Genetically modified food

A genetically modified food is a food product derived in whole or part from a genetically modified organism (GMO) such as a crop plant, animal or microbe, such as yeast. Genetically modified foods produced by genetic engineering have been available since the 1990s. The principal ingredients of these GM foods are derived from soybean, maize, canola and cottonseed oil.

Some governments, such as those in the European Union and Japan, have emphasised risks over benefits from GM foods and require mandatory labelling and traceability, while others, such as the United States, have regulatory agencies that have no such requirements. This has led to the United States claiming that bans on the sale of GM products violate free trade agreements and has resulted in trade wars over the requirements for GM food products. Many scientific institutions, even in the European Union and Japan, however, do not judge the risk of unintended changes in composition of GM foods to exceed the risk currently exhibited by conventional crops.

Development and application

The general principle of producing a GMO is to add novel genetic material into an organism's genome to cause both new and useful traits. Often these novel traits would not be possible by conventional breeding.

Origin of genetic engineering

The origins of genetic engineering represent a series of sequential scientific advances from the discovery of DNA to the production of the first recombinant bacteria (E .coli) expressing a frog gene in 1973. This led to concerns in the scientific community about the possible risks from genetic engineering and led to biologists meeting at the Asilomar Conference in Pacific Grove, California. The recommendations layed out from this conference were that government oversight of recombinant DNA research should be established until the technology was deemed safe. Herbert Boyer then founded the first company to use recombinant DNA technology, Genentech, and in 1978 the company announced that it had produced a strain of E. coli that could produce the human insulin protein.

First crops

The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop, was a tomato created by California company Calgene called the FlavrSavr. Calgene submitted it to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for assessment in 1992; the agency determined that the FlavrSavr was in fact a tomato, did not constitute a health hazard, and did not need special labeling. Calgene released it into the market in 1994, where it was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of standard tomatoes. However, production problems, and competition from a conventionally bred Long-Shelf-Life (LSL) variety prevented the product from becoming profitable, and Calgene was bought by Monsanto in 1995. A variant of the FlavrSavr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. Its labelling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment which proved that, at the time, European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. This attitude would be drastically changed after outbreaks of Mad cow disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto's Roundup-Ready soybeans.

The next GM crops included insect protected cotton, introduced into the United States and Australia in 1996, and herbicide tolerant soybeans. These crops have been widely adopted both in the United States, and in countries that (unlike the European Union) depend heavily on unsubsidised farming (e.g. the Australian cotton industry). They have also been extensively planted in several developing countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) where agriculture is a major part of the total economy. Other successful GM crops include insect protected maize and herbicide tolerant maize cotton and rapeseed varieties.

Commercial crops

Transgenic crops are grown commercially or in field trials in over 40 countries and on 6 continents. In 2000, about 109.2 million acres (442,000 km²) were planted with transgenic crops, the principal ones being herbicide- and insecticide-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a US strain of a virus that affects one out of the more than 89 different varieties of sweet potato grown in Africa, rice with increased iron and vitamins such as golden rice, maize with enhanced levels of the essential nutrient lysine which provides better quality protein for animal feeds, and a variety of plants able to better tolerate non-biological stresses which are commonly encountered in a normal growing season, such as water, and nitrogen limitation, or survive extreme growing conditions, such as high-salinity or acidic soils, or hot weather. Such traits can provide more reliable crop performance over an extended period of cultivation.

Transgenic rice has been developed by a Californian company to improve oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea. In sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America and Asia, diarrhea is the number-two infectious killer of children under the age of five, accounting for some two million deaths a year. Recent 2005-6 trials in a Peruvian Hospital have demonstrated that specialized milk proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme made in transgenic rice plants improve the effectiveness of oral rehydration solution used to treat diarrhea.

Many countries grow GMO crops

Between 1996 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55% were in the United States.

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km² in 2005 versus 50,000 km² in 2004. There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2006/7 32,000 km² of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100% from the previous season).

Indian national average cotton yields have been boosted to close 50% above the long term average yield during this period. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.

In 2005 the crops were grown by 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries, 90% of whom were resource-poor farmers from developing countries, and 60% of global soybean area, 28% cotton, 18% canola, and 14% global maize were sown to genetically modified varieties. The area sown in 2002 was 145 million acres (587,000 km²) and for 2003 was 167 million acres (676,000 km²). In 2004, the value was about 200 million acres (809,000 km²).

