genetically modified crops essay

Genetically Modified Food Essay

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

Need to write a genetically modified foods essay? Take a look at this example! This argumentative essay on GM foods explains all the advantages and disadvantages of the issue to help you form your own opinion.

Introduction

• The Benefits
• The Drawbacks

Genetically modified (GM) foods refer to foods that have been produced through biotechnology processes involving alteration of DNA. This genetic modification is done to confer the organism or crops with enhanced nutritional value, increased resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and reduction of production costs.

The concept of genetic engineering has been in existence for many years, but genetic modification of foods emerged in the early 1990s. This genetically modified food essay covers the technology’s positive and negative aspects that have so far been accepted. Currently, a lot of food consumed is composed of genetically altered elements, though many misconceptions and misinformation about this technology still exist (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods have been hailed for their potential to enhance food security, particularly in small-scale agriculture in low-income countries.

It has been proposed that genetically modified foods are integral in the enhancement of safe food security, enhanced quality, and increased shelf-life, hence becoming cost-effective to consumers and farmers. Proponents of this technology also argue that genetically modified foods have many health benefits, in addition to being environmentally friendly and the great capability of enhancing the quality and quantity of yields (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetically modified foods are, therefore, considered to be a viable method of promoting food production and ensuring sustainable food security across the world to meet the demands of the increasing population. This genetically modified food advantages and disadvantages essay aims to cover conflicting perspectives in the technology’s safety and efficacy. In spite of the perceived benefits of genetic engineering technology in the agricultural sector, the production and use of genetically modified foods have triggered public concerns about safety and the consequences of consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Benefits

Many champions of GM food suggest the potential of genetic engineering technology in feeding the huge population that is faced with starvation across the world. Genetically modified foods could help increase production while providing foods that are more nutritious with minimal impacts on the environment.

In developing countries, genetic engineering technology could help farmers meet their food demands while decreasing adverse environmental effects. Genetically modified crops have been shown to have greater yields, besides reducing the need for pesticides.

This is because genetically modified crops have an increased ability to resist pest infestation, subsequently resulting in increased earnings (Van Esse, 2020). Some genetically engineered crops are designed to resist herbicides, thus allowing chemical control of weeds to be practiced. Foods that have been genetically modified are perceived to attain faster growth and can survive harsh conditions due to their potency to resist drought, pests, and diseases.

Genetically modified foods have also been suggested to contain many other benefits, including being tastier, safer, more nutritious, and having longer shelf life. Though scientific studies regarding the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods are not comprehensive, it is argued that critics of this technology are driven by overblown fears (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Drawbacks

To most opponents of the technology’s application in agriculture, issues relating to safety, ethics, religion, and the environment are greater than those that are related to better food quality, enhanced production, and food security. Genetic modification technology is perceived to carry risks touching on agricultural practices, health, and the environment.

The major issue raised by society concerning this technology pertains to whether genetically modified foods should be banned for people’s benefit. The gene transfer techniques are not entirely foolproof, thus raising fears that faults may emerge and lead to many unprecedented events.

There is a possibility that DNA transfer to target cells may not be effective. Alternatively, it may be transferred to untargeted points, with the potential effect being the expression or suppression of certain proteins that were not intended. This may cause unanticipated gene mutations in the target cells, leading to physiological alterations (Turnbull et al., 2021).

A number of animal studies have indicated that genetically modified foods could pose serious health risks/ Those include the tendency to cause impotency, immune disorders, acceleration of aging, hormonal regulation disorders, and alteration of major organs and the gastrointestinal system (Giraldo et al., 2019). It has also been demonstrated that genetically modified foods can act as allergens and sources of toxins.

Opponents argue that there is a lack of clear regulatory mechanisms and policies to ensure that genetically modified foods are tested for human health and environmental effects. Thus, human beings allegedly become reduced to experimental animals subjected to adverse toxic effects and dietary problems.

In animals, it has been argued that the use of genetically modified feeds causes complications, such as premature delivery, abortions, and sterility, though these claims have later been debunked (Xu, 2021). Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and cotton, are engineered to produce pesticides.

It has been demonstrated that this built-in pesticide is very toxic and concentrated as compared to the naturally sprayed pesticide, which has been confirmed to cause allergies in some people. Many studies have also shown the immune system of genetically modified animals to be significantly altered. For instance, a persistent increase in cytokines indicates the capability of these foods to cause conditions such as asthma, allergy, and inflammation (Sani et al., 2023).

Some of the genetically modified foods, such as soy, have also been shown to have certain chemicals known to be allergens, for example, trypsin inhibitor protein (Rosso, 2021). Genetic engineering of food may also result in the transfer of genes that have the capability to trigger allergies into the host cells.

Furthermore, most of the DNA transferred into genetically modified foods originates from microorganisms that have not been studied to elucidate their allergenic properties. Similarly, the new genetic combinations in genetically modified foods could cause allergies to some consumers or worsen the existing allergic conditions. Various cases of genetically modified foods causing allergic reactions have been reported, leading to the withdrawal of these foods from the market (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of crops could also increase the expression of naturally occurring toxins through possible activation of certain proteins, resulting in the release of toxic chemicals. It is argued that sufficient studies have not been carried out to prove that genetically modified foods are safe for consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods are also associated with many environmental risks. Issues relating to the manner in which science is marketed and applied have also been raised, challenging the perceived benefits of genetically modified foods. Many opponents of genetic engineering technology perceive that genetic modification of food is a costly technology that places farmers from low-income countries in disadvantaged positions since they cannot afford it (Kumar et al., 2020; Leonelli, 2020).

