gm food essay

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 ]

September 1, 2013

13 min read

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

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

By David H. Freedman

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

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

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

On supporting science journalism

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

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

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

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

Benefits and worries

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

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

Credit: Jen Christiansen

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

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

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

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

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

A clean record

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent doubts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A way forward

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Intelligence Squared U.S.

Debate: should we genetically modify food.

Genomics researcher Alison Van Eenennaam, with Monsanto's Robert Fraley, argues that genetically modified foods have increased farmers' yields and profits around the world. Samuel LaHoz/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

Genomics researcher Alison Van Eenennaam, with Monsanto's Robert Fraley, argues that genetically modified foods have increased farmers' yields and profits around the world.

Many plants we eat today are a result of genetic modifications that would never occur in nature. Scientists have long been altering the genes of food crops, to boost food production and to make crops more pest-, drought- and cold-resistant.

Proponents of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, say that farmers who grow these crops are able to use fewer environmentally damaging pesticides. The increased yields of GMO crops, they also argue, are essential to feeding the world's growing population. And proponents say that numerous studies have shown that genetically modified foods are safe to eat.

Critics, however, say the claims of those benefits are overblown. They say farmers growing GMO crops have actually increased their use of herbicides. And widespread use of the crops, they say, have also led to an increase in herbicide- and pesticide-resistant weeds and insects. And, they argue, there is still no scientific consensus on the long-term safety of these foods.

Four scientists recently took on those questions in an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, facing off two against two on the motion, "Genetically Modify Food." In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Before the debate, the audience at the Kaufman Music Center in New York voted 32 percent in favor of the motion, with 30 percent against and 38 percent undecided. Afterward, 60 percent agreed with the motion, and 31 percent disagreed — making the side arguing in favor of the motion the winners of this debate.

More From The Debate

Those debating:

FOR THE MOTION

Robert Fraley is executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto, where he has worked for more than 30 years. He currently oversees the company's global technology division which includes plant breeding, biotechnology and crop protection research facilities in dozens of countries. Fraley has authored more than 100 publications and patent applications. In 2013, he was honored as a World Food Prize Laureate and is the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2008 National Academy of Sciences Award for the Industrial Application of Science for his work on crop improvement and the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1999.

Alison Van Eenennaam is a genomics and biotechnology researcher and cooperative extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at University of California, Davis. The mission of her extension program is "to provide research and education on the use of animal genomics and biotechnology in livestock production systems." Her outreach program focuses on the development of science-based educational materials, including the controversial biotechnologies of genetic engineering and cloning. She has served on several national committees including the USDA National Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, and as a temporary voting member of the 2010 FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee meeting on the AquAdvantage salmon, a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon. Van Eenennaam was the recipient of the 2014 Borlaug CAST Communication Award.

Science policy consultant Margaret Mellon argues that genetically modified crops have encouraged the evolution of resistant weeds and pests. Samuel LaHoz/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

Science policy consultant Margaret Mellon argues that genetically modified crops have encouraged the evolution of resistant weeds and pests.

AGAINST THE MOTION

Charles Benbrook is a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, and leader of the center's program Measure to Manage: Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health. His career has focused on developing science-based systems for evaluating the public health, environmental and economic impacts of changes in agricultural systems, technology and policy. He spent the first 18 years of his career working in Washington, D.C., first for the Executive Office of the President, then as the staff director for a U.S. House of Representatives agricultural subcommittee. He was the executive director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture, and has run a small consulting firm since 1991. He served as the chief scientist for The Organic Center, based in Washington, D.C., from 2004 to 2012, and has served as an appointed member on the USDA's Advisory Committee on 21st Century Agriculture since 2011. His 2012 peer-reviewed study documenting the big increase in herbicide use triggered by the planting of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. has been downloaded over 110,000 times.

Margaret Mellon is a science policy consultant in the areas of antibiotics, genetic engineering and sustainable agriculture. She holds a doctorate in molecular biology and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1993, Mellon founded the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists to promote the adoption of science-based farming systems that are simultaneously productive, environmentally benign and resilient in the face of stress. The program critically evaluated products of genetic engineering for their contribution to sustainable agriculture and urged the reduction of unnecessary antibiotic use in animal agriculture. After almost 20 years, Mellon stepped down as head of the program in 2012 and, after two additional years as a senior scientist, left UCS in 2014. Mellon has published widely on the potential environmental impacts of biotechnology applications, and served three terms on USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture.

• food safety
• genetically modified food
• genetically engineered food
• genetically modified seeds

Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against 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

Introduction

Legislation, a way to stop it.

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

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

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

For Genetic Modification

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

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

Against Genetic modification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Understanding Genetically Modified Foods by Howard et al.
• Genetically Modified Food: Analysis and Implications
• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Food Production
• Ethical Issues Behind Feeding People With GMOs
• Genetically Modified Organisms: Benefit or Harm?
• A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture
• Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides for Health
• Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger
• Genetically Modified Foods: Pros and Cons
• Genetically Modified Foods: Scientific Resources
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Many publics around world doubt safety of genetically modified foods

Concern about genetically modified foods is widespread globally, with about half of people in 20 publics around the world saying these foods are unsafe to eat, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted between October 2019 and March 2020.

As growth in the world’s population increases demand on the global food supply, nations have debated the role of genetically engineered or genetically modified foods. Advocates see such foods as one route to meeting food production demands.

This analysis is part of a study focused on understanding public opinion across a range of science-related issues. The data reported here comes from a survey conducted in 20 publics across Europe, Russia, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific region from October 2019 to March 2020. The surveys were conducted by face-to-face interviews in Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, India and Brazil. In all other places, the surveys were conducted by telephone. All surveys were conducted with representative samples of adults ages 18 and older in each survey public.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and the survey methodology .

A 20-public median of 48% say genetically modified, or GM, foods are unsafe to eat, while a much smaller median of 13% say GM foods are safe. The survey included an option for people with limited familiarity about GM foods to indicate this; a median of 37% say they don’t know enough to offer a view about the safety of GM foods.

Majorities in places such as Russia (70%), Italy (62%), India (58%) and South Korea (57%) view GM foods as generally unsafe to eat. The balance of opinion tilts negative even in places where sizable shares say they don’t know enough about GM foods to offer a view. For example, 47% of Spaniards say GM foods are unsafe, while just 13% say they are safe to eat. Australia is the only place surveyed where at least as many view GM foods as safe as view them to be unsafe (31% to 31%).

The introduction of genetically modified crops and other developments in biotechnology have dramatically changed agriculture and food production in many parts of the world in recent decades. Some worry about possible health implications from these new practices, though that view is at odds with scientific consensus. A 2016 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine highlighted a consensus among scientific experts in the United States that GM foods are safe. In 2019, an expert panel in Japan came to the same conclusion.

