Genetically modified food

Adoption by farmers has been rapid, between 1996 and 2013, the total surface area of land cultivated with GM crops increased by a factor of 100.[97] Geographically though the spread has been uneven, with strong growth in the Americas and parts of Asia and little in Europe and Africa^[91] in 2013 only 10% of world cropland was GM, with the US, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina being 90% of that.^[21] Its socioeconomic spread has been more even, with approximately 54% of worldwide GM crops grown in developing countries in 2013.^[97] Although doubts have been raised,^[98] most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers through decreased pesticide use as well as increased crop yield and farm profit.^{[99][100][101]}

Fruits and vegetables

Long before humans began using transgenics, sweet potato emerged naturally 8000 years ago by embedding of genes from bacteria, that increased its sugar content. Kyndt et al 2015 finds Agrobacterium tumefaciens DNA from this natural transgenic event still in the crop's genome today.^{[102][103]: 141 [104][105]}

As of 2005, about 13% of the Zucchini grown in the US was genetically modified to resist three viruses; that variety is also grown in Canada.^[119][120]

In 2013, the USDA approved the import of a GM pineapple that is pink in color and that "overexpresses" a gene derived from tangerines and suppress other genes, increasing production of lycopene. The plant's flowering cycle was changed to provide for more uniform growth and quality. The fruit "does not have the ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have been harvested", according to USDA APHIS. According to Del Monte's submission, the pineapples are commercially grown in a "monoculture" that prevents seed production, as the plant's flowers aren't exposed to compatible pollen sources. Importation into Hawaii is banned for "plant sanitation" reasons.^[121] Del Monte launched sales of their pink pineapples in October 2020, marketed under the name "Pinkglow".^[122]

In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,^[123] becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the US.^[124] Gene silencing is used to reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing the fruit from browning.^[125]

Maize/corn

Soybeans accounted for half of all genetically modified crops planted in 2014.[96] Genetically modified soybean has been modified to tolerate herbicides and produce healthier oils.^[129] In 2015, 94% of soybean acreage in the U.S. was genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant.^[60]

Rice

As of December 2017, genetically modified wheat has been evaluated in field trials, but has not been released commercially.^{[136][137][138]}

Mushroom

In April 2016, a white button mushroom (

The US imports 10% of its sugar, while the remaining 90% is extracted from sugar beet and sugarcane. After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the United States. 95% of beet acres in the US were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed in 2011.^[155] GM sugar beets are approved for cultivation in the US, Canada and Japan; the vast majority are grown in the US. GM beets are approved for import and consumption in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, the Russian Federation and Singapore.^[156] Pulp from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugar beets contains no DNA or protein – it is just sucrose that is chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugar beets.^[150][157] Independent analyses conducted by internationally recognized laboratories found that sugar from Roundup Ready sugar beets is identical to the sugar from comparably grown conventional (non-Roundup Ready) sugar beets.^[158]

Vegetable oil

Most

A 2012 literature review of studies evaluating the effect of GM feed on the health of animals did not find evidence that animals were adversely affected, although small biological differences were occasionally found. The studies included in the review ranged from 90 days to two years, with several of the longer studies considering reproductive and intergenerational effects.[172]

Enzymes produced by genetically modified microorganisms are also integrated into animal feed to enhance availability of nutrients and overall digestion. These enzymes may also provide benefit to the gut microbiome of an animal, as well as hydrolyse antinutritional factors present in the feed.^[173]

Proteins

The foundation of genetic engineering is DNA, which directs the production of proteins. Proteins are also the common source of human allergens.^[174] When new proteins are introduced they must be assessed for potential allergenicity.^[175]

Plants that have undergone genetic modification are capable of surviving extreme weather.^[10] Genetically modified (GM) food crops can be cultivated in locations with unfavorable climatic conditions on occasion.^[11] The quality and yield of genetically modified foods are often improved.^[10] These foods tend to grow more quickly than conventionally cultivated ones. Furthermore, the application of genetically modified food could be beneficial in resisting drought and poor soil.^[11]

