The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (April 2012)

Genetically modified foods or biotech foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise^[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding; plant breeding, and animal breeding, and somaclonal variation. Since genetically modified food has been introduced into supermarkets, there has been much controversy as to whether it is actually safe.

Genetically Modified foods (GM foods) were first put on the market in 1996. Typically, genetically modified foods are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, rice, and cotton seed oil. Animal products have also been developed, although as of July 2010 none are currently on the market.^[2] In 2006 a pig was^[3][4] engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene.^[5] Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%.^[6]

Critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues,^[7] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

Method[link]

Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. In the process of cisgenesis, genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could not be conventionally bred. In the process of transgenesis, genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require transferring genes as part of an attenuated virus genome or physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host using a microsyringe, or as a coating on gold nanoparticles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.

The method to introduce new genes into plants requires several important factors such as specific promoter, codon usage of the gene and how to deactivate the gene. The specific promoter must relate to area that we want the gene to express. For instance, if we want the gene to express only in the rice instead of the leaf then we would only use an endosperm specific promoter. The reason is because we only want our transgenic genes to express only in the rice and not the leaves. The codon usage of the gene must also be more optimized for the rice since there are several different codons for each of the 20 amino acid. The transgenic genes should also be able to be denatured by heat in order for human consumption.

History[link]

The beginning of genetically modified foods can be traced back to the 1980s when scientists discovered that pieces of DNA can transfer between organisms. The first genetically modified plant was produced a short time later, in 1983 using an antibiotic resistant tobacco plant. In 1994, the tomato was genetically modified for human consumption. This genetic modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking. Afterwards in 1995, a biotech company Monsanto introduced herbicide immune soybean also known as the Roundup ready. Also in 1995, the Bt Potato was approved safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA. In 1996, the first genetically modified Canola was available on the market. In the year 2000, scientist discovered that they were able to genetically modify foods to increase their nutrient value. In the year 2005, Alfafa began being marketed in the USA. As of 2011, the U.S. leads a list of multiple countries in the production of GM crops. ^[8]

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was a tomato (called FlavrSavr), which was modified to ripen without softening, by Calgene, later a subsidiary of Monsanto.^[9] Calgene took the initiative to obtain FDA approval for its release in 1994 without any special labeling, although legally no such approval was required.^[10] It was welcomed by consumers who purchased them at a substantial premium over the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems^[9] and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A tomato produced using similar technology to the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.^[11][12] The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. Currently, there are a number of food species in which a genetically modified version exists (percent modified are mostly 2009/2010 data).^{[13][14][15][16][17][18]}

Genetically Modified Crops[link]

In addition, various genetically engineered micro-organisms are routinely used as sources of enzymes for the manufacture of a variety of processed foods. These include alpha-amylase from bacteria, which converts starch to simple sugars, chymosin from bacteria or fungi that clots milk protein for cheese making, and pectinesterase from fungi which improves fruit juice clarity.^[28]

Genetically Modified Animals[link]

Genetically engineered animals are a powerful method of introducing desirable traits into animals using [recombinant DNA] technology by adding, changing or removing certain DNA sequences to modify the characteristics of the animal. ^[29] The process of genetically engineering animals is a slow and tedious process that requires a large amount of funds. Thanks to new technologies being introduced, genetically modifying animals is becoming easier and more precise. This is not only transforming science, but could also transform the food we eat. ^[30]

The first transgenic (genetically modified animal), was produced by injecting DNA into eggs, implanting the eggs in animals and then waiting weeks or months to see if any offspring had incorporated the extra DNA. At first only about 10% performed correctly, in the end making this a long and expensive.^[31]

Genetically modified animals currently being developed can be placed into six different broad classes based on the intended purpose of the genetic modification: (1) to inhance production or food quality traits (faster growing fish, pigs that expel less toxins); (2) to improve animal health (disease resistance); (3) to produce products intended for human theraputic use (pharmacutical products or tissue for implantation); (4) to inrich or inhance the animals' interactions with humans (hypo-allerganic pets); (5) to deveolop animal models for human diseases (pigs as models for cardiovascular disease); (6) and to produce industrial or consumer products (fibers for multiple uses). ^[32]

New traits can be introduced into animals. Here's how it works for animals engineered to produce a human pharmaceutical. Diagram to the right.