Four countries represent 99% of total GM surface in 2001: United States (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%) and China (3%). It is estimated that 70% of products on U.S. grocery shelves include GM-derived ingredients. In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These consitute "input-traits" that financially benefit the producers, yet have only indirect environmental and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% maize was genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensus Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.

Future developments

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. While their practability or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development.

Benefits and risks

The majority of commercially available crops have an agronomic advantage like herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. These traits offer major benefits to the farmer and the environment. Importantly, economic benefits of GM crops in developing countries are more significant compared to industrialised countries because agriculture in these countries is a larger part of the economy, and employs a larger fraction of the labor force, and often agriculture suffers from losses of crops to insects which are remedied in insect protected GM crops. However, in industrialised countries, the consumer benefits from GM traits are mainly indirect, and channeled through their benefits to the environment, including promotion of efficient use of available arable land and water.

GM crops have shown to contribute to significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion liters in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. GM cotton has greatly reduced synthetic pesticide use in the US, Australia and India.

Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.

Safety testing

In the USA regulation of a genetically modified food is determined by the objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food, irrespective of the way it was developed. FDA policy states that a formal pre-market review by the FDA is to be taken when the objective characteristics of any substance added to the food raises issues of safety

Prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to submit documentation to the FDA to demonstrate its safety and then await approval before selling it to consumers

The context for assessing safety of novel foods is the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components but are still able to be consumed safely. For instance, potatoes and tomatoes can contain toxic levels of solanine and alpha-tomatine alkaloids respectively., and this situation is recognised in the concept of "Substantial Equivalence" that was developed by the OECD in 1993 as a criterion for identifying whether a novel food is at least as safe as the equivalent existing food. The US FDA takes a safety assessment approach that is consistent with this OECD concept in their regulation of novel foods (including those made by recombinant DNA methods. This policy is outlined in an FDA statement.

Critics of GM food believe this regulatory model fails to sufficiently protect consumers and claim that the FDA is subject to pressure and influence by industry. One concern these critics voice is that novel crop may have unintended changes in composition that have been unintentionally created during the insertion of new genetic material. On the other hand, plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops .

Safety assurance and benefits

By 2006, near to 150 scientific publications had reported on the nutritional value of animals feeds (and food) derived from genetically modified crops as compared to their conventional counterparts. These studies also followed the fates of DNA and novel proteins after ingestion by animals, and more recently, provided comprehensive fingerprinting of protein profiles (which is usually called a proteomics approach ) or comprehensive fingerprinting of metabolites (known as a metabolomics approach) where GM crops compared to their non-GM counterparts.

Scientific reviews of this research have concentrated so far on the first generation of genetically modified plants, with no intended gross changes in composition. These reviews find that with the first generation of genetically modified crops, there are no significant differences in feed or nutritional value as compared to nutritional performance of the corresponding conventional crop, and that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins are found in any organ or tissue sample obtained from animals fed modified materials.

Comprehensive chemical fingerprinting of GM potatoes in comparison with conventional potato varieties has shown that, apart from the intended changes in food composition, the GM potatoes appeared to be substantially equivalent to traditional cultivars. Other detailed comparisons of detailed protein profiles of both GM and conventional pototoes)) detected a great deal of variation in protein profiles of different conventonally potato varieties, but found considerably fewer differences in protein profile due to insertion of a new trait by genetic engineering.

Mycotoxins are chemicals made by molds that are detrimental to human health. Many different mycotoxins are produced by various fungi such as Aspergillus or Fusarium species that grow on plants. Some of these chemicals cause liver damage, or cause cancer. In the case of the chemical called fumonisin, which is mycotoxin produced by certain Fusarium fungal species that are natural colonizers of maize plants, the fungal toxin is known to cause (i) severe human birth defects when pregnant women ingest food such as tortillas made from moldy maize, and (ii) cancer in adults when either men or women drink maize based alcoholic beverages fermented from mouldy maize. These food safety problems are serious health issues in regions where maize is a staple food in Central America, South Africa and China.

