essay on gmo foods

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.

• 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

Genetically Modified Food Essay Examples and Topics

Genetically modified organisms: views on gmos, should all genetically modified foods be labeled.

• Words: 2766

Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against

• Words: 1488

Can the Human Race Survive Without Genetically Modified Food?

Genetically modified organisms: benefit or harm, genetically modified organisms: ethical perspective, genetically modified food: health risks, direct marketing of gene tests, genetically modified food: analysis and implications, genetically modified foods: substantial equivalence.

• Words: 1265

Understanding Genetically Modified Foods by Howard et al.

A technique for controlling plant characteristics: genetic engineering in the agriculture.

• Words: 1970

Genetically Modified Foods: Pros or Cons

How politics have influenced production of gmos.

• Words: 2984

Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides for Health

Genetically engineered food against world hunger.

• Words: 1130

Genetically Modified Foods: Pros and Cons

Genetically modified foods: scientific resources, genetically modified organisms in canadian agriculture.

• Words: 1103

Genetic Engineering in Food: Development and Risks

• Words: 1152

Froma Harrop Views on Genetically Modified Food

The effect of genetically modified food on society and environment.

• Words: 1295

Genetically Modified Food of Monsanto Company

Overview on the effects of genetically modified food.

• Words: 2027

Genetically Modified Foods and Environment

• Words: 2279

Business Ethics-Labeling Genetically Modified Food

• Words: 3120

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Fact sheets

• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• HIV and AIDS
• Hypertension
• Mental disorders
• Top 10 causes of death
• 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
• Data collection tools
• Global Health Observatory
• Insights and visualizations
• COVID excess deaths
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment case
• 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

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Genetics — GMO

Essays on Gmo

Genetically modified food essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: genetically modified food: benefits, risks, and ethical considerations.

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of genetically modified (GM) food, exploring its potential benefits in agriculture and food security, examining the associated risks, and discussing the ethical implications of altering the genetic makeup of organisms.

• Introduction
• Understanding Genetic Modification: Techniques and Applications in Agriculture
• The Benefits of GM Food: Increased Crop Yields, Reduced Pesticide Use, and Improved Nutrition
• Potential Risks and Concerns: Environmental Impact, Allergenicity, and Long-Term Health Effects
• Ethical Dilemmas: Ownership of Genetic Resources, Consent, and Consumer Rights
• Regulation and Labeling: Balancing Innovation with Transparency
• Conclusion: The Complex Landscape of Genetically Modified Food

Essay Title 2: GMOs and Global Food Security: Examining the Role of Genetically Modified Crops

Thesis Statement: This essay focuses on the relationship between genetically modified crops and global food security, investigating how GM technology can address challenges such as population growth, climate change, and sustainable agriculture.

• The Global Food Crisis: Feeding a Growing Population
• GM Crops as a Solution: Drought Resistance, Pest Tolerance, and Enhanced Nutrition
• Environmental Considerations: Sustainable Farming and Reduced Carbon Footprint
• Challenges and Criticisms: Concerns About Corporate Control and Biodiversity
• Case Studies: Success Stories and Lessons from GM Crop-Adopting Countries
• Conclusion: The Promise and Pitfalls of Genetically Modified Crops for Food Security

Essay Title 3: Informed Consumer Choices: GMO Labeling and the Right to Know

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the debate over GMO labeling, emphasizing the importance of transparency in food labeling, consumers' right to know about GM ingredients, and the implications of labeling policies on the food industry and public perception.

• The GMO Labeling Movement: Origins, Goals, and Advocacy
• Transparency vs. Industry Interests: The Controversy Surrounding Labeling Laws
• Consumer Perceptions: Trust, Skepticism, and Informed Decision-Making
• Global Perspectives: Labeling Practices in Various Countries
• Impact on the Food Industry: Compliance, Product Formulation, and Market Trends
• Conclusion: Balancing Consumer Rights and Industry Interests in GMO Labeling

Benefits of Gmo Labeling

Michael pollans eat food food defined, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Gmo Persuasive Speech Outline

Genetically modified food, research the impact of genetically modified food on health, why gmo foods are bad, 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

The Arguments for Genetically Modified Food

Harmful effects of gmo products, gmo: negative sides and a higher purpose, the potential of gmos to help combat world hunger, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Gmos: History, Effects, and Controversies