1. Generation of the DNA Construct

A. Milk Protein Promoter DNA: allows for expression only in goat mammary glands.

B. Therapeutic Protein Gene: encodes a protein known to treat disease in people.

C. Terminator Sequence: assures that only the gene of interest is controlled by A.

D. Other DNA Sequences: helps with the introduction of the new combination DNA strand.

2. The DNA construct is created by combining A, B, C and D.

3. This new DNA strand is then introduced by any of a number of methods into an animal cell, such as an egg, that is then used to produce a genetically engineered animal.

4. The first genetically engineered goat is produced.

5. The offspring of the first genetically engineered goats, referred to as production animals, are milked. The milk is transferred to a purification facility.

6. The drug to be used to treat human disease is purified from the goat's milk. ^[33]

Enviropig: Enviropig is a genetically enhanced line of Yorkshire pigs created with the capability of digesting plant phosphorus more efficiently than conventional Yorkshire pigs.^[34] These pigs produce the enzyme phytase (breaks down the indigestible phosphorus) in the salivary glands that is secreted in the saliva. The enzyme phytase is introduced into the pig chromosome by pronuclear [microinjection]. With this enzyme, Enviropig is able to digest cereal grain phosphorus, so there is then no need to supplement the pigs diet with either phosphate mineralsor commercially produced phytase, yielding less phosphorus in the manure.^[34]

Enviropig has beneficial attributes; it reduces feeds costs because farmers are not required to purchase special feed for their pigs which include the phytase, and reduces the potential of water pollution.^[34] High concentrations of phosphorus in water streams cause an outbreak in algal growth, because phosphorus is the major nutrient which enables algal to grow.^[34] The increase in algal population decreases the amount of oxygen in the waters resulting in dead zones for fish because the algal depletes the waters oxygen. This would not only be advantageous for the waters surrounding the pigs, but also for the water neighboring the areas which use the manure for fertilizers.

As of now, there are not regulations or pending approvals on the Enviropig for human consumption according to the FDA.org website.

Cows with human genes: In 2011, Chinese scientist have been breeding cows genetically engineered with genes for human beings to produce milk that would be the same as human breast milk.^[35] This would possible be beneficial for the mothers who cannot produce breast milk but want their children to receive the benefits from breast milk rather than formula.

Goats that produce silk in their milk: A company called biosteel has genetically engineered goats to produce milk with strong spider web like silk proteins in their milk.^[36] This product is not used for consumption, but to make bulletproof vest and anti-ballistic missile systems for military contracts instead.^[36]

Pigs that glow in the dark: In 2006 Taiwan scientist used genetic material from a jelly fish and implanted it into pigs embryos.^[37] The result was that depicted to the right, pigs that glow bright green in the dark. The pigs whole body including its internal organs glow green. In the daylight, these pigs have a slight tinge of green on their skin, snout and teeth.^[38]

Growing GM crops[link]

Between 1996 and 2011, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 94, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 1,600,000 km² (395 million acres).^[39] 10% of the world's crop lands were planted with GM crops in 2010.^[40]

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. A total of 29 countries worldwide grew GM crops in 2011 by approximately 16.7 million farmers and 50% of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries. For example, the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops in 2011 was in Brazil (303,000 km² versus 254,000 km² in 2010). There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed) with 106,000 km² of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011.^[39] In 2011, countries that grew the most transgenic crops were the United States, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar, Burkino Faso, Mexico and Spain.^[39]

In the US, by 2009/10, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties.^[13][14] Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). These constitute "input-traits" which are aimed to financially benefit the producers, but may have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated in 2003 that 70-75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contained a GM ingredient.^[41]

In India, GM cotton yields in Andhra Pradesh were no better than non-GM cotton in 2002, the first year of commercial GM cotton planting. This was because there was a severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year and the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to extreme drought. Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu had an average 42% increase in yield with GM cotton in the same year.^[42] Drought resistant variants were developed and, with the substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2011 88% of Indian cotton was GM.^[39] Though disputed^[43][44] the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.^[45][46]

Recent Commercial Growth Standards[link]

As of 2011 the U.S. leads in the commercial growth of genetically producing about 69 million hectares that year. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and India also produce a significant amount of genetically modified crops as seen on the chart below.