Fungal growth on maize is promoted by moisture, climatic factors, and most notably, insect predation. Several reports demonstrate that insect protected GM maize can have lower mycotoxin levels due to reduced insect damage to the crop. World-wide trade losses from mycotoxin presence in maize are hundreds of millions $US annually, with the United States, China, and Argentina suffering the greatest losses. The reduction of mycotoxins provided by Bt corn has been estimated to provide the United States alone a total benefit of $23 million annually.

Controversies over risks

Although no major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 12 years ago, and close to 150 studies are published to attest their safety , consumer rights groups such as the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace emphasise the long term health risks which GM could pose, or that the risks of GM have not yet been adequately investigated.

Unnecessary delays to GM crop use by farmers pose another kind of risk. Agricultural scientist and economists express concern about the harm delaying welfare and environmental improvements, for instance by pro-vitamin A enriched Golden rice which has the potential to prevent much childhood death from infectious disease, and insect protected Bt rice which can reduce exposure of farmers to synthetic insecticides.

Toxic GM-potatoes?

In August 1998 widespread concern, especially in Europe, was sparked by remarks by nutrition researcher, Dr Árpád Pusztai, regarding some of his research into the safety of GM foods.

Pusztai claimed his experiments showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically engineered to express a lectin from snowdrop had suffered serious damage to their immune systems and shown stunted growth. The lectin expressed by the genetically modified potatoes is toxic to insects and nematodes and is allegedly toxic to mammals. He was criticized by leading British politicians, the majority of scientific peers with expertise in the area and by the GM companies because the announcement of his results in a television interview, preceded the scientific publication of his results. When his studies were finally published in The Lancet, no evidence of stunted growth or damage to immune system was substantiated. The Lancet paper's actual summary was:

Diets containing genetically modified (GM) potatoes expressing the lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) had variable effects on different parts of the rat gastrointestinal tract. Some effects, such as the proliferation of the gastric mucosa, were mainly due to the expression of the GNA transgene. However, other parts of the construct or the genetic transformation (or both) could also have contributed to the overall biological effects of the GNA-GM potatoes, particularly on the small intestine and caecum.

The paper was accompanied by an editorial explanation for allowing the paper's publication ( Genetically modified foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue?), and an independent critique which had a contrary evaluation of the data: Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. This was followed by a lively follow up debate in several later issues of the journal.

The British Royal Society sent Pustztai data to six independent reviewers whose expertise included statistics, clinical trials, physiology, nutrition, quantitative genetics, growth and development, and immunology. The reviewers regarded the data as not adequate to support the conclusions because of

• poor experimental design, possibly exacerbated by lack of ‘blind’ measurements resulting in unintentionally biased results;
• uncertainty about the differences in chemical composition between strains of non-GM and GM potatoes;
• possible dietary differences due to non-systematic dietary enrichment to meet Home Office and other requirements;
• the small sample numbers used in experiments testing several diets (all of which were non-standard diets for the animals used) and which resulted in multiple comparisons;
• application of inappropriate statistical techniques in the analysis of results;
• lack of consistency of findings within and between experiments.

Nonetheless, controversy about Pusztai's assertions still lingers, caused by strongly held but opposing views on his conclusions and data. On the one hand, there are claims of misrepresentation of Pusztai's results by Rowett Research Institute, but on the other hand, there are concerns by scientists about overstatement of the quality of his findings by NGOs, and emphasis on matters well removed from the actual laboratory observations which are rarely discussed in public debate, against the context well over one hundred other studies published by 2006 that support the safety of GM foods and feeds, and commentaries such as that of Nina Fedoroff .

Research protocols were sent by Pusztai to 24 independent scientists in different countries (including experts in physiology, medicine, toxic pathology, nutrition, microbiology and biochemistry). These disagree with the conclusions of the review committee and argued that his research was of good quality and justified his conclusions. Among 'casualties' in these events was Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition and former top scientist at the Rowett Institute who was fired for publicly defending Pusztai's research.

Various reports concerning the politicisation of the peer review process and alleged deliberate misrepresentation of Pusztai's results were voiced by newspapers and some scientists.

Dangerous corn?

Another controversy recently arose around biotech company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on a strain of GM corn. In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences called into question the regulatory doctrine of substantial equivalence - that GM food with similar proteins and toxins is deemed no different from conventional food, without further investigation of the effects of any other differences. Some argued that this study suggested human health might be affected by eating GM food.