It is also argued that this technology cannot address the food shortage issue, which is perceived to be more of a political and economic problem than a food production issue (Liang et al., 2019).

Political and economic issues across local and global levels have been suggested to prevent the distribution of foods so as to reach the people faced with starvation, but not issues of agriculture and technology. Politics and economic barriers have also been shown to contribute to greater poverty, subsequently making individuals unable to afford food (Kumar et al., 2020).

Some bioethicists are of the view that most genetic engineering advances in agriculture are profit-based as compared to those that are need-based. It challenges the appropriateness of genetic modification of food in ensuring food security, safeguarding the environment, and decreasing poverty, especially in low-income countries.

This argument is supported by the costly nature of genetic engineering technology and the yields from the application of this technology. The economic benefits of genetic engineering of foods are usually attained by large-scale agricultural producers, thus pitting the majority of the population who are involved in small-scale agricultural production (Kumar et al., 2020).

With the widespread adoption of genetic engineering technology, regulatory policies such as patents have been formulated, subsequently allowing exclusively large biotechnological organizations to benefit (Kumar et al., 2020).

Though biotechnological firms suggest that genetic modification of foods is essential in ensuring food security, the patenting of this technology has been perceived by many as being a potential threat to food security (Leonelli, 2020).

Patenting of genetically modified foods gives biotechnology firms monopoly control, thus demeaning the sanctity of life. This technology has also enhanced dependency, whereby farmers have to continuously go back to the biotechnology firms to purchase seeds for sowing in subsequent planting seasons.

Genetically modified food is believed to be unsafe, allegedly because sufficient tests have not been carried out to show that it would not cause some unprecedented long-term effects in another organism. Despite possessing positive attributes, such as health benefits and food safety, many consumers are wary of these foods because of a consistent belief in a lack of proven safety testing (Fernbach et al., 2019).

There are also fears that the genetic material inserted into genetically modified foods often gets transferred into the DNA of commensals found in the alimentary canal of human beings. This may lead to the production of harmful genetically modified chemicals inside the body of the human being, even long after ceasing the consumption of such foods.

Prior to the widespread adoption of this genetic engineering technology in agriculture, many scientists and regulatory agents raised health concerns. Some argue that genetically modified foods are inherently harmful and can trigger allergies, toxic effects, gene transfer to commensals in the gut, and can lead to the emergence of new diseases and nutritional problems (Deocaris et al., 2020; Seralini, 2020).

Despite multiple rigorous studies, it remains unknown whether genetically modified foods could be contributing to the rising cases of various health conditions such as obesity, asthma, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and reproductive problems. In most cases, the testing that has been performed involves the evaluation of the growth and productivity of the modified organism, and not in terms of environmental and health impacts (Agostini et al., 2020).

Gene transfer may affect the nutritional quality of foods as the transfer is likely to reduce the amounts of certain nutrients while raising the levels of other nutrients. This causes a nutritional variation between conventional foods and similar foods produced through genetic modification techniques.

Furthermore, few studies have been carried out to show the effect of nutrient alterations brought about by genetic engineering in relation to nutrient-gene interactions, metabolism, and bioavailability (Hirschi, 2020). Critics of genetically modified foods argue that little information is available to show how the alteration of food contents affects gene regulation and expression as these changes occur at rates that far overwhelm scientific studies.

Genetic modification of food involves the transfer of genetic material even between organisms belonging to different species. To biotechnology firms and other proponents of genetically modified foods, this approach helps in maximizing productivity and profits. However, many consumers, environmental conservationists, and opponents of genetically modified foods perceive gene transfer across different species as causing a decrease in diversity (Turnbull et al., 2021).

With the reduction of diversity, benefits such as resistance to diseases and pests, adaptation to adverse weather conditions, and productivity also diminish. Critics of genetic engineering technology, therefore, suggest that applying this technology creates uniformity in organisms and decreases their genetic diversity, rendering them at increased risks of diseases and pests.

Transfer of genetic material also carries many environmental risks, especially in the event of wide cultivation of such crops. Some critics suggest that genetically engineered plants with herbicide and insect-resistant traits could transfer these traits to wild plants and subsequently lead to the evolution of difficult-to-eradicate weeds (Anwar et al., 2021).

These weeds could develop into invasive plants with the capability to decrease crop production and cause a disruption of the ecosystem. The genetically modified plants could also evolve into weeds, which will then require costly and environmentally unfriendly means to eradicate.

The genetic engineering of food may also have an impact on non-target organisms, which would further reduce diversity. It is a persistent concern that genetically modified foods, such as pesticide-resistant crops, could cause harm to non-target organisms.

Certain genetically modified crops have the potential to change the chemistry of the soil by releasing toxins and breaking down the plants after they die. Moreover, crops that have undergone genetic modification to withstand elevated chemical concentrations sustain a heightened application of herbicides, ultimately leading to elevated chemical concentrations in the soil (Anwar et al., 2021).

Genetic engineering’s intentional transfer of antibiotic resistance genes could have detrimental effects on human health and the environment. Antibiotic-resistant genes may be passed to pathogenic bacteria in animals’ and humans’ digestive tracts, increasing their pathogenicity and causing more and more public health problems (Amarasiri et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of food is applauded as an appropriate method of ensuring increased food availability, better nutrition, and general improvement in the agricultural sector. However, as this genetically modified food essay demonstrates, many issues surround this technology, mostly concerning safety, health, cultural, social, and religious issues.