Destruction of Trial crops[link]

Within the UK and many other European countries many trial crops are frequently destroyed. The protesters claim the destruction of the crops creates opportunities to be heard. The primary concern of the campaigners though is contamination of existing crops could destroy existing markets. (organic produce) Scientists take many precautions to minimise the risks as much as possible and admit the risk of contamination is small. However, campaigners counter with examples of widespread contamination that has already occurred despite assurances and promises from scientists. The scientists give several reasons for the need for trials - climate change, a growing global population and reduced use of chemicals. The campaigners draw attention to natural and organic solutions to reduce chemical use and question the usefulness of the trials (eg field trials in the UK for a crop designed for Africa) ^[47]

Important GM Court Rulings[link]

North America[link]

Alfalfa: In 2005, after completing a 28-page Environmental Assessment (EA)^[48] the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) nonregulated status.^[49] In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (and others) challenged this deregulation in the California Northern District Court^[50] The District Court ruled that the USDA's EA did not address two issues concerning RRA's effect on the environment ^[51] and in 2007, required the USDA to complete a much more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Until the EIS was completed, they banned further planting of RRA.^[52] The USDA proposed a partial deregulation of RRA but this was also rejected by the District Court.^[50] Planting of RRA was halted. Monsanto (and others) appealed in 2010 to the US Supreme Court. In June 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the District Court that the USDA was required to complete an EIS before deregulating RRA. However the Supreme Court overturned the District Court decision to ban planting RRA nationwide as there was no evidence of irreparable injury. They ruled that the USDA could partially deregulate RRA before an EIS was completed.^[50] The USDA chose not to allow partial deregulation as the EIS was almost complete. Their 2,300 page EIS was published in December 2010.^[53] It concluded that RRA would not affect the environment. After a comment period the USDA deregulated RRA in January 2011 and planting resumed.^[54] A new lawsuit by the Center for Food Safety (and others) to stop further development of Roundup Ready alfalfa was filed against USDA in March 2011.^[55]

Sugar beets: Between 2009 and 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California considered the case involving the planting of genetically modified sugar beets.^[56] This case involves Monsanto's breed of pesticide-resistant sugar beets.^[57] Earlier in 2010, Judge Jeffrey S. White allowed the planting of GM sugar beets to continue, but he also warned that this may be blocked in the future while an environmental review was taking place. On 13 August 2010, Judge White ordered a halt to the planting of the genetically modified sugar beets in the US. He indicated that "the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences before approving them for commercial cultivation." The decision was the result of a lawsuit organised by the Center for Food Safety, a US non-governmental organization that is a critic of biotech crops.^[58] On the 25th February 2011, a federal appeals court for the Northern district of California in San Francisco overturned a previous ruling by Judge Jeffrey S. White to destroy juvenile GM sugar beets, ruling in favor of Monsanto, the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and four seed companies. The court concluded that " The Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely." ^[59] In February 2011, The USDA allowed commercial planting of GM sugar beet under closely controlled conditions.^[60][61]

Regulation[link]

North America[link]

Health Canada is the regulating agency for all GM foods in Canada. Along with assessing the safety of all GM foods, it requires companies producing these food to submit detailed scientific data before this food is approved. This data includes:

• information on how the GM plant was developed
• nucleic acid data that characterizes the genetic change
• composition and nutritional data of the novel food compared to the original non-modified food
• potential for new toxins
• and potential for being an allergen

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a lesser role in GM foods regulation in Canada. The agency regulates the environmental release of GM crops and animal feed made from GM foods. ^[62]

The USA In 1986 it was determined that there was no need to make new laws to regulate genetically modified food. This policy stated, “A commercial product, regardless of its manner of production, should be regulated based on the product’s composition and its intended use.” This just means that food should be regulated in the way that it has always been regulated. Since the genetically modified foods are complex in production the means of regulation are very complex. Three major agencies; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the production and safety of genetically modified food. ^[63]

The [Food and Drug Administration] (FDA) plays a significant role in the regulation of genetically modified food, obligated to ensure the safety of the food and drugs for both animals and humans. Within the organization are departments that regulate different areas of GM food including, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN,) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).^[64]

The major role of the [Environmental Protection Agency] (EPA) in the regulation of Genetically modified food is to govern the use of pesticides. This includes all of the testing of any pesticide used. This also consist of pesticide residues in food,non-pesticides potential toxicities, and potentially dangerous microorganisms.^[65]

The role of the [United States Department of Agriculture] (USDA) in the regulation of GM foods is to ensure the safety of meat, poultry, eggs, and related products. Under the scope of these obligations includes the things that these animal eat; controlling plant pest and toxic weeds. A Department within the USDA that also is responsible for GM foods includes the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) which is responsible for biotechnology regulations. ^[66]

Several laws govern the US regulatory agencies. These laws are statutes the agencies review when determining the safety of a particular GM food. These laws include:^[67]

• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (EPA);
• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (EPA);
• The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (FDA and EPA);
• The Plant Protection Act (PPA) (USDA);
• The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (VSTA) (USDA);
• The Public Health Service Act (PHSA)(FDA);
• The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (FDA)
• The Meat Inspection Act (MIA)(USDA);
• The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (USDA);
• The Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (USDA); and
• The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

South America[link]

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.