Still, regulations of GM foods are dramatically different around the world. Many European countries, such as France and Germany , have banned growing GM crops. The U.S. and Brazil generally have more favorable regulations for GM crops and are among the world’s largest producers of such crops.

On balance, men and women generally view GM foods as being unsafe rather than safe. Women are especially likely to express concern about the safety of GM foods, however.

In 12 of the 20 publics surveyed, larger shares of women than men describe GM foods as unsafe to eat. For instance, women are at least 10 points more likely than men to see GM foods as unsafe in South Korea (20 points), the U.S. (16 points) and UK (11 points).

The gender gap in the U.S. is in line with previous Center research that found American women are more likely than men to say GM foods are worse for one’s health than non-GM foods (58% to 42% in 2019).

In most places, both those with higher and lower levels of education tend to see genetically modified foods as unsafe to eat. However, people with more education, and specifically those who have completed at least three science courses during their secondary or tertiary schooling, are more inclined to see GM foods as safe. For example, in the Netherlands, 27% of those with at least some postsecondary education who completed two or fewer science courses consider GM foods to be safe, while half of those who completed at least three science courses say the same.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and the survey methodology .

• Food Science
• Medicine & Health

Brian Kennedy is a senior researcher focusing on science and society research at Pew Research Center .

Cary Lynne Thigpen is a former research assistant focusing on science and society .

How Americans View Weight-Loss Drugs and Their Potential Impact on Obesity in the U.S.

Science and scientists held in high esteem across global publics, about half of u.s. adults are wary of health effects of genetically modified foods, but many also see advantages, findings at a glance: nutrition research scientists, findings at a glance: dietitians, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Genetically Modified Foods (GMO), Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 635

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Whether individuals are okay with it or not, we live in a world today where genetically modified foods (GMOs) are everywhere. What is meant by this is that unless an individual only eats organic foods day in and day out, he or she is invariably putting GMOs into his or her mouth every day. After becoming cognizant of this actuality, individuals often worry that they might not be buying the correct and safest products for their families. Therefore, it is imperative that all individuals become aware of the pros and the cons that come with GMOs. (WebMD)

To start off, individuals must come to grasps that at this time and age, it would be increasingly difficult to live a life eating only foods that do not contain GMOs. While this may seem alarming to some, there must be room for clarification as to what exactly are the purposes for GMOs. Often times, food is genetically modified for simple reasons, such as to grow grapes without seeds inside of them. However, other times, modifications are much more drastic, such as changing the color or the taste of a specific pepper. What this means is that scientists are able to acquire a desired taste by combining science with nature.

Despite the fact that there have been a variety of tests by the Food Administration in order to ensure that the food that farmers are growing is safe, there have been numerous reports where the food has not been reported in pristine condition. In general, it has been found that the consumption of a variety of foods with GMOs have been proven to increase the likelihood of an individual developing a food-based allergy. While this is not something grave, it is certainly something that should be taken a look at, given that a food that is being produced deliberately directly affects someone’s personal life. (“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” )

Genetically modified foods should not be regarded as dangerous, for individuals would never produce something that puts someone else’s life at risk. However, one should be cautious about what she decides to consume because of the fact that one does not always know what is inside the food that is being consumed.

A setback about producing GMOs is the fact that they do not have much economic value. This is due to the manner in which GMOs take just as long to grow as normal fruits and vegetables, amongst other foods. What this means is that there is no increase in production, so farmers do not have the ability to distribute their merchandise at faster pace. Perhaps the only advantage that GMOs would have within a market is that fact that they would prove to be great competition against other distributors. Other than that, however, GMOs could prove to be incredibly unprofitable.

An upside to GMOs is that often times, they contain more nutrients than the ordinary, unmodified product. This happens because when the fruits and/or vegetables are being modified, new nutrients must be injected into the foods in order to ensure that the foods will indeed be modified.

It is imperative that all individuals become aware of the pros and the cons that come with GMOs. Because of the fact that not many people are aware of what exactly they are putting into their mouths, it is the farmer’s and distributor’s responsibility that they are able to provide individuals with the best product that is available. One’s safety should never be put at risk just so that a profit can be made from selling something that will only make individuals sick. Therefore, individuals should be more wary of what they put into their mouths and consume.

Works Cited

“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.”  HRF . HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 2 July 2015.

WebMD. “The Truth About GMOs: Are They Safe? What Do We Know?”  WebMD . WebMD, n.d. Web. 2 July 2015.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

11 Rules for Safe Handling of Hazardous Materials, Essay Example

Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects, Term Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

IELTS Essay: Genetically Modified Foods

by Dave | EBooks | 18 Comments

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of genetically modified foods from the real IELTS exam.

It is only available as a full Ebook on my Patreon.com/howtodoielts .

One of the most important issues facing the world today is a shortage of food and some think genetically modified foods are a possible solution.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

You can sign up and get access for as little as $1 a month!

Contributing helps me to publish these essays for students every week, so please consider signing up for my Patreon !

Recommended For You

Latest IELTS Writing Task 1 2024 (Graphs, Charts, Maps, Processes)

by Dave | Sample Answers | 147 Comments

These are the most recent/latest IELTS Writing Task 1 Task topics and questions starting in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and continuing into 2024. ...

Recent IELTS Writing Topics and Questions 2024

by Dave | Sample Answers | 342 Comments

Read here all the newest IELTS questions and topics from 2024 and previous years with sample answers/essays. Be sure to check out my ...

Find my Newest IELTS Post Here – Updated Daily!

by Dave | IELTS FAQ | 18 Comments

IELTS Essay: Fast Food

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 5 Comments

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of fast food becoming cheaper and more available and the advantages/disadvantages. ...

IELTS Essay: Activities for Leisure Time

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 3 Comments

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay from the general training exam on the topic of planning your activities for your leisure time. ...

IELTS Essay: Choosing a Job

by Dave | General Training | 0 Comment

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer from the general training exam on the topic of choosing a job. Jobs come ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

18 Comments

Many people are starving all over the world due to food scarcity, and some are suggesting that one way of combatting this global phenomenon is through modifying the genetics of food. While scientifically enhancing food elements might be an effective way to expand food resources, I disagree that it would do much in terms of curbing worldwide hunger because this scientific innovation will most likely only benefit countries with financial capabilities and ultimately still leave the poorest of the poor lacking food.

Modifying the DNA structure of food offers endless possibilities to humans. Unbeknownst to some people, this innovation is not new and has been used for a long time to grow fruits without seeds as an example. If we move forward with this innovation, we can increase the number of plants we grow, or decrease the harvesting time needed for fruits to ripen. As a result, there would be more food for people to consume. 