Most of the concerns regarding genetically engineered foods can be cleared by conducting expansive research to establish clear grounds for such issues. Unless concrete research is conducted to substantiate the benefits and potential harms of genetically engineered foods, the majority of people will remain wary of genetically modified foods. In the end, the full potential of genetically engineered foods will not be realized.

Amarasiri, M., Sano, D., & Suzuki, S. (2020). Understanding human health risks caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) in water environments: Current knowledge and questions to be answered. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 50 (19), 2016-2059.

Anwar, M. P., Islam, A. M., Yeasmin, S., Rashid, M. H., Juraimi, A. S., Ahmed, S., & Shrestha, A. (2021). Weeds and their responses to management efforts in a changing climate. Agronomy, 11 (10), 1921-1940.

Agostini, M. G., Roesler, I., Bonetto, C., Ronco, A. E., & Bilenca, D. (2020). Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation, 241 , 108355.

Deocaris, C. C., Rumbaoa, R. G., Gavarra, A. M., & Alinsug, M. V. (2020). A Preliminary analysis of potential allergens in a GMO Rice: A Bioinformatics approach. Open Journal of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, 4 (1), 12-16.

Fernbach, P. M., Light, N., Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2019). Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour, 3 (3), 251-256.

Giraldo, P. A., Shinozuka, H., Spangenberg, G. C., Cogan, N. O., & Smith, K. F. (2019). Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: is there any difference from food?. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10 (1592), 1-17.

Hirschi, K. D. (2020). Genetically modified plants: Nutritious, sustainable, yet underrated. The Journal of Nutrition, 150 (10), 2628-2634.

Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A. K., Singh, A., Jha, A. K., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251 , 1-27.

Leonelli, G. C. (2020). GMO risks, food security, climate change and the entrenchment of neo-liberal legal narratives. In Transnational food security (pp. 128-141). Routledge.

Liang, J., Liu, X., & Zhang, W. (2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28 (8), 991-1004.

Rosso, M. L., Shang, C., Song, Q., Escamilla, D., Gillenwater, J., & Zhang, B. (2021). Development of breeder-friendly KASP markers for low concentration of kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean seeds. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22 (5), 2675-2690.

Sani, F., Sani, M., Moayedfard, Z., Darayee, M., Tayebi, L., & Azarpira, N. (2023). Potential advantages of genetically modified mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of acute and chronic liver diseases. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 14 (1), 1-11.

Seralini, G. E. (2020). Update on long-term toxicity of agricultural GMOs tolerant to roundup. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32 (1), 1-7.

Turnbull, C., Lillemo, M., & Hvoslef-Eide, T. A. (2021). Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom–a review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12 , 630396.

Van Esse, H. P., Reuber, T. L., & van der Does, D. (2020). Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytologist, 225 (1), 70-86.

Xu, Q., Song, Y., Yu, N., & Chen, S. (2021). Are you passing along something true or false? Dissemination of social media messages about genetically modified organisms. Public Understanding of Science, 30 (3), 285-301.

• Genetically Modified Foods Negative Aspects
• Natural Science, Ethics, and Critical Thinking
• Genetically Modified Foods and Environment
• The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Society and Environment
• Objection to the Production of Genetically Modified Foods
• Analyzing the Prospects of Genetically Modified Foods
• Will Genetically Modified Foods Doom Us All?
• Super Weeds's Advantages and Disadvantages
• Concept of the Gene-Environment Interactions
• Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Genetic Epidemiology
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 11). Genetically Modified Food Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/

"Genetically Modified Food Essay." IvyPanda , 11 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Genetically Modified Food Essay'. 11 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Genetically Modified Food Essay." December 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Food Essay." December 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Food Essay." December 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

• 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: 04 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

• 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

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

How has genetic engineering changed plant and animal breeding?

Did you know.

Genetic engineering is often used in combination with traditional breeding to produce the genetically engineered plant varieties on the market today.

For thousands of years, humans have been using traditional modification methods like selective breeding and cross-breeding to breed plants and animals with more desirable traits. For example, early farmers developed cross-breeding methods to grow corn with a range of colors, sizes, and uses. Today’s strawberries are a cross between a strawberry species native to North America and a strawberry species native to South America.

Most of the foods we eat today were created through traditional breeding methods. But changing plants and animals through traditional breeding can take a long time, and it is difficult to make very specific changes. After scientists developed genetic engineering in the 1970s, they were able to make similar changes in a more specific way and in a shorter amount of time.

A Timeline of Genetic Modification in Agriculture

A Timeline of Genetic Modification in Modern Agriculture

Circa 8000 BCE: Humans use traditional modification methods like selective breeding and cross-breeding to breed plants and animals with more desirable traits.

1866: Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, breeds two different types of peas and identifies the basic process of genetics.

1922: The first hybrid corn is produced and sold commercially.

1940: Plant breeders learn to use radiation or chemicals to randomly change an organism’s DNA.

1953: Building on the discoveries of chemist Rosalind Franklin, scientists James Watson and Francis Crick identify the structure of DNA.

1973: Biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen develop genetic engineering by inserting DNA from one bacteria into another.

1982: FDA approves the first consumer GMO product developed through genetic engineering: human insulin to treat diabetes.

1986: The federal government establishes the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. This policy describes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) work together to regulate the safety of GMOs.

1992: FDA policy states that foods from GMO plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants.

1994: The first GMO produce created through genetic engineering—a GMO tomato—becomes available for sale after studies evaluated by federal agencies proved it to be as safe as traditionally bred tomatoes.

1990s: The first wave of GMO produce created through genetic engineering becomes available to consumers: summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, papayas, tomatoes, potatoes, and canola. Not all are still available for sale.