However, the EU regulatory authorities that examined the Monsanto data concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats. Thus, certain government authorities concluded that there were no effects on the functioning of kidneys in rats fed a diet of GM corn

Allergenicity

A gene for an allergenic trait has been transferred unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered soybeans while intending to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use. Brazil nuts were already known to produce food allergies in certain people prior to this study. In 1993 Pioneer Hi-Bred International developed a soybean variety with an added gene from the Brazil nut. This trait increased the levels in the GM soybean of the natural essential amino acid methionine, a protein building block commonly added to poultry feed to improve effective protein quality. Investigation of the GM soybeans revealed that they produced immunological reactions with people suffering from Brazil nut allergy, and the explanation for this is that the methionine rich protein chosen by Pineer Hi-Bred is the major source of Brazil nut allergy. Pioneer discontinued further development of the GM soybean and had all material related to the modified soybeans destroyed.

While this study indicates the possible risks of GM foods, and indeed any new food source, some point out it establishes the commitment the developmental community has toward consumer safety as well as the competence of current safeguards. Food allergy problems occur with many conventional foods, and Kiwi fruit, for instance, as a relatively new food in many communities, has become widely eaten despite provoking allergies in certain individuals.

Another allergy issue was published in November 2005, when a pest resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice.

Respected plant scientist Maarten J Chrispeels has made interesting comments about this example that illustrate how foods offer many different types of risks:

The recent Prescott et al paper in JFAC contains a very interesting study on the immunogenicity of amylase [starch digestion enzyme] inhibitor in its native form (isolated from beans) and expressed as a transgene in peas. First of all, amylase inhibitor is a food protein, but also a "toxic" protein because it inhibits our digestive amylases. This is one of the reasons you have to cook your beans! (The other toxic bean protein is phytohemagglutinin and it is much more toxic). This particular amylase inhibitor is found in the common bean (other species have other amylase inhibitors). Even though it is a food protein, it is unlikely ever to be used for genetic engineering of human foods because it inhibits our amylases. What the results show is that the protein, when synthesized in pea cotyledons has a different immunogenicity than when it is isolated from bean cotyledons (the native form). This is somewhat surprising but may be related to the presence of slightly different carbohydrate chains.

The immunologist who tested the pea noted that the episode illustrated the need for each new GM food to be very carefully evaluated for potential health effects.

Environmental and ecological impacts

As discussed above there is some evidence for positive impacts of the planting of GM crops on reduced greenhouse gas emissions and pesticide loads in the environment. However, there has been controversy over the results of a farm-scale trial in the United Kingdom comparing the impact of GM crops and conventional crops on farmland biodiversity. Some claimed that the results showed that GM crops had a significant negative impact on wildlife.

Others pointed out that the studies showed that using herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer weed seeds. This result was then extrapolated to suggest that GM crops would have significant impact on the wildlife that might rely on farm weeds. In July 2005 the same British scientists showed that transfer of a herbicide-resistance gene from GM oilseed rape to a wild cousin, charlock, and wild turnips was possible.

Many agricultural scientists and food policy specialists view GM crops as an important element in sustainable food security and environmental management. This point of view is summarised in the ABIC Manifesto:

On our planet, 18% of the land mass is used for agricultural production. This fraction cannot be increased substantially. It is absolutely essential that the yield per unit of land increases beyond current levels given that: The human population is still growing, and will reach about nine billion by 2040;70,000 km² of agricultural land (equivalent to 60% of the German agricultural area) are lost annually to growth of cities and other non-agricultural uses; Consumer diets in developing countries are increasingly changing from plant-based proteins to animal protein, a trend that requires a greater amount of crop-based feed.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

Main article: Bovine somatotropin

Monsanto developed a recombinant version of the bovine growth hormone Somatotropin (rbST or rbGH), which goes by the brand name Posilac®. Injected into dairy cattle, the product can increase milk production from 10% up to 40%. This hormone is used in the USA but is banned in Europe where health concerns for consumers are cited as reasons for the ban. The FDA has stated that there is no test which can detect the presence of the hormone in milk, and that there is no evidence for adverse health effects However, some dairies have stopped using the hormone due to the serious negative impact it has on the ability of cows to conceive, and because of the experience that cows often developed severe infections requiring treatment with antibiotics.