Nutritional enhancement

Increased levels of specific nutrients in food crops can be achieved by genetic engineering. The study of this technique, sometimes known as nutritional improvement, is already well advanced.^[10] Foods are well monitored to gain specific qualities that became practical, for example, concentrated nutraceutical levels and health-promoting chemicals, making them a desirable component of a varied diet.^[188] Among the notable breakthroughs of genetic modification is Golden Rice, whose genome is altered by the injection of the vitamin A gene from a daffodil plant conditioning provitamin A production.^[10][188] This increases the activity of phytoene synthase, which therefore synthesizes a higher amount of beta-carotene, followed by modification and improvement of the level of iron and bioavailability.^[13][15] This affects the rice’s color and vitamin content, which is beneficial in places where vitamin A shortage is common.^[10] In addition, increased mineral, vitamin A, and protein content has played a critical role in preventing childhood blindness and iron deficiency anemia.^[13]

Lipid composition could also be manipulated to produce desirable traits and essential nutrients.

The genetically modified organisms, including potato, tomato, and spinach are applied in the production of substances that stimulate the immune system to respond to specific pathogens.[15] With the help of recombinant DNA techniques, the genes encoded for viral or bacterial antigens could be genetically transcribed and translated into plant cells.^[15][16] Antibodies are often produced in response to the introduction of antigens, in which the pathological microflora obtains the immune response towards specific antigens. The transgenic organisms are usually applied to use as oral vaccines, which allows the active substances to enter the human digestive system, targeting the alimentary tract in which stimulate a mucosal immune response. This technique has been widely used in vaccine production including rice, maize, and soybeans.^[15] Additionally, transgenic plants are widely used as bioreactors in the production of pharmaceutical proteins and peptides, including vaccines, hormones, human serum albumin (HSA), etc. The suitability of transgenic plants can helps meet the demand for the rapid growth of therapeutic antibodies.^[14] All this has given new impetus to the development of medicine.^[14][15][16]

Health and safety

There is a scientific consensus^{[17][18][19][20]} that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]} but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.^[29][30][31] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.^{[32][33][34][35]} The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.^{[36][37][38][39]}

Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various combinations of additional testing, labeling^[189] or removal from the market.^{[190][191][192][193]}

There are no

Some studies purporting to show harm have been discredited, in some cases leading to academic condemnation against the researchers such as the Pusztai affair and the Séralini affair.^[21]

Regulation

Government regulation of GMO development and release varies widely between countries. Marked differences separate

In 1992 FDA published "Statement of Policy: Foods derived from New Plant Varieties". This statement is a clarification of FDA's interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to foods produced from new plant varieties developed using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology. FDA encouraged developers to consult with the FDA regarding any bioengineered foods in development. The FDA says developers routinely do reach out for consultations. In 1996 FDA updated consultation procedures.^[201][202]

The StarLink corn recalls occurred in the autumn of 2000, when over 300 food products were found to contain a genetically modified maize/corn that had not been approved for human consumption.^[203] It was the first-ever recall of a genetically modified food.

European regulations

The European Union's control of genetically modified organisms is a particular part of an image of the promise and limitations of debate as a framework for supranational regulation.^[42] The issues posed by the EU’s GMO regulation have caused major problems in agriculture, politics, societies, status, and other fields.^[41][42] 12 The EU law regulates the development and use of GMOs by allocating responsibilities to different authorities, public and private, accompanied by limited recognition of public information, consultation, and participation rights.^[42] The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provided certain rights and protection for GM biotechnology in the EU. However, the value of human dignity, liberty, equality, and solidarity, as well as the status of democracy and law, as emphasized in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, are considered the ethical framework governing the employment of scientific and technological research and development.^[41]

Due to the political, religious, and social differences in EU countries, the EU’s position on GM has been divided geographically, including more than 100 “GM-free” regions. Different regional attitudes to GM foods make it nearly impossible to reach a common agreement on GM foods.^[42] In recent years, however, the sense of crisis that this has generated for the European Union has intensified.^[43] Some member states, including Germany, France, Austria, Italy, and Luxembourg, have even banned the planting of certain GM food in their countries in response to public resistance to GM foods.^[42][43] The whole thing is set against a backdrop of consumers holding the attitude that GM foods are harmful to both the environment and human health, revolting against GM foods in an anti-biotech coalition.^[40] The current political deadlock over GM foods is also a consequence of the ban and has yet to be resolved by scientific methods and processes.^[43] Public opinion tends to politicize the GM issue, which is the main obstacle to an agreement in the EU.^[42]

Labeling

As of 2015, 64 countries require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace.