However, despite its potential, the cost is one reason why this practice is not implemented worldwide. Genetically modifying food is an expensive process so countries that are already struggling financially to feed their citizens, will not be able to afford this kind of technology. Poverty-stricken societies, mostly living in third-world countries with little to no access to sophisticated innovations, will remain hungry, thereby, not solving this global dilemma. A similar example is vertical farming. This agricultural innovation allows fruits and vegetables to be grown in tall buildings, but despite its tangible benefits to the environment, most countries fail to adopt this technology due to budget. The same can be said in terms of food genetics.

In conclusion, although the modification of food genetics can increase food resources, this does not mean that the benefit will extend to poor countries, and the poor with no budget to keep up with this technology will continue to starve. Therefore, governments all over the world should get involved and look into a more practical way of dealing with famine.

By the way, for those who are correcting their own essays, one way to check grammar is via Grammarly. I downloaded it as a chrome extension, and I would paste my work on gmail so it detects my error. BUT of course, do this only after you’re done writing an essay, otherwise it’s cheating 🙂

well done mate.

Agreed! Try to balance your body paragraphs a bit better, Chris!

World population and dependent rate is increasing daily so, the biggest challenge is to produce adequate foods. Some people think that genetically modify foods is a good option. I agree with this because, genetically improved foods can produce more harvest, adhere to different weather condition and also produce it in short duration. In the past, usually people grow two or three seasons in every year. So that was enough for their consumption throughout the year. Due to higher population and different food choices, it has more demand for foods nowadays. As a result, many countries enhanced their testing and invest more money for genetic improvements. It has been shown great success so far and, we can see those foods are now in the supermarkets. If I take my country as an example, Sri Lankan has been working two seasons each year those days. But nowadays they produce some foods all over the year because of the genetic improvements. Genetically modified foods can adhere to the different weather conditions and produce more harvest than traditional foods. Some people discuss the bad effects of the heretical improvements. Even though we all know it has bad effects, we have no choice to reject it. Still we have the choice to purchase organic foods. But those are more expensive, and everyone cannot afford those in daily basis. If I take chicken meat as an example, it has higher demand, and we cannot fulfill the demand without changing DNA. In These days chicken meat can produce within 45 days. Finally, even though it has some bad effects genetically modified food is a good option unless we find another good way to feed hungry people.

Love your examples – keep doing that.

Lots of little mistakes with grammar and vocabulary thought, so keep working on those!

Food scarcity is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Some people advocate that genetically modified foods can be a viable solution to this problem. From my perspective, this might pose some risk, however, I am largely in agreement with this suggestion. To begin with, why I believe that modified organisms might be the key component of this issue, modified organisms are basically made with altering DNA sequences by genetic engineers, therefore this approach offers endless possibilities to humans. To illustrate this, by changing the DNA structure of food, an upward trend can be maintained in the nutrition levels which food contains, as a result, people who have access to an only limited amount of food might not be suffered from malnutrition a problem which even leads to death. What is more, these changes in genetic material might improve the yield of food, thus with less labour, more people can obtain these valuable nourishments. Moving onto the reason why I claim this might not be an effective solution to hunger, even today most people are not dying from the shortage of food, they are dying on account of the inequity in access to food. Even genetic engineering solved this lack of food problem, this solution will be only available to people who can afford it, hence poverty-stricken people will keep dying from undernourishment.

All in all, what can be concluded from the aforementioned remarks that although genetic engineering might solve this lack of food problem, there will be people who cannot afford it.

Nice essay, Nilüfer!

Really accurate and nice ideas.

The 3rd paragraph could be longer and could use a more specific example. Try rewriting that one.

Over the decades, the advancement of technology increased giving rise for many innovations such as foods which are genetically engineered. Nowadays one of the most important problem faced by the world is food shortage. Few people think that a good solution for this would be genetically modified foods. In my opinion, I believe with the increase of food shortage, the new type of agriculture will be much beneficial.

All around the world, especially many countries in Africa is going though food shortage, where people are starving of hunger each day with no way to getting access to healthy foods. With the introduction of genetically engineered food, lives of these peoples will change massively. Modified food types are been altered to contain all the nutrients such as vitamins and minerals which the body is required in-order to stay healthy making the population healthier than ever before.

With regards to governments, it would be easier to cultivate these types of foods due to reasons for which to grow they require controlled environments which may also result in less labour. The prices may drop with less labour going into production and less resources needed than normal agriculture. Furthermore, extensive number of researches and tests have been conducted with some still going on, the data of these have proven that the newly innovated agriculture food sources show no side effects and risks to the human body.

In conclusion, with the help of genetically engineered foods the shortage of foods around world may drop and populations will be healthier than ever before and governments should promote and fund these types of new innovations.

please can anyone give an estimated band score for this essay and would highly appreciate if tips were given to improve.❤️

Excellent work, Upendra!

While one of the major challenges faced in the 21st century is that of food availability, some believe that genetically engineered crops are a potential solution for the same. I completely back this idea as hybrid crops can be grown in odd weather and are resistant to some diseases.

The primary reason why hybrid plants contributes to food security is that they can be grown in unfavorable environments. This is to say that crops are seasonal and its yield depends on weather conditions, thus, some crops can be grown under controlled climatic conditions such as in poly houses. As a result, not only the yield of the crops is enhanced but also food is available throughout the year. To cite an example, Dubai has reduced its food dependency on imports by 30 percent as they are able to cultivate crops in a desert using hybrid crops grown in a maintained environment. Thus, countries are becoming self-sufficient in the terms of food security and are reducing malnutrition problems in their nations.

Another reason is that genetically modified crops are resistant to some natural diseases such as fungal attacks and their regeneration time is reduced. As the new plants can withstand natural attacks and can reproduce in minimal amount of time, farmers prefer sowing of hybrid plants. Subsequently, the requirement of pesticide use has taken a backseat while the income of farmers has increased, thereby, hybrid plantation is encouraged by farmers. Therefore, getting a sight of winter vegetables in summers is not a big surprise nowadays like carrots in tropical countries like India. For instance, a report published in the editorial section of the Washington post by editor-in-chief Martin Baron in 2015 revealed that genetically enhanced crops has aided the USA to achieve its targets for food safety and security by 50 percent.

To encapsulate, it can be concluded that as the demand of food is rising across the globe, use of hybrid crops is a good solution. I believe they are harvested in all the seasons and their yield is increased over the years since they are prone to natural diseases. Hence, all the nations must encourage farmers to adopt new crops for cultivation in order to resolve food crisis in their country. 

Hi, Can someone check whether the content is appropriate or not. also are the examples relevant to the arguments?

Thanks in advance.

One of the most important issues facing the world today is a shortage of food and some think genetically modified foods are a possible solution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A highly controversial issue today in the air is apropos with paucity of foods. Some people assert that genetically engineered checkbox is a valid way to cover it as well as has sparkling debate on other side too. This essay looks on the both side. However, I am in side with those decrying propagation of an advancement.