Public perception

Research by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has shown that in 2005 Americans' knowledge of genetically modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and their opinions reflect that they are particularly uncomfortable with animal cloning. The Pew survey also showed that despite continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products are safe.

Interestingly, about 550 Amish farmers in Pennsylvania have adopted GM crops, because they allow for less intensive farming (less pesticides, etc.), are more productive (under these specific conditions), and do not conflict with the Amish lifestyle.

Opponents of genetically modified food often refer to it as "Frankenfood", after Mary Shelley's character in her novel Frankenstein. The term was coined in 1992 by Paul Lewis, an English professor at Boston College who used the word in a letter he wrote to the New York Times in response to the decision of the US Food and Drug Administration to allow companies to market genetically modified food. The term "Frankenfood" has become a battle cry of the European side in the US-EU agricultural trade war.

The authors of The Frankenfood Myth provide some support for genetically modified food:

• Henry I. Miller of Stanford's Hoover Institution and Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute make the case that foods modified by recombinant DNA splicing present no new or special dangers, but in fact may improve the lives of countless millions worldwide. [12]

Intellectual Property

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

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

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew roundup-ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor. The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and gylphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety.

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

Policy around the world

Some argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the problem is food distribution, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.

Others oppose genetic engineering on the grounds that genetic modifications might have unforeseen consequences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been developed that are toxic to plant eating insects (see Bt corn). It has been alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a putative impact on Maize biodiversity. Subsequent to the publication of these results, several scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on experiments with design flaws. It is well known that the results from the Polymerase Chain Reaction method of analysing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of the results - however these controls were not included in the methods used by Quist and Chapela. After this criticism Nature, the scientific journal where this data was originally published concluded that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper". More recent attempts to replicate the original studies have concluded that genetically modified corn is absent from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004 [13] Also in dispute is the impact on biodiversity of the introgression of transgenes into wild populations [14]. Unless a transgene offers a massive selective advantage in a wild population, a transgene that enters such a population will be maintained at a low gene frequency. In such situations it can be argued that such an introgression actually increases biodiversity rather than lowers it.

Activists opposed to genetic engineering say that with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, and the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments carries potentially unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems.

Some fear that certain types of genetically engineered crops will further reduce biodiversity in the cropland, and eventually even lead to the extinction of certain species; this has already been observed in the past, for example after humans have introduced species into habitats that were not prepared for them; herbicide-tolerant crops will, for example, be treated with the relevant herbicide to the extent that there are no wild plants ('weeds') able to survive, and plants toxic to insects will mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which feed on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources. The recent (2003) farm scale studies in the UK found this to be the case with GM sugar beet and GM rapeseed, but not with GM maize (though in the last instance, the non-GM comparison maize crop had also been treated with environmentally-damaging pesticides subsequently (2004) withdrawn from use in the EU).

Although some scientists have claimed that breeding is a form of genetic engineering, (e.g., maize was modified from teosinte, dogs have evolved with human intervention over the course of tens of thousands of years from wolves), others assert that modern transgenesis-based genetic engineering is capable of delivering changes faster than, and sometimes of different types from, traditional breeding methods.

Proponents of current genetic techniques as applied to food plants cite the benefits that the technology can have, for example, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. They say that with modifications, existing crops would be able to thrive under the relatively hostile conditions providing much needed food to their people. Proponents also cite golden rice and golden rice 2, genetically engineered rice varieties (still under development) that contain elevated vitamin A levels. There is hope that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency that contributes to the death of millions and permanent blindness of 500,000 annually.

Proponents say that genetically-engineered crops are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the past, and are as safe or even safer than such methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes. There have been no known genetic catastrophes as a result of this. They argue that animal husbandry and crop breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their work to be closely investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.

Proponents also note that species or genera barriers have been crossed in nature in the past. An oft-cited example is today's modern red wheat variety, which is the result of two natural crossings made long ago. It is made up of three groups of seven chromosomes. Each of those three groups came from a different wild wheat grass. First, a cross between two of the grasses occurred, creating the durum wheats, which were the commercial grains of the first civilizations up through the Roman Republic. Then a cross occurred between that 14-chromosome durum wheat and another wild grass to create what became modern red wheat at the time of the Roman Empire.