2003: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations develop international guidelines and standards to determine the safety of GMO foods.

2005: GMO alfalfa and sugar beets are available for sale in the United States.

2015: FDA approves an application for the first genetic modification in an animal for use as food, a genetically engineered salmon.

2016: Congress passes a law requiring labeling for some foods produced through genetic engineering and uses the term “bioengineered,” which will start to appear on some foods.

2017: GMO apples are available for sale in the U.S.

2019: FDA completes consultation on first food from a genome edited plant.

2020 : GMO pink pineapple is available to U.S. consumers.

2020 : Application for GalSafe pig was approved.

How are GMOs made?

“GMO” (genetically modified organism) has become the common term consumers and popular media use to describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a process that involves:

• Identifying the genetic information—or “gene”—that gives an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) a desired trait
• Copying that information from the organism that has the trait
• Inserting that information into the DNA of another organism
• Then growing the new organism

How Are GMOs Made? Fact Sheet

Making a GMO Plant, Step by Step

The following example gives a general idea of the steps it takes to create a GMO plant. This example uses a type of insect-resistant corn called “Bt corn.” Keep in mind that the processes for creating a GMO plant, animal, or microorganism may be different.

To produce a GMO plant, scientists first identify what trait they want that plant to have, such as resistance to drought, herbicides, or insects. Then, they find an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) that already has that trait within its genes. In this example, scientists wanted to create insect-resistant corn to reduce the need to spray pesticides. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) , which produces a natural insecticide that has been in use for many years in traditional and organic agriculture.

After scientists find the gene with the desired trait, they copy that gene.

For Bt corn, they copied the gene in Bt that would provide the insect-resistance trait.

Next, scientists use tools to insert the gene into the DNA of the plant. By inserting the Bt gene into the DNA of the corn plant, scientists gave it the insect resistance trait.

This new trait does not change the other existing traits.

In the laboratory, scientists grow the new corn plant to ensure it has adopted the desired trait (insect resistance). If successful, scientists first grow and monitor the new corn plant (now called Bt corn because it contains a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis) in greenhouses and then in small field tests before moving it into larger field tests. GMO plants go through in-depth review and tests before they are ready to be sold to farmers.

The entire process of bringing a GMO plant to the marketplace takes several years.

Learn more about the process for creating genetically engineered microbes and genetically engineered animals .

What are the latest scientific advances in plant and animal breeding?

Scientists are developing new ways to create new varieties of crops and animals using a process called genome editing . These techniques can make changes more quickly and precisely than traditional breeding methods.

There are several genome editing tools, such as CRISPR . Scientists can use these newer genome editing tools to make crops more nutritious, drought tolerant, and resistant to insect pests and diseases.

Learn more about Genome Editing in Agricultural Biotechnology .

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

• Share full article

Learning to Love G.M.O.s

Overblown fears have turned the public against genetically modified food. But the potential benefits have never been greater.

Credit... Levon Biss for The New York Times

Supported by

By Jennifer Kahn

• July 20, 2021

Listen to This Article

To hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android .

On a cold December day in Norwich, England, Cathie Martin met me at a laboratory inside the John Innes Centre, where she works. A plant biologist, Martin has spent almost two decades studying tomatoes, and I had traveled to see her because of a particular one she created: a lustrous, dark purple variety that is unusually high in antioxidants, with twice the amount found in blueberries.

At 66, Martin has silver-white hair, a strong chin and sharp eyes that give her a slightly elfin look. Her office, a tiny cubby just off the lab, is so packed with binders and piles of paper that Martin has to stand when typing on her computer keyboard, which sits surrounded by a heap of papers like a rock that has sunk to the bottom of a snowdrift. “It’s an absolute disaster,” Martin said, looking around fondly. “I’m told that the security guards bring people round on the tour.” On the desk, there’s a drinks coaster with a picture of an attractive 1950s housewife that reads, “You say tomato, I say [expletive] you.”

Martin has long been interested in how plants produce beneficial nutrients. The purple tomato is the first she designed to have more anthocyanin, a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory compound. “All higher plants have a mechanism for making anthocyanins,” Martin explained when we met. “A tomato plant makes them as well, in the leaves. We just put in a switch that turns on anthocyanin production in the fruit.” Martin noted that while there are other tomato varieties that look purple, they have anthocyanins only in the skin, so the health benefits are slight. “People say, Oh, there are purple tomatoes already,” Martin said. “But they don’t have these kind of levels.”

The difference is significant. When cancer-prone mice were given Martin’s purple tomatoes as part of their diet, they lived 30 percent longer than mice fed the same quantity of ordinary tomatoes; they were also less susceptible to inflammatory bowel disease. After the publication of Martin’s first paper showing the anticancer benefit of her tomatoes, in the academic journal Nature Biotechnology in 2008, newspapers and television stations began calling. “The coverage!” she recalled. “Days and days and days and days of it! There was a lot of excitement.” She considered making the tomato available in stores or offering it online as a juice. But because the plant contained a pair of genes from a snapdragon — that’s what spurs the tomatoes to produce more anthocyanin — it would be classified as a genetically modified organism: a G.M.O.

That designation brings with it a host of obligations, not just in Britain but in the United States and many other countries. Martin had envisioned making the juice on a small scale, but just to go through the F.D.A. approval process would cost a million dollars. Adding U.S.D.A. approval could push that amount even higher. (Tomato juice is known as a “G.M. product” and is regulated by the F.D.A. Because a tomato has seeds that can germinate, it is regulated by both the F.D.A. and the U.S.D.A.) “I thought, This is ridiculous,” Martin told me.