Many people in argue with agricultural development with alternation of old food considerably outweigh its merits.There are numerous countries are suffering from poverty and starving of grains such as Africa and NZ. Reproductive method can bring active change and prosperity. This factor can reduce the labour costs which alternatively government can use for production and cultivation process. Due to climate change and environmental issues farmers are unable to feed their pockets ; This remarkable solution leads in their favour too. Every people today are dimly aware of dangerous future with trade depression and dearness where refashioning process can become beneficial for government and community as well.

On contrary point , in the such cases if the results won’t meet with the expectations then situations become more cruel. It is also possible to say that modified process can loose such vitamins and minerals from the original food which is unhealthy. Going with an advancement of moderate lifestyle it raising the scope of side effects and even leads to death also.

To sum up , Both side have major influences on their advantages and disadvantages. It should be countered by concerned with government and citizen’s support possible. Although this thought is an unlikely to-be entirely eliminated in a short term period with better development of technology. In my opinion It is a valuable suggestion of modify the genetic foods.

Good work, Hemangi!

In recent decades, the lack of foods is becoming a massive problem worldwide. Using genetically modified foods (GMO) can be treated as one of the best methods to tackle this issue.

The primary reason for using GMO foods is that they provide an alternative option for farmers to produce at a lower cost. In fact, the production of GMO foods should require less freshwater, fewer pesticides compare to conventional crops. As a result, the farmers may produce the same number of foods at much less price. Furthermore, the price of modified foods also can be attracted to buyers as it can provide cheaper options from them. It can be seen in many developing countries such as Ethiopia or Madagascar, where locals can purchase GMO foods at a reasonable price as the price is 15% less than traditional foods.

Another reason is that genetically modified foods can provide better nutrients to consumers. Due to the research from New York times, thanks to the combination among various kind of foods, it has created the new types of African crops have much more vitamins than traditional crops. It has brought a huge opportunity to farmers in regions where people suffer from nutritional deficiencies. Chad Republic, for example, is one of the poorest countries in Africa, where it does not have much soil with enough nutrients for cultivation. Based on new types of GMO foods, Chad’s national economy has grown massively for the last decade.

In conclusion, the growth of GMO foods is provided the new opportunity for farmers in business world. At the same time, its foods can also bring a higher quality of nutrients to customers

Nice Jimmy and sorry for the late reply – hope your studies are going well!

Overpopulation is one of the most challenging issues among others like globalization, climate change, and deforestation. Around 40 years ago the experts implemented a new project to solve the problem, they initiated to grow GM foods. In the last couple of years, GMO veggies and fruits were spread all over the planet. Many people speak about the negative and positive sides of GM foods, but no one knows what is best for human health.  The primary reason why GM food was created was hunger in undeveloped countries. A couple of decades have passed the problem still exists. In fact, the poor countries are getting poorer and developed countries are refusing consumption of such kinds of food. For instance, in Europe, it is forbidden to plant GM vegetables and fruits due to protect the ecosystem. Furthermore, bumblebees and other insects do not eat GM food eventually, do not pollinate the environment. This became a serious question for scientists putting the entire continent in danger.  In addition, GM foods are new to human DNA, meaning we do not know how they affect our bodies in long term. 30 years of observation seems to be not enough to answer the solid questions. Food is fuel and people are extremely careful what they put inside, even though GM foods cost noticeably affordable some people still prefer to buy organic food.  In conclusion, nowadays GM foods are presented in many countries as alternatives. However not every country is considering GM foods healthy nutrition. In addition, hundreds of doctors believe that GM food was not researched enough. Only time can tell what are consequences. I personally believe that GM foods are not the best solution, it is significant that businesses and government work together and carry on studying these types of foods.

Nice ideas but work on the balance of your paragraphs, Sally.

The conclusion is way too long!

Some people claim that genetically modified foods are the viable solution to curbing the hunger issue throughout the world. Although I agree with this viewpoint, I believe some measures in changing people’s perspective toward these foods should be done in advance.

There is an assumption that scientifically enhanced foods will reduce the problem of food scarcity since one commonly cited advantage of these foods is their mass production as well as their longer shelf life that grossly contributes to alleviating hunger worldwide, especially in poorer countries. In other words, these crops are more abundant, cheaper, and last longer than conventional agricultural products, so they do not decay before reaching the consumer. Moreover, they are more resistant to harmful insects, parasites, and fungi, making them more appealing in terms of mentioned issues and particularly for nations with outdated farming methods.

Nevertheless, there are a number of significant negative points to these nascent types of food, the first of which is their unknown potential dire repercussions to our health. Some studies have declared that these foods will eventually affect our organisms adversely since they have not been used for so long, so their consequences will be flagged up in upcoming decades. Furthermore, not inclined are most people to eat these foods because they prefer those that have not been tampered with in laboratories. Thus, they do not currently help reduce famine throughout the globe, which is a drawback. Should they assist in decreasing starvation rates, the public has to be psychologically persuaded to consume them beforehand by informing them about their benefits.

In conclusion, I support modifying the genetics of food as one of the feasible helpful steps that can be taken to combat the global concern of food shortage, however, more research as well as notifying about their positive side to the society is needed.

Good work, Zeinab!

Some really good adjectives and collocations in your writing that other students can learn a lot from!

Careful of some informal ones like ‘flagged up’ – keep working hard!

Exclusive Ebooks, PDFs and more from me!

Sign up for patreon.

Don't miss out!

"The highest quality materials anywhere on the internet! Dave improved my writing and vocabulary so much. Really affordable options you don't want to miss out on!"

Minh, Vietnam

Hi, I’m Dave! Welcome to my IELTS exclusive resources! Before you commit I want to explain very clearly why there’s no one better to help you learn about IELTS and improve your English at the same time... Read more

Patreon Exclusive Ebooks Available Now!

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.]

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Genetically modified crops and sustainable development: navigating challenges and opportunities

• Published: 21 August 2024

Cite this article

• Rubby Sandhu 1 ,
• Nischay Chaudhary 1 ,
• Rafeeya Shams 2 &
• Kshirod Kumar Dash   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3875-1286 3  

64 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The dominance of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in global agriculture is underscored by the production quantities of GM Maize and GM soybean. This review discusses the global statistics of GM crops mentioning the area of cultivation, production, and adoption rates of GM crops in detail. It relates the comprehensive overview of perception toward GM technology varying across regions, with the younger generation often displaying a preferable outlook. It highlights the environmental benefits of GM crops, explaining the decreased pesticide usage with potential health benefits, and hinting at an indirect decline in cancer occurrences. An overview of advancements in genetic tools have significantly evolved genome editing techniques in agriculture. The use of such tools in the field of agriculture shows promising effects in maintaining sustainable development goals. This review demonstrates that genetic techniques are a responsible and effective tool for generating GM crops to promote sustainable agriculture.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical Evaluation of Genetic Manipulation for Improved Productivity: Is This a Sustainable Agenda?