Economic and political effects

• Many opponents of current genetic engineering believe the increasing use of GM in major crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining excessive control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.
• Many proponents of current genetic engineering techniques believe it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations [15]. A few genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year's planting.
• In August 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. Although there were claims that this left a famine-stricken population without food aid, the U.N. program succeeded in replacing the rejected grain with other sources, including some foods purchased locally with European cash donations. In rejecting the maize, Zambians cited the "Precautionary Principle" and also the desire to protect future possibilities of grain exports to Europe.
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize. [16]. However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods." [17] [18]
• In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela. [19]
• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, although these were agreed authorized by the EU. [20]

See also

• Food security
• Biosafety Protocol
• Organic food
• Substantial equivalence
• Plant breeding
• United States Department of Agriculture
• Foreign Agricultural Service
• Food and Agriculture Organization
• Developing country
• International development
• International Fund for Agricultural Development

References

• Huang, J. et al. 2002. Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295:674-677.
• Niu, 2003. Caution in China over GM Crops. Science 299: 1013
• Lei, W. 2004. China Could Be First Nation to Approve Sale of GM Rice. Science 306:1458-1459.
• Robert Ali Brac De La PerriFre and Franck Seuret (2001), Brave New Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers, Zed Books
• Stephen Nottingham (2003), Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is Entering Our Diet, Zed Books
• http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

External links

• 'GM Foods - Safe?' Scientific discussion by the Vega Science Trust and the BBC/OU
• Food Security and Ag-Biotech News
• FAO Agriculture Department and its SOFA report on Agricultural Biotechnology addressing GM food safety
• Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects 2004
• Global knowledge Center for Crop Biotechnology
• Information Systems for Biotechnology
• Mendel in the Kitchen: Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown, NAS 2004
• CheckBiotech - Sponsored by the University of Basel, Switzerland. Uni Basel's "Biozentrum" is a center for life sciences study, and CheckBiotech provides authoritative current commentaries and news.
• Genetically Modified Crops – A summary for non-specialists of the above FAO report by GreenFacts
• GMO Compass - Information on genetically modified organisms Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• Eppendorf Biochip Systems New technology for GMO detection: DualChip GMO microarrays
• Everything you wanted to know about GM organisms — Provided by New Scientist.
• US FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
• Gateway to Government Food Safety Information
• Council for Responsible Genetics FAQ on GM food
• Approved GM crop database
• CBC Digital Archives – Genetically Modified Food: A Growing Debate
• Seeds of Deception- book by a non-scientist highly recommended by the Organic farming and anti-GM movements
• GM Watch [21]
• Let Them Eat Precaution. How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture. By Byrne, J., Conko, G., Entine, J., Gilland, T., Hoban, T. H., Moore, P., Natsios, A. S, Newell-McGloughlin, M., Paarlberg, R. L. , Prakash, C. S., Tucker Foreman, C., Edited by Jon Entine AEI Press (Washington) 2006. Facets of the GM crop debate not covered by antagonists to the technology.
• Food of the Future?

Center for Food Safety. "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers," 2005.[22]

ETC Group. "Canadian Supreme Court Tramples Farmers‚ Rights," May 21, 2004.[23]

ETC Group. "Oligopoly Inc., 2005," December 16, 2005.[24]

Freese, W. & Schubert, D. "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods." Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21, November 2004.

• Fedoroff. N., Analysis of Pusztai Study on GM Potatoes and their effect on Rats

Independent Science Panel. The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World,"2003.[25]

McHughen, A. Pandora's Picnic Basket : The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, Oxford University Press, 2000

Pusztai, A. "Pusztai Answers His Critics,"2005.[26]

Pusztai, A. "National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of GE Crops," 2006.[27]

Ribeiro, S. "Las Ratas de Monsanto." La Jornada (México), June 11, 2005.

Shiva, V. Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply, South End Press, 2000.

Smith, J. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating. Yes! Books/Chelsea Green Publishing.[28]

Smith, J. "Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice," 2005.[29]

Smith, J. "Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food," 2006.[30]

TexPIRG Education Fund. "Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," 2005.

Tokar, B.(ed.) Redesigning Life? Zed Books, 2001.

Union of Concerned Scientists. "Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, 2004.[31]