US and Canadian national policy is to require a label only given significant composition differences or documented health impacts, although some individual US states (Vermont, Connecticut and Maine) enacted laws requiring them.

In some jurisdictions, the labeling requirement depends on the relative quantity of GMO in the product. A study that investigated voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.^[208]

In the European Union all food (including

At the same time, due to lack of single, clear definition of GMO, a number of foods created using genetic engineering techniques (such as mutation breeding) are excluded from labelling and regulation based on "convention" and traditional usage.^[48]

The Non-GMO Project is the sole U.S. organization that does verifiable testing and places seals on labels for presence of GMO in products. The "Non-GMO Project Seal" indicates that the product contains 0.9% or less GMO ingredients, which is the European Union's standard for labeling.^[210]

Efforts across the world that are being made to help restrict and label GMO's in food involve anti-genetic engineering campaigns and in America the "Just Label It" movement is joining organizations together to call for mandatory labeling.^[210]

Detection

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as PCR and bioinformatics.^[211]

In a January 2010 paper, the extraction and detection of DNA along a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, washing and bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before and represents an important accomplishment regarding the traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."^[212]

According to Thomas Redick, detection and prevention of cross-pollination is possible through the suggestions offered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Suggestions include educating farmers on the importance of coexistence, providing farmers with tools and incentives to promote coexistence, conducting research to understand and monitor gene flow, providing assurance of quality and diversity in crops, and providing compensation for actual economic losses for farmers.^[213]

Regulation methodology design

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (November 2022)

The genetically modified foods controversy consists of a set of disputes over the use of food made from genetically modified crops. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, environmental and political activists and scientists. The major disagreements include whether GM foods can be safely consumed, harm the human body and the environment and/or are adequately tested and regulated.^[191][215] The objectivity of scientific research and publications has been challenged.^[190] Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms,^[216] and potential control of the GM food supply by seed companies.^[190]

The conflicts have continued since GM foods were invented. They have occupied the media, the courts,^[217] local, regional, national governments, and international organizations.^{[citation needed]}

"GMO-free" labelling schemes are causing controversies in farming community due to lack of clear definition, inconsistency of their application and are described as "deceptive".^[218][219]

Allergenicity

New allergies could be introduced inadvertently, according to scientists, community groups, and members of the public concerned about the genetic variation of foods.^[10] An example involves the methionine rich soybean production.^[15] Methionine is an amino acid obtained by synthesizing substances derived from Brazil nuts, which could be an allergen.^[15][220] A gene from the Brazil nut was inserted into soybeans during laboratory trials.^[11][220] Because it was discovered that those who were allergic to Brazil nuts could also be allergic to genetically modified soybeans, the experiment was stopped.^[10][221] In vitro assays such as RAST or serum from people allergic to the original crop could be applied to test the allergenicity of GM goods with known source of the gene.^[10] This was established in GM soybeans that expressed Brazil nut 2S proteins and GM potatoes that expressed cod protein genes.^[11] The expression and synthesis of new proteins that were previously unavailable in parental cells were achieved by gene transfer from the cells of one organism to the nuclei of another organism. The potential risks of allergy that may develop with the intake of transgenic food come from the amino acid sequence in protein formation.^[188] However, there have been no reports of allergic reactions to currently approved GM foods for human consumption, and experiments showed no measurable difference in allergenicity between GM and non-GM soybeans.^{[10][188][222][223]}