Relevant Organisations in Brazil might include, Ministry of Health, National Health Surveillance Agency, Ministry of Agriculture.

Europe[link]

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.

Relevant organisations in the UK might include, Department of Health, Health Protection Agency, National Institute for Biological, Standards and Control, Food Standards Agency, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Asia[link]

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.

The Japanese have a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Crop yields[link]

A 1999 study by Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist of the Organic Center,^[68] found that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans did not increase yields.^[69] The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans had a yield drag of 5.3% across all varieties tested. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 2–5 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans compared to other popular weed management systems.^[70]

However, research published in Science in 2003 has shown that the use of genetically modified Bt cotton in India increased yields by 60% over the period 1998–2001 while the number of applications of insecticides against bollworm were three times less on average.^[71]

A 2008 Soil Association report found that some scientific studies claimed that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher crop yields than normal plants.^[72]

In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn).^[73] Unlike many other studies, this work separated the yield contribution of the engineered gene from that of the many naturally occurring yield genes in crops.

The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases.

The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.

A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM crops worldwide.^[74][75] On average, farmers in developed countries experienced increase in yield of 6% and in underdeveloped countries of 29%. Tillage was decreased by 25–58% on herbicide resistant soybeans, insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76% and 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results.

Coexistence and traceability[link]

The United States and Canada do not require labeling of genetically modified foods.^[76] However in certain other regions, such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia, governments have required labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.^[77][78] This requires a labeling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain.^[77][78]

For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved.^[79] This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.^{[citation needed]} Many countries have established labeling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.^{[citation needed]}

In a January 2010 paper^[80] the extraction and detection of DNA along a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, 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 genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before and represents an important accomplishment regarding the traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."

Detection[link]

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. These tests can be 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 GMOs,^[81] combining different approaches (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.

PLU codes[link]

A 5-digit Price Look-Up code beginning with the digit 8 indicates genetically modified food.^[82] However the absence of the "8" does not necessarily indicate the food is not genetically modified since no retailer to date has elected to use the digit in voluntarily labeling genetically modified foods.^[83]

Controversy[link]

To combat the controversy, in May of 2000, the Clinton administration’s Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology established a committee. This committee was set up to conduct a six month investigation into the safety of the foods and to make sure that all federal regulations were upheld. After the investigation the committee was to report and if necessary make suggestions in order to improve the process. After the six months were up, lots of research was done but no improvements were suggested. ^[84]

While it is evident that there is a food supply issue,^[85][86][87] the question is whether GM can solve world hunger problems, or even if that would be the best way to address the issue. Several scientists argue that in order to meet the demand for food in the developing world, a second Green Revolution with increased use of GM crops is needed.^{[88][dubious – discuss]} Others argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production.^[89][90] Recently some critics and environmentalists have changed their minds on the issue with respect to the need for additional food supplies.^[91][92][93]

“Genetic modification is analogous to nuclear power: nobody loves it, but climate change has made its adoption imperative,” says economist Paul Collier of Oxford University. "Declining genetic modification makes a complicated issue more complex. Genetic modification offers both faster crop adaptation and a biological, rather than chemical, approach to yield increases."^[94]

On the other hand, many believe that GM food has not been a success and that we should devote our efforts and money into another solution. “We need biodiversity intensification that works with nature’s nutrient and water cycles, not against them,” says Vandana Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, the movement of 500,000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India, who argue that GMFs have not increased yields. Recently, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, published a report called “Failure to Yield”, in which he stated that in a nearly 20 year record, genetically engineered crops have not increased yields substantially of food and livestock feed crops in the United States.^[95]