GM Crop Development: Solution or Another Problem?

Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture for Efficient Farming and Global Food Production

Data availability.

The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Adrio JL, Demain AL. Recombinant organisms for production of industrial products. Bioengineered Bugs. 1: 116–131 (2010).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

AgbioInvestor-GM. GM production—AgbioInvestor-GM. https://gm.agbioinvestor.com/gm-production . Accessed Nov. 3, 2023.

Akinbo O, Obukosia S, Ouedraogo J, Sinebo W, Savadogo M, Timpo S, Mbabazi R, Maredia K, Makinde D, Ambali A. Commercial release of genetically modified crops in Africa: Interface between biosafety regulatory systems and varietal release systems. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12: (2021).

Aldemita RR, Reaño IM ari E, Solis RO, Hautea RA. Trends in global approvals of biotech crops (1992–2014). GM Crops & Food. 6: 150–166 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali S, Nawaz MA, Ghufran M, Hussain SN, Hussein Mohammed AS. GM trust shaped by trust determinants with the impact of risk/benefit framework: the contingent role of food technology neophobia. GM Crops & Food. 12: 170–191 (2021).

Ankeny RA, Bray HJ. Genetically Modified Food. The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics: 95–111 (2018).

Atreya K, Rijal C, Neupane P. Pesticide use in agriculture and chronic health conditions: A survey-based cross-sectional study in Nepal. Archives of Agriculture and Environmental Science. 5: 489–497 (2020).

Baba Y, Sumitani J ichi, Tanaka K, Tani S, Kawaguchi T. Site-saturation mutagenesis for β-glucosidase 1 from Aspergillus aculeatus to accelerate the saccharification of alkaline-pretreated bagasse. Applied microbiology and Biotechnology. 100: 10495–10507 (2016).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Balaško KM, Mikac KM, Bažok R, Lemic D. Modern techniques in Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) control and resistance management: history review and future perspectives. Insects. 11(9): 581 (2020).

Batista R, Fonseca C, Planchon S, Negrão S, Renaut J, Oliveira MM. Environmental stress is the major cause of transcriptomic and proteomic changes in GM and non-GM plants. Scientific Reports 2017: 7:1 7: 1–12 (2017).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bennett R, Buthelezi TJ, Ismael Y, Morse S. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture. 32: 123–128 (2003).

Boedeker W, Watts M, Clausing P, Marquez E. The global distribution of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning: estimations based on a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2020 20:1. 20: 1–19 (2020).

Bonny SPF, Pethick DW, Legrand I, Wierzbicki J, Allen P, Farmer LJ, Gardner GE. European conformation and fat scores have no relationship with eating quality. Animal. 10(6): 996–1006 (2016).

Brankov T, Koviljko L. GM food systems and their economic impact. Vol. 7. CABI (2019).

Brookes G, Barfoot P. Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: case study of maize grown in Spain. International Pest Control. 46: 20–21 (2004).

Google Scholar  

Brookes G, Barfoot P. Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996-2016: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops & Food. 9: 109–139 (2018).

Brookes G, Barfoot P. Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2018: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops & Food. 11: 215–241 (2020).

Brosig S, Bavorova M. Association of attitudes towards genetically modified food among young adults and their referent persons. PLOS ONE. 14: e0211879 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Budnik LT, Scheer E, Burge PS, Baur X. Sensitising effects of genetically modified enzymes used in flavour, fragrance, detergence and pharmaceutical production: cross-sectional study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 74: 39–45 (2017).

Carrière Y, Degain BA, Tabashnik BE. Effects of gene flow between Bt and non-Bt plants in a seed mixture of Cry1A.105 + Cry2Ab corn on performance of corn earworm in Arizona. Pest Management Science. 77: 2106–2113 (2021).

Chang SW, Huang M, Hsieh YH, Luo YT, Wu TT, Tsai CW, Chen CS, Shaw JF. Simultaneous production of fatty acid methyl esters and diglycerides by four recombinant Candida rugosa lipase’s isozymes. Food Chemistry. 155: 140-145 (2014).

Diriba Balcha, L. Regulation-of-genetically-modified-organisms-trade-and-utilization-in-developing-countries. Advances in Crop Science and Technology. 10: (2022).

Domingo JL. Safety assessment of GM plants: An updated review of the scientific literature. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 95: 12–18 (2016).

Eriksson D, Brinch-Pedersen H, Chawade A, Holme IB, Hvoslef-Eide TAK, Ritala A, Teeri TH, Thorstensen T. Scandinavian perspectives on plant gene technology: applications, policies and progress. Physiologia Plantarum. 162: 219–238 (2018).

Ermis E. Halal status of enzymes used in food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 64: 69–73 (2017).

Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 354: 1353–1354 (1999).

FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP . Accessed Nov. 5, 2023.

Fitzpatrick SW, Reid BN. Does gene flow aggravate or alleviate maladaptation to environmental stress in small populations? Evolutionary Applications. 12: 1402–1416 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Forner J, Kleinschmidt D, Meyer EH, Fischer A, Morbitzer R, Lahaye T, Schöttler MA, Bock R. Targeted introduction of heritable point mutations into the plant mitochondrial genome. Nature Plants 2022 8:1 8: 245–256 (2022).

Gao C, Lan D, Liu L, Zhang H, Yang B, Wang Y. Site-directed mutagenesis studies of the aromatic residues at the active site of a lipase from Malassezia globosa. Biochimie. 102: 29–36 (2014).

Garcia-Alonso M, on Novillo C, Kostolaniova P, Martinez Parrilla M, Alcalde E, Podevin N. The EU’s GM crop conundrum. EMBO Reports. 23: e54529 (2022).

Gassmann AJ, Reisig DD. Management of Insect Pests with Bt Crops in the United States. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120220-105502 . 68: 31–49 (2023).

Georges F, Ray H. Genome editing of crops: A renewed opportunity for food security. GM Crops & Food. 8: 1–12 (2017).

Gong BL, Mao RQ, Xiao Y, Jia ML, Zhong XL, Liu Y, Xu PL, Li G. Improvement of enzyme activity and soluble expression of an alkaline protease isolated from oil-polluted mud flat metagenome by random mutagenesis. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 106: 97–105 (2017).

Gouse M. GM maize as subsistence crop: the South African smallholder experience. (2012).

Habib JR, Kinny-Köster B, Amini N, Shoucair S, Cameron JL, Thompson ED, Wolfgang CL. Predictors, patterns, and timing of recurrence provide insight into the disease biology of invasive carcinomas arising in association with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 26(11): 2311–2320 (2022).

He Y, Zhao Y. Technological breakthroughs in generating transgene-free and genetically stable CRISPR-edited plants. aBIOTECH. 1: 88–96 (2020).

