How is it possible to genetically modify food crops

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. Munro S. GM food debate. Daniel KT. The Hidden Dangers of Soy Allergens. Nexus Magazine. Sep, Available from: www. A GM Connection? Global Research. Kurunganti K. Institute of science in technology; Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environ Health Perspect.

Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. IgE-mediated allergy to corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM foods. Nutr Health. Beyond substantial equivalence. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.

J Nutr. Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem. The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods.

Food Chem Tox. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Med Food. The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enol-py-ruvylshikimatephosphate synthase from Agro-bacterium sp. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybean. N Engl J Med. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and commercial soybean varieties.

J Allergy Clin Immunol. Nakamura R, Matsuda T. Rice allergenic protein and molecular-genetic approach for hypoallergenic rice. Biosci Biotech Biochem. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. Byrne P. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods. Colorado State University Extension. Fact sheet. Most people want to know if their food has GM ingredients. Relax News. Lendman S.

Feb, Available from: www. Genetically modified foods. Better health Channel. Soybeans Monsanto. Bourgeois F. Drug trials funded by industry are more likely to publish favorable results. Ann Int Med. Saunders P. Institute of Science for Society; Apr, Corporate Monopoly of Science. Qaim M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health.

New Biotechnol. Ho MW. Schmeiser's Battle for the Seed. Institute of Science for Society. Support Center Support Center. External link. These techniques can make it easier and quicker to make changes that were previously done through traditional breeding. Scientists can use these newer genome editing tools to make crops more nutritious, drought tolerant, and resistant to insect pests and diseases.

Did you know? Identify To produce a GMO plant, scientists first identify what trait they want that plant to have, such as resistance to drought, herbicides, or insects. Copy After scientists find the gene with the desired trait, they copy that gene. For Bt corn, they copied the gene in Bt that would provide the insect-resistance trait.

Insert Next, scientists use tools to insert the gene into the DNA of the plant. This new trait does not change the other existing traits. Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about potential risks. Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression.

These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.

Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk , but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals.

Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility Ma et al. The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring.

Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms. One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Prior to construction of the recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects, including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several years.

The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops.

Unfortunately, seeds containing genes for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.

The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al. The report by Losey et al. Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen.

For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" Sears et al. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years. Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers who can afford the costly seeds will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology.

However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream Demont et al.

These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey Hoban, Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean.

Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned. Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons.

Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods.

In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled.

These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.

In , the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in , the National Institutes of Health NIH established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues.

In the s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money Devos et al.

Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis.

Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U. 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.

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. 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.

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 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 Critics often disparage U.

But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E. The European Commission has funded research projects, carried out by more than 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.

Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. The U. 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. 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. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion.

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. 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.

And as U.