Genetic engineering: using biotechnology in gmo, environmental impact of plastics, gmos, and animal captivity, the use and safety of gmos from a skeptical point of view, the genetically modified food as the risk in the society, research whether genetically modified food is good or bad, banning unlabeled genetically modified food, the impact of gmos on humans and the environment, genetically modified organisms: soybeans, questionable idea of genetic modification of humans, in vitro meat as a sustainable solution, genetically modified foods: history of creation and use, the issue surrounding the health dangers of genetically modified food, cereals as a staple & refined food, the potential harm of consuming genetically modified food, gene editing and the future of food, the issues surrounding the consumption of genetically modified foods, the future of food supply and agriculture, discussion on the theme of genetically modified foods, the importance of genetically modified food for the storage of the african savannah.

Genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically engineered foods (GE foods), or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. It was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco. In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.

Genetically modified foods are usually edited to have some desired characteristics, including certain benefits for surviving extreme environments, an enhanced level to nutrition, the access of therapeutic substances, and the resistance genes to pesticide and herbicides. These characteristics could be beneficial to humans and the environment in certain ways.

Studies show that GMO crops have fewer chances of mutating compared to non-GMO crops. Over 12% of global farmland grows GMO crops. 54% of all GMOs worldwide grow in the Third World countries. Soybeans count for half of all GMO crops grown worldwide.

Relevant topics

• Time Travel
• Mathematics in Everyday Life
• Space Exploration
• Charles Darwin
• Stephen Hawking
• Big Bang Theory

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!

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

GMO in Foods

How it works

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a reasonably well-known concept. This experimental technology modifies DNA from different species, including plants, animals, and bacteria, to create a longer lasting food product. Many people are not aware of the adverse side effects GMOs can cause to the body (“What are GMOs?”). Although it might be a solution to creating an abundance of food production, GMOs are harmful to the environment and increases the risk of health problems on the consumers (Baetens).

The purpose of GMOs is to produce plant and animals for food use that have increased size, disease resistance, larger crop yield, and better overall quality.

Drought and soil-tolerant are also cultivated by the GMO technique, which is beneficial for farmers in places with humid and coastal weather conditions. For example, monsoons are heavy, seasonal rainfall that occurs in East, South and Southeast Asia. Often the crops would be largely damaged, but with GMOs, they can withstand the storms (Sivall). Even so, the price of crops will fluctuate because farmers have to pay for the use of biotechnology (Brookes). Soil-tolerant is less cost-effective for the farmers, thus raising the price for the consumers to purchase the foods.

Most GMOs crops are selected to be herbicide tolerant. Over time, the seeds can become antibiotic resistance and cause hormone disruption to the human body. Consumption of the modified gene can move into the micro-organisms in the gastrointestinal tract of humans or animals. The bacteria in the lumen of the stomach can develop a resistance to that specific antibiotic. The chance of gene alteration is small but should be taken into consideration for the safety of the people (Bhargava).

Many consumers are against eating GMOs in their diet. They prefer organic and anti-hormone free foods. On the other hand, genetically engineered (GE) crops are increasing chemical pollution. “Genetically enhanced superweeds may well become a severe environmental problem in coming years,” (GE Food & the Environment”). Also, biotechnology companies are monopolizing the seed markets, and the farmers are paying the escalated prices, resulting in debt.

Supermarkets, such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, are popular among other commercial grocery stores. They offer a variety of certified organic and natural, non-GMO foods. According to a recent study by the Grand View Research, Americans are buying more organic food and household products than before. Today, organic food currently represents a $43 billion industry in the United States and $77.4 billion worldwide. It is estimated that the global organic food and beverage market was poised to reach $320.5 billion by 2025.

Genetically modified crops could have unintended consequences for the environment. Chemical usage has increased in agriculture. Weeds in the grass will develop a tolerance to the weed killer, so farmers have to spread stronger chemicals to remove them. Crop yields formulated with Bt genetic material to ensure against particular pests may diminish the effectiveness of this nonchemical pesticide by improving resistance to it.

The cross contamination of non-GMO caused by genetically engineered crops will imitate and spread, significantly changing biological systems and threatening the natural wildlife (Grossman).

GMOs can become a monopoly in the food industry. Three multinational corporations – Archer Daniels, Cargill, and Bunge – control nearly 90% of the global seed market. GE food crops are then processed into food products by eleven multinationals firm that accounts for almost half the world sales of seeds, of which about 25% are the sales of genetically engineered seeds. These genetically engineered seeds are now focused on soybeans, maize, cotton, and canola oil.