Martin eventually did put together the required documentation, but the process, and subsequent revisions, took almost six years. “Our ‘business model’ is that we have this tiny company which has no employees,” Martin said with a laugh. “Of course, the F.D.A. is used to the bigger organizations” — global agricultural conglomerates like DowDuPont or Syngenta — “so this is where you get a bit of a problem. When they say, ‘Oh, we want a bit more data on this,’ it’s easy for a corporation. For me — it’s me that has to do it! And I can’t just throw money at it.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

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

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

• How We Eat and Drink Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

More From TIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
• What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
• How to Read Political Polls Like a Pro
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
• How ‘Friendshoring’ Made Southeast Asia Pivotal to the AI Revolution
• Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Write to Jamie Ducharme at [email protected]

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Genetically modified organisms.

A genetically modified organism contains DNA that has been altered using genetic engineering. Genetically modified animals are mainly used for research purposes, while genetically modified plants are common in today’s food supply.

Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Health

Photo of a genetically engineered Salmon. Created so that it continuously produces growth hormones and can be sold as a full size fish after 18 months instead of 3 years.

Photograph by Paulo Oliveira/Alamy Stock Photo

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms . Corn, cattle, and even dogs have been selectively bred over generations to have certain desired traits . Within the last few decades, however, modern advances in biotechnology have allowed scientists to directly modify the DNA of micro organisms , crops, and animals.

Conventional methods of modifying plants and animals— selective breeding and crossbreeding —can take a long time. Moreover, selective breeding and crossbreeding often produce mixed results, with unwanted traits appearing alongside desired characteristics. The specific targeted modification of DNA using biotechnology has allowed scientists to avoid this problem and improve the genetic makeup of an organism without unwanted characteristics tagging along.

Most animals that are GMOs are produced for use in laboratory research. These animals are used as “models” to study the function of specific genes and, typically, how the genes relate to health and disease. Some GMO animals, however, are produced for human consumption. Salmon, for example, has been genetically engineered to mature faster, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that these fish are safe to eat.

GMOs are perhaps most visible in the produce section. The first genetically engineered plants to be produced for human consumption were introduced in the mid-1990s. Today, approximately 90 percent of the corn, soybeans, and sugar beets on the market are GMOs. Genetically engineered crops produce higher yields, have a longer shelf life, are resistant to diseases and pests, and even taste better. These benefits are a plus for both farmers and consumers. For example, higher yields and longer shelf life may lead to lower prices for consumers, and pest-resistant crops means that farmers don’t need to buy and use as many pesticides to grow quality crops. GMO crops can thus be kinder to the environment than conventionally grown crops.

Genetically modified foods do cause controversy, however. Genetic engineering typically changes an organism in a way that would not occur naturally. It is even common for scientists to insert genes into an organism from an entirely different organism. This raises the possible risk of unexpected allergic reactions to some GMO foods. Other concerns include the possibility of the genetically engineered foreign DNA spreading to non-GMO plants and animals. So far, none of the GMOs approved for consumption have caused any of these problems, and GMO food sources are subject to regulations and rigorous safety assessments.

In the future, GMOs are likely to continue playing an important role in biomedical research. GMO foods may provide better nutrition and perhaps even be engineered to contain medicinal compounds to enhance human health. If GMOs can be shown to be both safe and healthful, consumer resistance to these products will most likely diminish.

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, specialist, content production, last updated.

October 19, 2023

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

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

GMOs in agriculture

• GMOs in medicine and research
• Role of GMOs in environmental management
• Sociopolitical relevance of GMOs

Are genetically modified organisms safe for the environment?

Should genetically modified crops be grown.

• Why is biotechnology important?
• When did modern biotechnology emerge?
• Where was science invented?

genetically modified organism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Nature - Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
• Healthline - GMOs: Pros and Cons, Backed by Evidence
• University of Alaska Fairbanks - Institute of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Extension - Cooperative Extension Service - Understanding Genetically Modified Organisms
• European Parliament - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
• Business LibreTexts - Genetically Modified Organism
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Genetically modified plants and human health
• Environmental Protection Agency - Genetically Modified Organism
• Table Of Contents

What is a genetically modified organism?

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose DNA has been modified in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products.

Why are genetically modified organisms important?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) provide certain advantages to producers and consumers. Modified plants, for example, can at least initially help protect crops by providing resistance to a specific disease or insect, ensuring greater food production. GMOs are also important sources of medicine.

Assessing the environmental safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is challenging. While modified crops that are resistant to herbicides can reduce mechanical tillage and hence soil erosion, engineered genes from GMOs can potentially enter into wild populations, genetically modified crops may encourage increased use of agricultural chemicals, and there are concerns that GMOs may cause inadvertent losses in biodiversity .

The question of whether genetically modified (GM) crops should be grown is one that has been debated for decades. Some people argue that GM crops can lower the price of food, increase nutritional content, and thus help to alleviate world hunger, while others argue that the genetic makeup of plants may introduce toxins or trigger allergic reactions. Learn more at ProCon.org.

Recent News

genetically modified organism (GMO) , organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the generation of desired biological products. In conventional livestock production, crop farming, and even pet breeding, it has long been the practice to breed select individuals of a species in order to produce offspring that have desirable traits. In genetic modification, however, recombinant genetic technologies are employed to produce organisms whose genomes have been precisely altered at the molecular level, usually by the inclusion of genes from unrelated species of organisms that code for traits that would not be obtained easily through conventional selective breeding .