Hefferon KL. Nutritionally enhanced food crops; Progress and perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 16: 3895 (2015).

Huang J, Hu R, Pray C, Qiao F, Rozelle S. Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China. Agricultural Economics. 29: 55–67 (2003).

ISAAA. GM Approval Database | ISAAA.org. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp . Accessed Oct. 31, 2023a.

ISAAA. ISAAA Publications - Resources | ISAAA.org. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/ . Accessed Nov. 14, 2023b.

ISAAA Brief 55. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2019 - ISAAA Brief 55-2019 | ISAAA.org. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/55/default.asp . Accessed Nov. 14, 2023.

Janeček Š, Svensson B, MacGregor EA. α-Amylase: an enzyme specificity found in various families of glycoside hydrolases. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 71: 1149–1170 (2014).

Jiao P, Jin S, Chen N, Wang C, Liu S, Qu J, Guan S, Ma Y. Improvement of cold tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.) using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of ZmSAMDC gene. GM Crops & Food. 13: 131–141 (2022).

Karalis DT, Karalis T, Karalis S, Kleisiari AS. Genetically modified products, perspectives and challenges. Cureus. 12: (2020).

Ke Y, Huang WQ, Li JZ, Xie MQ, Luo XC. Enzymatic characteristics of a recombinant neutral protease i (rNpI) from aspergillus oryzae expressed in pichia pastoris. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 60: 12164–12169 (2012).

Khatodia S, Bhatotia K, Passricha N, Khurana SMP, Tuteja N. The CRISPR/Cas genome-editing tool: Application in improvement of crops. Frontiers in Plant Science. 7: 135062 (2016).

Kikulwe E, Wesseler J, Falck-Zepeda J. Attitudes, perceptions, trust. insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite. 57 (2): 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.001 (2011).

Klümper W, Qaim M. A Meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLOS ONE. 9: e111629 (2014).

Koukounaras A, Mellidou I, Patelou E, Kostas S, Shukla V, Engineer C, Kanellis AK. Over-expression of GGP1 and GPP genes enhances ascorbate content and nutritional quality of tomato. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 193: 124–138 (2022).

Kouser S, Qaim M. Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis. Ecological Economics. 70: 2105–2113 (2011).

Kouser S, Qaim M. Valuing financial, health, and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan. Agricultural Economics. 44: 323–335 (2013).

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

Kuo TC, Shaw JF, Lee GC. Conversion of crude Jatropha curcas seed oil into biodiesel using liquid recombinant Candida rugosa lipase isozymes. Bioresource Technology. 192: 54–59 (2015).

Lacchini E, Kiegle E, Castellani M, Adam H, Jouannic S, Gregis V, Kater MM. CRISPR-mediated accelerated domestication of African rice landraces. PLOS ONE. 15: e0229782 (2020).

Leys S, Pauly A, Delcour JA, Courtin CM. Modification of the Secondary Binding Site of Xylanases Illustrates the Impact of Substrate Selectivity on Bread Making. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 64: 5400–5409 (2016).

Li LJ, Wu ZY, Yu Y, Zhang LJ, Zhu YB, Ni H, Chen F. Development and characterization of an α-l-rhamnosidase mutant with improved thermostability and a higher efficiency for debittering orange juice. Food Chemistry. 245: 1070–1078 (2018a).

Li S, Yang Q, Tang B, Chen A. Improvement of enzymatic properties of Rhizopus oryzae α-amylase by site-saturation mutagenesis of histidine 286. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 117: 96–102 (2018b).

Liang Z, Chen K, Li T, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhao Q, Liu J, Zhang H, Liu C, Ran Y, Gao C. Efficient DNA-free genome editing of bread wheat using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nature Communications 2017 8:1. 8: 1–5 (2017).

Liu Y, Fan S, Liu X, Zhang Z, Wang J, Wang Z, Lu F. A highly active alpha amylase from Bacillus licheniformis: directed evolution, enzyme characterization and structural analysis. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 24: 898–904 (2014a).

Liu ZQ, Zhang XH, Xue YP, Xu M, Zheng YG. Improvement of Alcaligenes faecalis nitrilase by gene site saturation mutagenesis and its application in stereospecific biosynthesis of (R)-(-)-mandelic acid. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 62: 4685–4694 (2014b).

Liu Y, Zhang T, Zhang Z, Sun T, Wang J, Lu F. Improvement of cold adaptation of Bacillus alcalophilus alkaline protease by directed evolution. Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic. 106: 117–123 (2014c).

Liu Y, Huang L, Jia L, Gui S, Fu Y, Zheng D, Guo W, Lu F. Improvement of the acid stability of Bacillus licheniformis alpha amylase by site-directed mutagenesis. Process Biochemistry. 58: 174–180 (2017).

Liu J, Hull V, Godfray HCJ, Tilman D, Gleick P, Hoff H, Pahl-Wostl C, Xu Z, Chung MG, Sun J, Li S. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability. 1: 466–476 (2018).

Liu L, Iketani S, Guo Y, Chan JFW, Wang M, Liu L, Ho DD. Striking antibody evasion manifested by the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Nature. 602(7898): 676–681 (2022).

Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature. 399: 214–214 (1999).

Lotz LAP, van de Wiel CCM, Smulders MJM. Genetic engineering at the heart of agroecology. Outlook on Agriculture. 49: 21–28 (2020).

Martinelli L, Karbarz M, Siipi H. Science, safety, and trust: the case of transgenic food. Croatian Medical Journal. 54: 91 (2013).

Mathers JC. Overview of genes, diet and cancer. Genes & Nutrition. 2: 67–70 (2007).

Mathur V, Javid L, Kulshrestha S, Mandal A, Reddy AA. World cultivation of genetically modified crops: Opportunities and Risks. 45–87 (2017).

Metje-Sprink J, Menz J, Modrzejewski D, Sprink T. DNA-Free genome editing: Past, present and future. Frontiers in Plant Science. 9: 427609 (2019).

Midtvedt T. Antibiotic resistance and genetically modified plants. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease. 25: (2014).

Missmer SA, Suarez L, Felkner M, Wang E, Merrill AH, Rothman KJ, Hendricks KA. Exposure to fumonisins and the occurrence of neural tube defects along the Texas-Mexico border. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114: 237–241 (2006).

Møller MS, Svensson B. Structural biology of starch-degrading enzymes and their regulation. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 40: 33–42 (2016).

Mullins E, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, George Firbank L, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Fernandez Dumont A, Moreno FJ. Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology. EFSA Journal. 20: e07044 (2022).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Murthy PS, Kusumoto KI. Acid protease production by Aspergillus oryzae on potato pulp powder with emphasis on glycine releasing activity: A benefit to the food industry. Food and Bioproducts Processing. 96: 180–188 (2015).