Some claim that genetically modified food help farmers produce, despite the odds or any environmental barriers. “While new technology must be tested before it is commercially released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all,” says Per Pinstrup-Andersen, professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Per Pinstrup-Andersen argues, “Misguided anti-science ideology and failure by governments to prioritize agricultural and rural development in developing countries brought us the food crisis.” He clearly states the challenge we face is not the challenge of whether we have enough resources to produce, but whether we will change our behavior.^[96]

In March 2011 a coalition of family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture held a town meeting to protest what they see as unfair consolidation of the nation's food system into the hands of a few multinationals. They contend that global biotech seed leader Monsanto controls the U.S. commercial seed market using unfair, and in some cases illegal, practices. They argue that Monsanto, which develops, licenses and markets genetically altered corn, soybeans and other crops, manipulates the seed market by buying up independent seed companies, patenting seed products, and then spiking prices. The group hopes to re-establish farmer rights to save seed from their harvested crops and replant it.^[97][98]

In May 2012, a group called "Take the Flour Back", led by a Pembrokeshire Farmer, aimed a protest against plans by a group from Rothamsted_Experimental_Station, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, to stage an experimental trial to use genetically modified wheat to repel aphids (SOURCE: http://taketheflourback.org/). The group from Rothamsted Research Group, led by John Pickett, wrote a letter to the group "Take the Flour Back" in early May 2012, asking them to call off their protest, aimed for May 27, 2012. (SOURCE: http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/arable/scientists-urge-protestors-not-to-trash-gm-trials/46673.article). One of the members of Take the Flour Back, Lucy Harrap, speaking to the BBC, said that the group were concerned that the fact that the trial was taking place in the open air rather than a laboratory could lead to contamination, and cited examples of outcomes in the United States and Canada to support the group's claim. (SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17928172). John Pickett and Gerald Miles (the Pembrokeshire farmer in question) appeared on the Radio Four programme Today to discuss the issue in early May 2012.

Economic and environmental effects[link]

Adoption of genetically-engineered crops in the United States.^[99]

• Many proponents of genetically engineered crops claim they lower pesticide usage and have brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations.^[100] For example, a 2010 study by US scientists, found that the economic benefit of Bt corn to farmers in five mid-west states was $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years. They were surprised that the majority ($4.3 billion) of the benefit accrued to non-Bt corn. This was speculated to be because the European Corn Borers that attack the Bt corn die and there are fewer left to attack the non-GM corn nearby.^[101][102]

• The United States has seen a widespread adoption of genetically-engineered corn, cotton and soybean crops since 1996 (see figure).^[99]

• In 2010, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported that genetically engineered crops had resulted in reduced pesticide application and reduced soil erosion from tilling. The report also stated that the advent of glyphosate-herbicide resistant weeds—that have developed because of the use of engineered crops—could cause the genetically engineered crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other established weed management strategies.^[103][104]

• In a study by Scientists at the University of Arkansas published in 2010 showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola they tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes, and they also found some plants that contained resistance to both herbicides, a combination of transgenic traits that had not been developed in canola crops. "That leads us to believe that these wild populations that contain modified genes have become established populations."^{[105][106][107]}

• In September 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that "superweeds" which are resistant to glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) have become an emerging problem; in response, plants are being engineered to become resistant to multiple herbicides to allow farmers to use a mixed group of two, three, or four different chemicals.^[108]

International Disputes and Bans[link]

• In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.^[109]
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.^[110] However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."^[111][112]
• In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.^[113]
• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU.
• On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly caused by cross-pollination with conventional crops.^[114]
• On September 28, 2008, Ecuador prohibited genetically engineerd crops and seeds in its 2008 Constitution, approved by 64% of the population in a referendum (Article 15).^[115]
• On February 9, 2010, Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, imposed a moratorium on the cultivation of GMF "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and confidence".^[116] His decision was made after protest from several groups responding to regulatory approval of the cultivation of Bt brinjal, a GM eggplant in October, 2009.