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are produced using scientific methods that include recombinant DNA technology and reproductive cloning . In reproductive cloning, a nucleus is extracted from a cell of the individual to be cloned and is inserted into the enucleated cytoplasm of a host egg (an enucleated egg is an egg cell that has had its own nucleus removed). The process results in the generation of an offspring that is genetically identical to the donor individual. The first animal produced by means of this cloning technique with a nucleus from an adult donor cell (as opposed to a donor embryo) was a sheep named Dolly , born in 1996. Since then a number of other animals, including pigs , horses , and dogs , have been generated by reproductive cloning technology . Recombinant DNA technology, on the other hand, involves the insertion of one or more individual genes from an organism of one species into the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of another. Whole-genome replacement, involving the transplantation of one bacterial genome into the “cell body,” or cytoplasm, of another microorganism, has been reported, although this technology is still limited to basic scientific applications.

GMOs produced through genetic technologies have become a part of everyday life, entering into society through agriculture, medicine , research, and environmental management. However, while GMOs have benefited human society in many ways, some disadvantages exist; therefore, the production of GMOs remains a highly controversial topic in many parts of the world.

Genetically modified (GM) foods were first approved for human consumption in the United States in 1994, and by 2014–15 about 90 percent of the corn , cotton , and soybeans planted in the United States were GM. By the end of 2014, GM crops covered nearly 1.8 million square kilometres (695,000 square miles) of land in more than two dozen countries worldwide. The majority of GM crops were grown in the Americas.

Engineered crops can dramatically increase per area crop yields and, in some cases, reduce the use of chemical insecticides . For example, the application of wide-spectrum insecticides declined in many areas growing plants, such as potatoes , cotton, and corn, that were endowed with a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , which produces a natural insecticide called Bt toxin . Field studies conducted in India in which Bt cotton was compared with non-Bt cotton demonstrated a 30–80 percent increase in yield from the GM crop. This increase was attributed to marked improvement in the GM plants’ ability to overcome bollworm infestation, which was otherwise common. Studies of Bt cotton production in Arizona, U.S., demonstrated only small gains in yield—about 5 percent—with an estimated cost reduction of $25–$65 (USD) per acre owing to decreased pesticide applications. In China, where farmers first gained access to Bt cotton in 1997, the GM crop was initially successful. Farmers who had planted Bt cotton reduced their pesticide use by 50–80 percent and increased their earnings by as much as 36 percent. By 2004, however, farmers who had been growing Bt cotton for several years found that the benefits of the crop eroded as populations of secondary insect pests, such as mirids, increased. Farmers once again were forced to spray broad-spectrum pesticides throughout the growing season , such that the average revenue for Bt growers was 8 percent lower than that of farmers who grew conventional cotton. Meanwhile, Bt resistance had also evolved in field populations of major cotton pests, including both the cotton bollworm ( Helicoverpa armigera ) and the pink bollworm ( Pectinophora gossypiella ).

Other GM plants were engineered for resistance to a specific chemical herbicide , rather than resistance to a natural predator or pest. Herbicide-resistant crops (HRC) have been available since the mid-1980s; these crops enable effective chemical control of weeds , since only the HRC plants can survive in fields treated with the corresponding herbicide. Many HRCs are resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), enabling liberal application of the chemical, which is highly effective against weeds. Such crops have been especially valuable for no-till farming, which helps prevent soil erosion. However, because HRCs encourage increased application of chemicals to the soil, rather than decreased application, they remain controversial with regard to their environmental impact. In addition, in order to reduce the risk of selecting for herbicide-resistant weeds, farmers must use multiple diverse weed-management strategies.

Another example of a GM crop is golden rice , which originally was intended for Asia and was genetically modified to produce almost 20 times the beta- carotene of previous varieties. Golden rice was created by modifying the rice genome to include a gene from the daffodil Narcissus pseudonarcissus that produces an enzyme known as phyotene synthase and a gene from the bacterium Erwinia uredovora that produces an enzyme called phyotene desaturase. The introduction of these genes enabled beta-carotene, which is converted to vitamin A in the human liver, to accumulate in the rice endosperm —the edible part of the rice plant—thereby increasing the amount of beta-carotene available for vitamin A synthesis in the body. In 2004 the same researchers who developed the original golden rice plant improved upon the model, generating golden rice 2, which showed a 23-fold increase in carotenoid production.

Another form of modified rice was generated to help combat iron deficiency, which impacts close to 30 percent of the world population. This GM crop was engineered by introducing into the rice genome a ferritin gene from the common bean , Phaseolus vulgaris , that produces a protein capable of binding iron, as well as a gene from the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus that produces an enzyme capable of digesting compounds that increase iron bioavailability via digestion of phytate (an inhibitor of iron absorption). The iron-fortified GM rice was engineered to overexpress an existing rice gene that produces a cysteine-rich metallothioneinlike (metal-binding) protein that enhances iron absorption.

A variety of other crops modified to endure the weather extremes common in other parts of the globe are also in production.

Fact sheets

• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Observatory
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Questions and answers /

Food, genetically modified

These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns from WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.

GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry generally).

One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Resistance against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

Generally consumers consider that conventional foods (that have an established record of safe consumption over the history) are safe. Whenever novel varieties of organisms for food use are developed using the traditional breeding methods that had existed before the introduction of gene technology, some of the characteristics of organisms may be altered, either in a positive or a negative way. National food authorities may be called upon to examine the safety of such conventional foods obtained from novel varieties of organisms, but this is not always the case.

In contrast, most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary for GM foods. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.

The WHO Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses aims at assisting national authorities in the identification of foods that should be subject to risk assessment and to recommend appropriate approaches to safety assessment. Should national authorities decide to conduct safety assessment of GM organisms, WHO recommends the use of Codex Alimentarius guidelines (See the answer to Question 11 below).