Resistance genes

Scientists suggest that consumers should also pay attention to the health issues associated with the utilizations of pesticide-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants.^[11] The ‘Bt’ genes cause insect resistance in today's GM crops; however, other methods to confer insect resistance are in the works.^[224] The Bt genes are usually obtained from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, and they can generate a protein that breaks down in the insect’s gut, releasing a toxin called delta-endotoxin, which causes paralysis and death.^[43] Concerns about resistance and off-target effects of crops expressing Bt toxins, consequences of transgenic herbicide-tolerant plants caused by the use of herbicide, and the transfer of gene expression from GM crops via vertical and horizontal gene transfer are all related to the expression of transgenic material.^[41]

Environmental Impacts

Another concern raised by ecologists is the possible spread of the pest-resistant genes to wildlife.^[10][43] This is an example of gene pollution, which is often associated with a decrease in biodiversity, proliferation resistant weeds, and the formation of new pests and pathogens.^[225][224]

Studies have proven that herbicide resistant pollen from transgenic rapeseed could spread up to 3 km, while the average gene spread of transgenic crops is 2 km and even reach to maximum 21 kilometers.^[225] The high aggressiveness of these GM crops could cause certain disasters by competing with traditional crops for water, light, and nutrients.^[220] Crossbreeding of spreading pollens with the surrounding organisms has led to the introduction of the modified resistant genes.^[11] An international database that demonstrated genetic contaminations with undesired seeds has been a major problem due to the expansion of field trials and commercially viable cultivation of GM crops around the world.^[225][220] Even a decrease in the number of one pest under the impact of a pest-resistant weed could increase the population of other pests that compete with it.^[11] Beneficial insects, so named because they prey on crop pests, were also exposed to dangerous doses of Bt.^[10]

Other concerns

The introduction of GM crops in place of more locally adapted varieties could lead to long-term negative effects on the entire agricultural system.^[16] Much of the concern with GM technology involves encoding genes that increase or decrease biochemicals. Alternatively, the newly programmed enzyme might result in the consumption of the substrate, forming and accumulating the products.^[10]

In terms of socioeconomics, GM crops are usually dependent on high levels of external products, for example, pesticides and herbicides, which limit GM crops to high-input agriculture. This, coupled with the widespread patents held on GM crops, limited farmers’ trading rights over the harvested seeds without paying royalties. Other arguments against GM crops held by some opponents are based on the high costs of isolating and distributing GM crops over non-GM crops.^[16]

Consumers could be categorized based on their attitudes regarding genetically modified foods.^[40] The ‘attitudinal’ sector of US consumers could be explained in part by cognitive characteristics that are not always observable. Individual characteristics and values, for example, can play a role in shaping consumer acceptance of biotechnology. The concept of transplanting animal DNA into plants is unsettling for many people.^[11] Studies have shown that consumers' attitudes towards GM technology are positively correlated to their knowledge about it.^[226] It was found that elevated acceptance of genetic modification is usually associated with a high education level, whereas high levels of perceived risks are associated with the opposite.^[40][226] People tend to worry about unpredictable dangers due to the lack of sufficient knowledge to predict or avoid negative impacts.^[226]

Another crucial link of the change in consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods has been shown to be closely related to their interaction with socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, for example, age, ethnicity, residence, and level of consumption.^[40][220] Opposition to genetically modified foods could also include religious and cultural groups, because the nature of GM foods goes against what they believe are natural products.^{[11][220][227]} On the one hand, it was found that consumers in most European countries, especially in northern Europe, the UK and Germany, believe that the benefits of GM foods do not outweigh the potential risks. On the other hand, consumers in the United States and other European countries generally hold to view that the risks of GM foods could be far less than the benefits it brought.^[188] GM foods are then expected to be supported by more appropriate policies and clearer regulations.^[220]

See also

• List of genetically modified crops
• Genetically modified crops
• Genetically modified food controversies
• Genetically modified organisms
• California Proposition 37 (2012) - rejected labeling initiative
• Pharming (genetics) – use of genetically modified mammals to produce drugs
• Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms
• StarLink corn recall in 2000

References