Mustapa M, Batcha M, Amin L, Arham A, Mahadi Z, Yusoff N et al. Farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops and their predictors. Journal of Science Food Agriculture. 101(13): 5457–5468. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11194 (2021).

Narayan KB, O’Neill BC, Waldhoff ST, Tebaldi C. Non-parametric projections of national income distribution consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environmental Research Letters. 18(4): 044013 (2023).

Nechaev V, Paptsov A, Mikhailushkin P, Arzhantsev S. Preconditions of Seeds’ Production Enhancement: A Case Study. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 7: (2020).

Nekrasov V, Staskawicz B, Weigel D, Jones JDG, Kamoun S. Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nature Biotechnology 31: 691–693 (2013).

Niu C, Yang P, Luo H, Huang H, Wang Y, Yao B. Engineering of Yersinia phytases to improve pepsin and trypsin resistance and thermostability and application potential in the food and feed industry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 65: 7337–7344 (2017).

Oliver M. Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. Mo Med. 111(6): 492–507 (2014).

Paciello, L, Landi, C, Orilio, P, Di Matteo, M, Zueco, J, Parascandola, P. 2015. Bread making with Saccharomyces cerevisiae CEN.PK113-5D expressing lipase A from Bacillus subtilis: leavening characterisation and aroma enhancement. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 50: 2120–2128

Pandolfo G, Paindaveine D, Porzio GC. Distance‐based depths for directional data. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 46(4): 593–609 (2018).

Park KW, Lee B, Kim CG, Kim DY, Park JY, Ko EM, Jeong SC, Choi KH, Yoon WK, Kim HM. Monitoring the occurrence of genetically modified maize at a grain receiving port and along transportation routes in the Republic of Korea. Food Control. 21: 456–461 (2010).

Pellegrino E, Bedini S, Nuti M, Ercoli L. Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Scientific Reports 2018 8:1. 8: 1–12 (2018).

Prasanna BM, Palacios-Rojas N, Hossain F, Muthusamy V, Menkir A, Dhliwayo T, Ndhlela T, San Vicente F, Nair SK, Vivek BS, Zhang X, Olsen M, Fan X. Molecular breeding for nutritionally enriched maize: Status and prospects. Frontiers in Genetics. 10: (2020).

Pray CE, Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. The Plant Journal. 31: 423–430 (2002).

Purnhagen K, Wesseler J. EU regulation of new plant breeding technologies and their possible economic implications for the EU and beyond. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 43: 1621–1637 (2021).

Raman R. The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review. GM Crops and Food. 8: 195–208 (2017).

Ranum P, Peña JP, Peña-Rosas P, Garcia-Casal MN, Nieves Garcia-Casal M. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1312: 105–112 (2014).

Raza SHA, Hassanin AA, Pant SD, Bing S, Sitohy MZ, Abdelnour SA, Alotaibi MA, Al-Hazani TM, Abd El-Aziz AH, Cheng G, Zan L. Potentials, prospects and applications of genome editing technologies in livestock production. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 29: 1928–1935 (2022).

Ricroch AE, Hénard-Damave MC. Next biotech plants: new traits, crops, developers and technologies for addressing global challenges. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 36: 675–690 (2016).

Rodríguez AV, Rodríguez-Oramas C, Velázquez ES, de la Torre AH, Armendáriz CR, Iruzubieta CC. Myths and realities about genetically modified food: A risk-benefit analysis. Applied Sciences. 12: 2861 (2022).

Ryabtseva SA, Khramtsov AG, Shpak MA, Lodygin AD, Anisimov GS, Sazanova SN, Tabakova YA. Biotechnology of lactulose production: progress, challenges, and prospects. Food Processing: Techniques and Technology. 53: 97 (2023).

Sandin P. How to Label ‘Natural’ Foods: a Matter of Complexity. Food Ethics 2017 1:2. 1: 97–107 (2017).

Santis de B, Stockhofe N, Wal JM, Weesendorp E, Lallès JP, van Dijk J, Kok E, De Giacomo M, Einspanier R, Onori R, Brera C, Bikker P, van der Meulen J, Kleter G. Case studies on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Potential risk scenarios and associated health indicators. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association. 117: 36–65 (2018).

Schwechheimer SK, Park EY, Revuelta JL, Becker J, Wittmann C. Biotechnology of riboflavin. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 100: 2107–2119 (2016).

Sendhil R, Nyika J, Yadav S, Mackolil J, Rama Prashat G, Workie E, Ragupathy R, Ramasundaram P. Genetically modified foods: bibliometric analysis on consumer perception and preference. GM Crops & Food. 13: 65–85 (2022).

Seralini GE. Update on long-term toxicity of agricultural GMOs tolerant to roundup. Environmental Sciences Europe. 32: 1–7 (2020).

Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 50: 4221–4231 (2012).

Shen Q, Zhang Y, Yang R, Pan S, Dong J, Fan Y, Han L. Enhancement of isomerization activity and lactulose production of cellobiose 2-epimerase from Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus. Food Chemistry. 207: 60–67 (2016).

Shukla M, Al-Busaidi KT, Trivedi M, Tiwari RK. Status of research, regulations and challenges for genetically modified crops in India. GM Crops & Food. 9: 173–188 (2018).

Sikora D, Rzymski P. Public Acceptance of GM Foods: A Global Perspective (1999–2019). Policy Issues in Genetically Modified Crops: 293–315 (2021).

Smyth SJ. The human health benefits from GM crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 18: 887–888 (2020).

Srivastava N. Production of food-processing enzymes from recombinant microorganisms. Enzymes in Food Biotechnology: 739–767 (2019).

Statista. Adoption of GM technology major crops worldwide by type, 2019 | Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262288/global-adoption-rate-major-biotech-crops-worldwide/ . Accessed Nov. 5, 2023.

Tamang JP, Watanabe K, Holzapfel WH. Review: Diversity of microorganisms in global fermented foods and beverages. Frontiers in Microbiology. 7: 181961 (2016).

Tang Q, Lan D, Yang B, Khan FI, Wang Y. Site-directed mutagenesis studies of hydrophobic residues in the lid region of T1 lipase. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 119: 1600107 (2017).

Thomson JA, Thomson JA. The pros and cons of GM crops. Functional Plant Biology. 45: 297–304 (2017).

Tian K, Tai K, Chua BJW, Li Z. Directed evolution of Thermomyces lanuginosus lipase to enhance methanol tolerance for efficient production of biodiesel from waste grease. Bioresource Technology. 245: 1491–1497 (2017).

Trapero C, Wilson IW, Stiller WN, Wilson LJ. Enhancing integrated pest management in GM cotton systems using host plant resistance. Frontiers in Plant Science. 7: 500 (2016).

Touyz LZG. Genetically modified foods, cancer, and diet: myths and reality. Current Oncology. 20: e59 (2013).