The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity

As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer

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 adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing

The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and the potential receiving environment. The assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the insertion of the new gene.

Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries GM foods are not yet regulated. Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries which have regulatory provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account health and environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and labelling regimes). In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to evolve.

GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. GM crops with higher nutrient content (e.g. soybeans increased oleic acid) have been also studied recently.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO intergovernmental body responsible for developing the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius, meaning the international food code. Codex developed principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods in 2003.

Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology

The premise of these principles sets out a premarket assessment, performed on a caseby- case basis and including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new gene) Codex also developed three Guidelines:

Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants

Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA microorganisms

Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals

Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and WTO Members are encouraged to harmonize national standards with Codex standards. If trading partners have the same or similar mechanisms for the safety assessment of GM foods, the possibility that one product is approved in one country but rejected in another becomes smaller.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties which took effect in 2003, regulates transboundary movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. The cornerstone of the Protocol is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment.

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. The food safety assessment is usually based on Codex documents.

Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved. In the late 1980s – early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species.

Consumers frequently ask, “what is in it for me?”. Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. vaccines, medicines with improved treatment potential or increased safety). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not significantly cheaper, no increased shelflife, no better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the risk-benefit equation, often without distinguishing between potential environmental impacts and public health effects of GMOs.

Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term effects. Other topics debated by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing for an informed choice of consumers.

The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues under debate are usually very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from country to country. On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer preferences, there is no worldwide consensus to date. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has made significant progress and developed Codex texts relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology in 2011 to ensure consistency on any approach on labelling implemented by Codex members with already adopted Codex provisions.

Depending on the region of the world, people often have different attitudes to food. In addition to nutritional value, food often has societal and historical connotations, and in some instances may have religious importance. Technological modification of food and food production may evoke a negative response among consumers, especially in the absence of sound risk communication on risk assessment efforts and cost/benefit evaluations.

Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. In the FAO/WHO expert consultation in 2003 , WHO and FAO have considered potential problems of the technological divide and the unbalanced distribution of benefits and risks between developed and developing countries and the problem often becomes even more acute through the existence of intellectual property rights and patenting that places an advantage on the strongholds of scientific and technological expertise. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.

Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an undesirable level of control of seed markets by a few chemical companies. Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop protection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the values attached to food. These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the chemical industry in seed markets, the range of varieties used by farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would impact on the food basket of a society as well as in the long run on crop protection (for example, with the development of resistance against insect pests and tolerance of certain herbicides). The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on these chemicals. These groups fear a dominant position of the chemical industry in agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to be sustainable.

Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved resistance against plant disease or drought, crops with increased nutrient levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics. For non-food use, they may include plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as new vaccines.

WHO has been taking an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons:

on the grounds that public health could benefit from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient and/or sustainable food production; and

based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification in order to protect public health. Modern technologies should be thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced.

WHO, together with FAO, has convened several expert consultations on the evaluation of GM foods and provided technical advice for the Codex Alimentarius Commission which was fed into the Codex Guidelines on safety assessment of GM foods. WHO will keep paying due attention to the safety of GM foods from the view of public health protection, in close collaboration with FAO and other international bodies.

Food, Genetically modified

GMOs – Top 3 Pros and Cons

• Pro/Con Arguments
• Did You Know?

Discussion Questions

Take Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

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

Cite This Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

95k Accesses

128 Citations

111 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Environmental biotechnology

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

Similar content being viewed by others

The Chinese public’s awareness and attitudes toward genetically modified foods with different labeling

Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge

Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies

Introduction.

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

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

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

General consumer attitudes of GM food

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors shaping public perception of GM food

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

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

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

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

Source of information on GM foods

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

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

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

Public perception and attitude to policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthen communication to the public, making order out of confusion

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

Government work should transform passivity into initiatives

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

Respect public opinion, improve gradually

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

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

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

Questionnaire development

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participants

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

Approach to distribution

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

Statistical analysis

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

Data availability statement

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Kai Cui & Sharon P. Shoemaker

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Cui .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2017

Revised : 28 January 2018

Accepted : 09 April 2018

Published : 05 June 2018

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Public perception of folate-biofortified genetically modified lettuce varieties in brazil.

• Thaís de Moura Cipriano
• Maria Thereza Macedo Pedroso
• Francisco José Lima Aragão

Transgenic Research (2024)

Assessing knowledge and willingness to use genetically modified crops in Uganda

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

Agriculture & Food Security (2023)

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

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

Phytochemistry Reviews (2023)

Information seeking about genetically modified foods: readability of online information

• Lalitha Samuel
• Sawyer I. Basch
• Joseph Fera

Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2023)

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

• Amman KhokharVoytas
• Muhammad Shahbaz
• Manal Abdullah AlShaqhaa

Functional & Integrative Genomics (2023)

Quick links

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

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

• IAS Preparation
• NCERT Notes for UPSC
• Genetically Modified Crops UPSC Notes

GM Crops - Genetically Modified Crops

In 1996, Genetically Modified (GM) Crops were grown in 6 countries. In 2009, the number of countries using GM crops increased to 25. The year 2019 marks the 24th year of commercialization of biotech crops, and the number of countries using GM crops had increased to 29.

Some examples of GM-modified crops are listed below.

• Genetically Modified Corn that are resistant to larval pests.
• Genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to weed-killers like Roundup.
• Genetically modified maize – used as animal feed, high-fructose corn syrup 
• Genetically modified cotton – This has been approved in India along with 9 other nations.
• Genetically modified Canola – Used as cooking oil, emulsifier in packaged foods.