In recent years, France and several other European countries banned Monsanto's MON-810 corn and similar genetically modified food crops. In late 2007, the U.S. ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union in an attempt to fight the French ban and changes in European policy toward genetically modified crops, according to a U.S. government diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks. The U.S. ambassador to France recommended retaliation to cause "some pain across the EU."^[117][118]

Intellectual property[link]

Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. It should be noted that this does not apply in more agriculturally developed countries for some crops. Corn is one example where producers generally have not saved seed since the early 1900s with the advent of hybrid corn through selective breeding. Seed producers grow the seed corn instead due to the effort needed to produce hybrids.^[119] The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose the beneficial traits of the parents, resulting in the loss of hybrid vigor. In these cases, the use of hybrid plants has been the primary reason for growers not saving seed, not intellectual property issues, and has been in practice well before genetically-modified seed was developed. However, the practice of not saving seed in non-hybrid crops, such as soybean, is mainly due to intellectual property regulations. Allowing to follow this practice with genetically modified seed would result in seed developers losing the ability to profit from their breeding work. Therefore, genetically-modified seed is subject to licensing by their developers in contracts that are written to prevent farmers from following this practice.^[120]

Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95–98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto Company's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.^[121] The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court found that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.^[122]

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties (Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor.^[121][122] The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefited from his use of the genetically modified seed.

In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."^[123]

Future developments[link]

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B,^[124] 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 plastics with unique properties.^[125] 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. Safety testing of these products will also, at the same time, be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.^[126][127]

Health risks[link]

In the United States, the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition reviews summaries of food safety data developed and voluntarily submitted by developers of engineered foods, in part on the basis of comparability to conventionally-produced foods. There are no specific tests required by FDA to determine safety. FDA does not approve the safety of engineered foods^{[citation needed]}, but after its review, acknowledges that the developer of the food has asserted that it is safe. The table below shows the foods that have been reviewed by FDA as of 2002.^[128]

A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.^[129] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."^[7] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."^[130]

Worldwide, there are a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM pressure group AgBioWorld has argued that GM foods have been proven safe,^[131] while other pressure groups and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association,^[132] and Greenpeace^[133] claim the long term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated.

In 1998 Rowett Research Institute scientist Árpád Pusztai reported that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had adverse intestinal effects on rats.^[134] Pusztai eventually published a letter, co-authored by Stanley Ewen, in the journal, The Lancet. The letter claimed to show that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes.^[135] The experiment modified potatoes to add a toxin (snowdrop lectin), but the experiment failed to include a control for the toxin alone or a control for genetic modifications alone (without added toxin); therefore, no conclusion could be made about the safety of the genetic engineering. The experiment has been criticised by other scientists on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet and that all the rats may have been sick, due to their being fed a diet of only potatoes.^[136]

In 2009 three scientists (Vendômois et al.) published a statistical re-analysis of three feeding trials that had previously been published by others as establishing the safety of genetically modified corn.^{[137][138][139]} The new article claimed that their statistics instead showed that the three patented crops (MON 810, MON 863, and NK 603) developed and owned by Monsanto cause liver, kidney, and heart damage in mammals.^[140] A 2007 analysis of part of this data by the same group of scientists funded by Greenpeace^[141] was assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists in a study funded by Monsanto and published in the journal Food and chemical toxicology. Some reviewers reported that the study was statistically flawed and providing no evidence of adverse effects.^[142] The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois et al. study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."^[143][144] An evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority of the 2009 and 2007 studies noted that most of the results were within natural variation and they did not consider any of the effects reported biologically relevant.^[145][146] A review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the 2009 Vendômois et al. study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.^[147]

Gene transfer[link]

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had previously had their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy 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.^[148] Anti-GM advocates believe the study should prompt additional testing to determine its significance.^[149] 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.^[150][151]

Two studies on the possible effects of feeding genetically modified feeds to animals found that there was no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from genetically modified plants.^[152][153] 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 GMP plants.

Allergies[link]

In the mid 1990s, Pioneer Hi-Bred tested the allergenicity of a transgenic soybean that expressed a Brazil nut seed storage protein in hope that the seeds would have increased levels of the amino acid methionine. The tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing) showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new GM soybean.^[154] Pioneer has indicated that it will not develop commercial cultivars containing Brazil nut protein because the protein is likely to be an allergen.^[155]

Human exposure to pesticides produced in GM foods[link]

A 2011 study, the first to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure to BT toxin (a protein having insecticidal effects on certain insects, produced by a gene from a soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) produced in genetically modified maize and to determine exposure levels of the pesticides and their metabolites, reported the presence of pesticides associated with GM foods in both non-pregnant women and pregnant women and their fetuses. ^[156][157] The paper did not discuss safety implications or find any health problems. The paper has been found to be unconvincing by several authors and organizations. ^{[158][159][160]}

See also[link]

• Genetically modified plant
• International trade of genetically modified foods
• Plant breeding
• The Non-GMO Project
• The GMO Truth
• Plant Transformation Lab

References[link]