GMOs can be an advantage for the “…developing world where there is low productivity in the agricultural sector,” (Bhargava). However, there are harmful side effects from the chemicals in the GMOs. People should have an awareness of the importance of eating a healthy diet without harsh pesticides and processed foods.

Cite this page

GMO in Foods. (2019, Sep 11). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-in-foods/

"GMO in Foods." PapersOwl.com , 11 Sep 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-in-foods/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). GMO in Foods . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-in-foods/ [Accessed: 18 Jun. 2024]

"GMO in Foods." PapersOwl.com, Sep 11, 2019. Accessed June 18, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-in-foods/

"GMO in Foods," PapersOwl.com , 11-Sep-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-in-foods/. [Accessed: 18-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). GMO in Foods . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-in-foods/ [Accessed: 18-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

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!

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

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.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Resources for You (Food)
• Agricultural Biotechnology

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world. “GMO” (genetically modified organism) is the common term consumers and popular media use to describe a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering . Since the first genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, for sale to consumers were planted in the 1990s, researchers have tracked their impacts on and off the farm.

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

Most of the GMO crops grown today were developed to help farmers prevent crop loss. The three most common traits found in GMO crops are:

• Resistance to insect damage
• Tolerance to herbicides
• Resistance to plant viruses

For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers can apply fewer spray pesticides to protect the crops. GMO crops that are tolerant to herbicides help farmers control weeds without damaging the crops. When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts.

The GMO papaya, called the Rainbow papaya , is an example of a GMO crop developed to be resistant to a virus. When the ringspot virus threatened the Hawaii papaya industry and the livelihoods of Hawaiian papaya farmers, plant scientists developed the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya. The Rainbow papaya was commercially planted in 1998, and today it is grown all over Hawaii and exported to Japan.

Learn more on Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

The most common GMO crops were developed to address the needs of farmers, but in turn they can help foods become more accessible and affordable for consumers. Some GMO crops were developed specifically to benefit consumers. For example, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available. GMO apples that do not brown when cut are now available for sale and may help reduce food waste. Plant scientists continue to develop GMO crops that they hope will benefit consumers.

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment .

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

GMOs also impact the lives of farmers in other parts of the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of people’s diets. For example, a GMO eggplant developed to be insect resistant has been slowly released to farmers in Bangladesh since 2014. Farmers who grow GMO eggplants are earning more and have less exposure to pesticides. USAID is also working with partner countries in Africa and elsewhere on several staple crops, such as virus-resistant cassava , insect-resistant cowpea , and blight-resistant potato .

Learn more about GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development and GMOs Outside the U.S .

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

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
• Food Sci Nutr
• v.9(9); 2021 Sep

Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not? A review

Tadesse fikre teferra.

1 School of Nutrition, Food Science and Technology, College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Sidama Ethiopia

Global population is increasing at an alarming rate, posing a threat on the supplies of basic needs and services. However, population increase does not seem to be a common agendum of the global scientists and political leaders. People in the developed countries are more concerned about new technologies and their products. Pseudo‐threats related to the uncertainties of genetic engineering of crops and their outputs present on consumers are more audible and controversial than the real difficulties the world is experiencing at the moment and in the future. This review presents brief summaries of the real reasons to worry about and the uncertainties about genetically modified organisms. This article also presents the real uncertainties shared by consumers and scientists with respect to the past, present, and future of genetically engineered organisms. Developments in the field of precision genetics in the recent years and the implications on regulatory, breeding, and socio‐cultural dimensions of the global settings are included.

This review article presents competing and contradicting human interests. On one hand, we are opposing great agricultural technologies such as genetically modified organisms (GMO) and the genetic engineering techniques. On the other hand, we are challenged with the need for feeding humanity into the future, where the global population and food production are not keeping pace of one another.