Townsend T. World natural fibre production and employment. Handbook of Natural Fibres: Second Edition. 1: 15–36 (2020).

Tripathi L, Dhugga KS, Ntui VO, Runo S, Syombua ED, Muiruri S, Wen Z, Tripathi JN. Genome Editing for Sustainable Agriculture in Africa. Frontiers in Genome Editing. 4: 876697 (2022).

Tseng MC, Roel A, Deambrosi E, Terra JA, Zorrilla G, Riccetto S, Pittelkow CM. Towards actionable research frameworks for sustainable intensification in high-yielding rice systems. Scientific Reports 2020 10:1. 10: 1–13 (2020).

Turnbull C, Lillemo M, Hvoslef-Eide TAK. Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom – A Review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12: (2021).

Viana CM, Freire D, Abrantes P, Rocha J, Pereira P. Agricultural land systems importance for supporting food security and sustainable development goals: A systematic review. Science of The Total Environment. 806: 150718 (2022).

Waters S, Ramos A, Culler AH, Hunst P, Zeph L, Gast R, Mahadeo D, Sottosanto J, Huber S, Shan G, Chakravarthy S, Goodwin L. Recommendations for Science-Based Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified (GM) Plants for Food and Feed Uses. Journal of Regulatory Science. 9: 16–21 (2021).

Weng M, Deng X, Bao W, Zhu L, Wu J, Cai Y, Jia Y, Zheng Z, Zou G. Improving the activity of the subtilisin nattokinase by site-directed mutagenesis and molecular dynamics simulation. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 465: 580–586 (2015).

Wesseler J, Zilberman D. The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition. Environment and Development Economics. 19: 724–742 (2014).

Yu XW, Yang M, Jiang C, Zhang X, Xu Y. N-glycosylation engineering to improve the constitutive expression of Rhizopus oryzae lipase in Komagataella phaffii. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 65: 6009-6015 (2017).

Zhang C, Hu R, Huang J, Huang X, Shi G, Li Y, Yin Y, Chen Z. Health effect of agricultural pesticide use in China: implications for the development of GM crops. Scientific Reports 2016 6:1. 6: 1–8 (2016a).

Zhang W, Jia M, Yu S, Zhang T, Zhou L, Jiang B, Mu W. Improving the thermostability and catalytic efficiency of the d-psicose 3-epimerase from Clostridium bolteae ATCC BAA-613 using site-directed mutagenesis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 64: 3386–3393 (2016b).

Zhang YHP, Sun J, Ma Y. Biomanufacturing: history and perspective. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology. 44: 773-784 (2017).

Zhao HY, Feng H. Engineering Bacillus pumilus alkaline serine protease to increase its low-temperature proteolytic activity by directed evolution. BMC Biotechnology. 18: (2018).

Zheng Q, Wang HH. Do consumers view the genetically modified food labeling systems differently? “Contains GMO” versus “Non-GMO” labels. The Chinese Economy. 54: 376–388 (2021).

Zhu F, Jiang T, Wu B, He B. Enhancement of Z-aspartame synthesis by rational engineering of metalloprotease. Food Chemistry. 253: 30–36 (2018).

Download references

No funding was received for conducting this study. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, 144411, India

Rubby Sandhu & Nischay Chaudhary

Department of Food Technology and Nutrition, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, 144411, India

Rafeeya Shams

Department of Food Processing Technology, Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering and Technology, Malda, West Bengal, 732141, India

Kshirod Kumar Dash

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rubby Sandhu or Kshirod Kumar Dash .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sandhu, R., Chaudhary, N., Shams, R. et al. Genetically modified crops and sustainable development: navigating challenges and opportunities. Food Sci Biotechnol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-024-01669-y

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2024

Revised : 13 July 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 21 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-024-01669-y

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

• Genetic tools
• Sustainable development goals
• Health and nutrition
• Environmental constraints
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Science — GMO — Genetically Modified Foods: For or Against

Genetically Modified Foods: for Or Against

• Categories: Genetic Modification GMO

About this sample

Words: 2026 |

11 min read

Published: Apr 11, 2019

Words: 2026 | Pages: 4 | 11 min read

Introduction

• Greater yield by altering the DNA to produce more crops - allowing for more food to be available to consumers.
• Longer life due to the fact that crops can be made resilient to diseases, pests and drought.
• Plants are also being made to produce more nutrients. According to livestrong.com, Asian countries are planting Genetically Modified rice with an increased number of iron and vitamins needed by the human body.
• GMC’s can also prove to be helpful in reducing the excessive use of the world’s natural resources. Due to the fact that plants can be made more efficient by, for example, needing less water, farmers can limit the need for water as well as limit land use and soil corrosion, hence save water as well as energy, making farming more eco-friendly.
• “The creation of “Super weeds” according to vittana.orgvittana.org vittana.org- Because GMC’s have been made more weed resistant, natural selection may occur due to weeds becoming stronger against the chemicals designed to destroy them.
• Increased allergic responses in humans due to protein/allergen present in the GM crops
• Production of toxins if the “desired trait” is damaged when being placed into the DNA molecule.
• Ingredients may be cancerous – Dr. Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, raised the concern that GMCs could increase the growth of malignant tumors upon contact with humans. Later, other studies suggested a link between engineered food and cancer.
• Cross pollination: Genes from GM crops spreading to other plants may be good with other food crops attaining harm resistant qualities, however, the genes could spread to weeds and cause them to be hard to kill.
• Pest-resistant crops may harm animals: The gene that deters pests from the crop could also be harmful to the animals that eat them; however, there is a study that shows that these genes do not have an effect on the human body nor animals according to Science YouTuber, Kurzgesagt.

Final Thoughts

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 295 words

1 pages / 384 words

2 pages / 835 words

1 pages / 471 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on GMO

Genetically modified organisms are organisms with changed genetic structure. Nowadays GMO are one of the main debatable question in the modern world. Every day we buy vegetables and fruits in our shops or markets, but we do not [...]

In “The Indifference Engine”, written by Project Itoh in 2007, the questionable idea of genetic modification of humans is brought to the front of the reader’s attention. This act is made even more questionable due to the fact [...]

Genetically engineered crops appear to be safe to eat and do not harm the environment, according to a new analysis by the advisory group the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. It is unclear whether the [...]

The paper I chose for this assignment was “Regulation of the Mdm2-p53 pathway by the ubiquitin E3 ligase MARCH7” (Zhao et al., 2017). I determined that I wanted to use this paper as it directly relates to the specific lecture [...]

Understanding the structure of the human genome allowed scientists to study the actual function of specific genes, which is very important in understanding health and disease. DNA microarray is one technique that enhances the [...]

There are some studies that have been done in the Arab world, which showed a relationship between certain genes and obesity. A study of the association of leptin with obesity and metabolic syndrome was done in Tunis on 160 obese [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

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

Be careful. This essay is not unique

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

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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