deterrent to the evolution of science and society, as it may stop or delay any new technology which is capable of solving environmental or economic problems [ 34 ]. We should note, however, that criticisms have been raised about the utility and the way the precautionary principle works [ 35 ].

The Safeguard Clause

The safeguard clause allows Member States of the European Union to prevent the circulation and sale of genetically modified products which may be harmful to citizens [ 36 ].

The Cartagena Protocol

The purpose of this document is to protect the world's biodiversity by instituting stringent rules on the transfer of genetically modified products from one country to another [ 37 ].

Labeling of Genetically Modified Products

The appearance of genetically modified products has resulted in the need for labeling of these products [ 38 ]. Genetically modified foods should have a special label indicating that they contain genetically modified ingredients. However, as simple as it sounds, the issue of genetically modified products labeling is particularly complex and difficult, as there are important questions about how labeling will be done [ 39 ]. For example, it has been argued that products containing either modified protein or foreign DNA should bear a special label. However, there are genetically modified products that do not contain modified protein or foreign DNA, so there is the debate whether these foods, although modified, require special labeling or not. [ 40 ].

Ethical Concerns

The key ethical issue regarding the cultivation of genetically modified plants is that the creation of these crops is essentially an interference with the natural flow of life. The ethical dilemma arises as to how to find the middle ground in the use of genetically modified products, given that different countries have different perceptions of the importance of risk, with many countries banning the use of genetically modified products, while companies producing these products focus on profits, and do not take into account the problems that may or may not arise. The problem here focuses on the high degree of uncertainty about the impact of using genetically modified organisms, while the arrangements proposed are usually shaped by financial and political interventions [ 41 ]. Consumer attitude is also of particular importance, as consumers are buying and paying their vote of approval at the same time. Consumers are divided into two categories, the consumers who favor the genetically modified organisms and those who oppose them. Consumers' views are influenced by the information they are offered each time, the existing regulations, the confidence they have in the government in regulating the issues that arise, and what they are prepared to pay [ 42 ].

Ethics and the Environment

Environmental ethics plays a dominant role in discussions concerning biotechnology and genetic engineering, as many of the arguments presented against genetic engineering have to do with whether it is morally right to genetically modify organisms and the environment, as this may have serious environmental impacts. This shift is evident even in product ads, where companies say environmental protection is a priority for them [ 43 ].

Ethics and Animal Rights

Specifically with regard to animals, modern ethical and philosophical considerations hold that animals, like humans, have rights and that these rights should in no way be violated [ 44 ]. Animals need to be treated as living organisms and not as commodities or human services. Introducing genes into animals and carrying out experiments can lead to drastic changes in the physiology and behavior of the animal. The results may not be desirable, and in some cases, they may even be disastrous [ 45 ].

Patenting Living (Genetically Modified) Organisms

The creation of new organisms inevitably leads to the need to register them and allocate their ownership. But even in the case of registration of a novel product, the 'owner' of the new organism must ensure that the genetic modification does not cause undesirable effects to the environment and humans, as he will be responsible for any problems that may arise [ 46 ].

Conclusions

In recent years there has been enormous technological progress in the creation of genetically modified organisms. There is no doubt that in the future there will be a continuum that will be influenced by both scientific developments and public attitudes towards genetically modified organisms. Creating genetically modified organisms, however, does not proceed without conflicts; there are the disputants of genetically modified organisms who see their production as a manipulation of life, as well as conflicts regarding the risks to the environment and human health. Even though, it is obvious that the evolution of genetically modified crops is not going to stop. Research on the impact of genetically modified crops on agricultural production, commodity prices, land use and the environment in general should therefore continue. Additionally, it is necessary to inform the consumer in order to understand the role of modern technology in crops and agricultural production, and in particular to understand the importance of genetic modifications. In any case, there should be strict and enforceable rules for the use of genetically modified organisms, an assessment of the potential risks of genetically modified crops and clear references to the effects and the results of genetic modifications, both on the environment and on human health.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.