1. INTRODUCTION

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been topics of hot debates over the last few decades. Some countries have been known to have a fierce regulatory framework over the genetically modified crops. The regulations of the European Union are the ones that have been subjects of continued criticism in this regard. For instance, papers published recently argue about the basis for the EU’s regulation on the GM crops (Custers et al.,  2019 ; Eckerstorfer et al.,  2019 ; Halford,  2019 ; Hokanson,  2019 ; Landrum et al.,  2019 ). It is argued that the European regulatory framework does not at present satisfy the criteria of legal certainty, nondiscrimination, and scientific adaptability (Custers et al.,  2019 ). In 2015, the New York times carried an article with the headline: “With GMO policies, Europe turns against science” (Lynas,  2015 ). The European regulations do not seem to be very realistic in terms of the current challenges the world is facing in feeding the increasing global population. A predictive study conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute indicated that by 2050, the world population reaches 9 billion and additional 70% food supply is needed than what is produced now (Ringler et al.,  2010 ). More articles and arguments started coming out later (Hickey,  2019 ; Long et al.,  2015 ; Ray et al.,  2013 ), emphasizing the fact that the world leaders and scientists need to be worried about feeding humanity into the future and act on the use of all available technologies. This is evident that the world will not have the luxury to avoid agricultural technologies (Jacobsen et al.,  2013 ), but need to use all available techniques without discrimination and accelerate innovation of new ones that can increase food production and productivities to be able to continue feeding humanity.

Genetically modified organisms are categories of products that came out of advanced breeding technologies, which are also categorized as precision breeding techniques (Eriksson,  2019 ). Traditional breeding started by simple crossing of better performing organisms with each other and stabilizing the desirable traits by self‐crossing (inbreeding), which is done several times. The first hybrid corn that was inbred several times was documented to be commercially available in the early 1920s (Anderson,  1944 ). Later on, breeding using mutation (alteration of genetic make ups of crops) was devised to bring about variation of performances in a population. Chemical (Ethyl methanesulfonate [EMS]), an alkylating agent that can react with cell components and cause changes to the genetics of organisms, has been in use since the 1960s (Krieg,  1963 ). In the mid‐20th century, ionizing electromagnetic irradiations (X‐ and gamma‐rays) were also used to cause random alteration in the genes of crops (Ulukapi & Ayse,  2015 ), out of which elite lines with respect to desirable traits were chosen for further breeding processes.

The science of plant genetics expanded, and the understanding of the transferability of DNA and RNA developed in the 1970s (Chassy,  2007 ), which later led to the development of biotechnology with a technique called “genetic engineering.” These later developments were not random alterations of genes that used to be followed by selection of elite lines and several inbreeding. The development of GMO with inserted genes from unrelated species was made possible. These later led to the development of precision genetic engineering (GE), and a very accurate specific site targeting alterations were achieved (Nakayama et al.,  2014 ).

Today, we do not even need transferring of genes from unrelated species to bring about a desired trait in food crops or animals. The application of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)‐Cas systems in genome editing has been popular since its discovery in the Escherichia coli genome in 1987 (Ishino et al.,  2018 ). This review paper presents a perspective of GMO technology, associated risks, and its current status.

2. BASICS OF GENETIC MATERIALS

The genetic material has basic components that collectively define the physical and biochemical properties of living entities. A gene contains a single helical stride (nucleotide) called ribonucleic acid (RNA) and a double helical nucleotide known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that are connected by a pairing bonds of four bases (cytosine [C] with guanine [G] and adenine [A] with thymine [T]) (Figure  1 ). The chemical bases are the building blocks of the gene, and the stretching helical nucleotides are made of pentose sugar phosphatases. The specific sequences of the bases in the gene are responsible for the formation of specific proteins that dictates the behavior of the organisms (Schjerling,  2005 ).

Basics of genetic materials: components and descriptions

The sequences of the bases are manipulated in modern precision biotechnological techniques also known as genetic modifications (GM) or GE (Singh et al.,  2006 ), and they naturally and randomly change through evolution (Radman et al.,  2000 ). This review summarizes the concerns associated with the GE techniques and GMO with respect to food safety and environmental sustainability.

3. GENERAL REVIEW OF GM TECHNIQUES

3.1. categories of gm techniques.