Aspirants would find this topic very helpful in the IAS Exam .

How Genetically Modified Crops are Made?

Genetic Modification is a technology that involves inserting DNA into the genome of an organism. To produce a GM plant, new DNA is transferred into cells of a plant. These cells are then grown in tissue culture where they transform into plants. The seeds produced by these plants will have new DNA. The most common way of inserting is using gene guns method. The other genetic engineering techniques are electroporation, microinjection and agrobacterium. There are 3 main types of genetic modifications which are listed below.

• Transgenic – plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from other species.
• Cisgenic –  plants are made using genes of the same species or closely related.
• Subgeneric – Alter genetic makeup of a plant without incorporating genes from other plants.

What is the Purpose of Genetically Modified Crops?

The multiple purposes behind genetically modified crops are listed below.

• Higher yields
• Enhanced nutritional value
• Longer shelf life
• Increase resistance to droughts
• Increase resistance to insects, pests.
• Increased resistance to herbicides.

Global GM crop cultivation

• USA (top producer of biotech crops)
• Brazil (second position)
• These countries together account for approximately 90% area of the GM cultivation.
• Soybean, maize, cotton and canola with herbicide tolerance and insect resistance are the major GM crops grown around the world.

Impact of GM crops

• In the period of 23 years (1996-2018), about 17 million farmers, mostly from developing countries, adopted biotech crops, which in turn improved their socio-economic status. 
• It increased crop productivity by 822 million tons;
• Conserving biodiversity by saving 231 million hectares of land;
• Adaptation of GM crops has provided a safer environment by saving 776 million kg of pesticides from being released into the environment; 
• GM crops have been helpful in reducing CO2 emissions by 23 billion kg, equivalent to taking 15.3 million cars off the road for one year (2018); and
• Also, helping alleviate poverty through uplifting the economic situation of 16-17 million small farmers, and their families, totalling >65 million people (2018).

What are the Advantages of Genetically Modified Crops?

• Higher crop yields
• Reduced farm costs
• Increased farm profit
• Safer environment
• More nutritious food 
• The features of first generation crops such as insect resistance and herbicide tolerance have proven their ability to lower farm-level production costs.
• The features of second-generation GM crops include increased nutritional and/or industrial traits.  These crops have more direct benefits to consumers. 
• Non-browning apples
• Non-bruising and low acrylamide potatoes
• Maize varieties with low phytic acid and increased essential amino acids
• Healthier oils from soybean and canola
• Rice enriched with iron, vitamin A and E, and lysine
• Potatoes with higher starch content, and inulin
• Insect resistant eggplant
• Edible vaccines in maize, banana, and potatoes
• Allergen-free nuts

What are the Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Crops?

As per reports, there are various disadvantages of genetically modified crops

• Allergies, other anti-nutritional factors in foods
• Resistance to antibiotics

The above-mentioned disadvantages are not conclusive, and a lot more research is required to throw more light on the same.

GM Crops and the Environment

Environmental benefits.

• Dramatic reduction in pesticide use. GM technology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent.
• Reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.

To read more about greenhouse gases and global warming, check the linked article. 

Potential risks

• GM crops may create new weeds through out-crossing with wild relatives, or simply by persisting in the wild themselves.

• The use of Bt crops will lead to the development of insect resistance to Bt.
• It can cause potential risks to other non-target organisms. 
• The potential for pests to evolve resistance to the toxins produced by GM crops

Genetically Modified Crops:- Download PDF Here

FAQ about Genetically Modified Crops UPSC Notes

What is an example of a genetically modified crop, what are the disadvantages of gmos.

Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Defence Food Research Laboratory, Siddarthanagar, Mysore, 570011 India

K. R. Anilakumar

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

Introduction

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

Foods derived from GM crops

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

Fruits and vegetables

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

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

Vegetable oil

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

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

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

Quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods

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

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

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

Protocol for the testing of genetically modified foods

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

GM foods-merits and demerits

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

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

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

Safety tests on commercial GM crops

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

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

GM soybeans

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

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

GM potatoes

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

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

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

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

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

Allergenicity studies

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

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

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

Risks and controversy

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

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

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

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

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

Allergen databases (Kleter and Peijnenburg 2002 )

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

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

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

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

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

Public concerns-global scenario

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

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

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

Consumer’s attitude towards GM foods

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

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

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

GM foods: issues with respect to India

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

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

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

Traceability of GMOs in the food production chain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gene transfer studies in human volunteers

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

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

Future developments

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

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

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

Contributor Information

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

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

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

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops

Affiliations.

• 1 Food and Resource Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• 2 Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• 3 Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law, New York, NY.
• 4 Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• 5 Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
• 6 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
• 7 Toulouse School of Economics, INRAe, University of Toulouse Capitole, Toulouse, France.
• 8 Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Germany.
• 9 Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Germany.
• 10 Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 11 Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, England.
• PMID: 39208101
• DOI: 10.1126/science.ado9340

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been adopted by some of the world's leading agricultural nations, but the full extent of their environmental impact remains largely unknown. Although concerns regarding the direct environmental effects of GM crops have declined, GM crops have led to indirect changes in agricultural practices, including pesticide use, agricultural expansion, and cropping patterns, with profound environmental implications. Recent studies paint a nuanced picture of these environmental impacts, with mixed effects of GM crop adoption on biodiversity, deforestation, and human health that vary with the GM trait and geographic scale. New GM or gene-edited crops with different traits would likely have different environmental and human health impacts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

• Search in MeSH
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.