Genetic engineering can be classified into two big categories: the transgenic and transgenic‐free types. Transgene GE involves the transfer of genetic materials from unrelated species, usually from microorganisms (bacteria and molds) associated with desirable trait into a target organism (Bock & Norris,  2018 ). This has been a ground breaking technology in plant breeding since the 1980s and improved agricultural production and productivity. The products of transgenic biotechnology have been termed as GMO, and the process is termed as genetic engineering (GE), GM, or biotechnology (Peter et al.,  2011 ). This process and its products have been subjects of controversy among consumers in the developed world (Cellini et al.,  2004 ; Eriksson,  2018 ; Hickey,  2019 ; Lynas,  2015 ; Van Den Eede et al.,  2004 ; Zhao & Ho,  2005 ), particularly with respect to food safety. Transgenic free GM has emerged as alternative technology CRISPR/cas 9 systems, where natural or artificial genes (DNA, RNA) are used to modify genetics of the target organisms associated with desirable traits. The existence of CRISPR cas system was discovered in 1987, when an unusual repetitive DNA sequence in the Escherichia coli genome during an analysis of genes involved in phosphate metabolism (Ishino et al.,  2018 ). Scientists started exploring this technology for gene editing applications only in the 2000s. The advantage of CRISPR technology is that it enables insertion and deletion of genes at much easier way than the transgenic process and also it escapes fierce regulatory procedures developed for the transgenic products.

3.2. Success of GM techniques—rescuing crops from invisible beasts and beyond

Genetic modifications has been known in agriculture for rescuing many food crops from invisible beasts that could have led to total extinction. A popular success story in this regard has been the transgenic Hawaiian Rainbow Papaya, which was developed to rescue this crop when it was devastated by ringspot virus in the 1990s (Gonsalves,  1998 ; Gonsalves & Ferreira,  2003 ). Production of papaya in Puna district of Hawaii, which was contributing 95% of the total, dropped from 27,762.5 tons in 1994 (after 2 years of the occurrence of the papaya ringspot virus, PRSV) to 12,805 tons in 1998, which was a 53.88% loss in just 4 years, Figure  2 , extracted from Gonsalves and Ferreira ( 2003 ). The release of the transgenic rainbow papaya helped to revive the production to 20,000 tons, a 35.98%, increase in just 2 years.

Papaya production during the ringspot disease spread

Other success stories in rescuing plants from devastating diseases include that reported on rice against sheath blight by Liang ( 1998 ). Another potential transgenic technique for many crops (wheat, potato, carrots and tomatoes were report early on (Liang,  1998 ; Melchers & Stuiver,  2000 )) and all these are great agricultural technologies available to the world to increase crop resistance to disease and boost production to help food production and supply to the increasing population.

The other great success of agricultural biotechnology involving transgenic crops was the biofortification of rice with beta‐carotenes (precursors of vitamin A), in eradicating preventable blindness in millions of children in developing countries (Beyer et al.,  2002 ; Ye & Beyer,  2000 ). It is also clear that the principles used in rice biofortification could be applied to many more crops for the future, in efforts of feeding the world.

3.3. Uncertainties shared by consumers and scientists about GMOs

There are tangible uncertainties related to the science of GE and GMO products. According to Myhr ( 2009 ) and Nielsen and Myhr ( 2007 ), the types of uncertainties surrounding GE and GMOs can be divided into three broad classes:

• Reducible uncertainty, due to lack of knowledge and the novelty of the activity, which can be addressed with more research and focused collection of empirical data.
• Irreducible uncertainty due to inherent randomness, variability, and complexity in the nature of biological system under consideration.
• Uncertainty arising from ignorance given that the prevailing operating paradigms and models do not adequately represent the biological system evaluated.

However, since the start of wide exercise of modern biotechnology in the early 1980s for genetic improvement of food crops (Chassy,  2007 ), there have never been any direct safety hazard reported from any GE or GMOs. Moreover, governments have established the most strict testing measures for the safety of GMOs over the last decades to make sure public safety and environmental sustainability, as summarized in multiple scientific documentations (Davison & Ammann,  2017 ; Hartung & Schaub,  2018 ; Smyth & Phillips,  2014 ). However, the pseudo concerns over the safety and environmental sustainability of GMOs were extremely heightened by consumers and social media activism together with misconceptions aired by mainstream medias in the western world and by some governments, particularly in the European Union, which were also reported in scientific publications (Ammann,  2014 ; Kuntz,  2012 ; Masip et al.,  2013 ; Tagliabue,  2015 ). Due to the strict regulations and associated hurdles created by series of tests and examinations by regulatory bodies, the GE techniques became too expensive and the time required to generate technology has been elongated. This also increased the cost of doing innovation in GE. This moved the research and development (R&D) activities in biotechnology from the public research sectors exclusively to the private corporates. Today, GE does not seem to be a technique of choice even in the corporate R&D plans, as CRISPR cas‐9 is getting popularity.

4. SHOULD WE STILL WORRY ABOUT GMOS? WHY AND WHY NOT?

4.1. why should we still worry about gmos.

If GMO crops and animals are presenting any concern to the consumer safety and/or environmental sustainability, there is no escape as GM entities are already in the environment, extensively crossing with the land races of the genetically engineered crops and their wild relatives, particularly for the cross‐pollinating crops (Castro Galvan et al.,  2019 ; Halfhill et al.,  2003 ; Jhala et al.,  2021 ; Stewart et al.,  2003 ; Wisniewski et al.,  2002 ). The myths and realities associated with the GE of maize and more were reported by Parrott ( 2010 ). In certain countries like the United States of America, the GM crops are already massively in the production systems. The US average percent acreage under GM corn and soy bean by 2020 were reported to be 91.47 and 93.81, respectively, as documented by FDA ( 2020 ; USDA,  2020 ). In the FDA data, the proportion of GM corn and soy has shown steep increase between 2000 and 2013 and remained almost constant after 2014 (Figure  3 ).

Land acreage under GM corn and soybean in the United States

The large proportion of GM in the crop production systems in the United States is also affecting the market destinations of corn and soy beans, the major one being Mexico. The development that the Mexican government is due to ban import of GM corn by 2024 has been a shocking news to the US market (Polansek,  2021 ). Corn in Mexico has already been under hot debates pertaining to the introgression of transgenic lines into the local landraces posing threat to the national corn biodiversity (Duncan et al.,  2019 ; Mercer & Wainwright,  2008 ; Ortiz‐Garcia et al.,  2005 ; Quist & Chapela,  2001 ). This heightens the uncertainties and concerns of GM technologies on food safety and environmental sustainability. The implication is that, if the risks of GMOs on consumer safety and natural biodiversity is real, the world has to just face it and find a way out, as there is no easy escape as of now. Rather than fragmented approaches by nations like Mexico, a global consensus is needed to support basic researches focusing on generating robust empirical data and accumulating knowledge that would potentially help in developing lasting solutions.

4.2. Why should we not worry about GMO?

There are several points that reduces our worries about GMOs. As discussed in the previous sections, GMO is no longer the method of choice in improving crops for better economic and technological outcomes. GE is an extremely expensive technique in terms of technologies, fierce regulations, and time requirements. There are also easily acceptable and more accurate technologies taking over the transgenic GE with no regulations required (at least for now). Since its introduction in the 1980s (Ishino et al.,  2018 ), CRISPR cas‐9 is getting popularity as a safer and cheaper GE technique that avoids the need for transferring genetic materials from unrelated species with a lot of uncertainties. Transgenic techniques of crop improvement are getting a smoother exit pushed by multiple factors including the cost, regulations, time requirements, consumer rejections, and uncertainties associated to its products emanating from lack of complete understanding and confidence for future predictions.

5. WHAT IS NEW IN THE FIELD OF BIOTECHNOLOGY?

The field of molecular genetics has ever been growing and resulted into the development of new tools that enabled scientists to advance GE applications. For instance, the once difficult GE of ornamental plants was made simple in the next‐generation genome sequencing (Smulders & Arens,  2018 ). Details of molecular plant breeding strategies and tools are compiled into a book (Al‐Khayri et al.,  2016 ) for more insights. The possibility of engineering crops to enhance metabolic pathways that improve human nutrition and health has been recently documented (Birchfield & McIntosh,  2020 ; Tatsis & O’Connor,  2016 ; Zheng et al.,  2020 ). The developments in the CRISPR cas‐9 techniques in plant breeding is presenting the options of insertion and/or deletion of multiple genes at a time that are responsible for different traits (Kim et al.,  2017 ; Shin et al.,  2017 ). In improving wheat to eliminate gluten reactions, deletion of up to 35 different genes out of 45, identified to be responsible for gliadin synthesis (major gluten component responsible for celiac disease and wheat allergy), was possible, while immunoreactivity was reduced by 85% (Sánchez‐León et al.,  2018 ). More detailed reports on the future prospects of CRISPR cas‐9 techniques were recently presented by Nidhi et al. ( 2021 ). More accurate applications of the new GE techniques, including CRISPR, are expected to better enhance the nutrition and health of people in the years to come.

6. WHAT SHOULD BE MORE CONCERNING THAN GMO?

It is expected that the population of the globe will be reaching 9 billion in a matter of three decades. The population pressure will be more concerning to the developing world as food supply will be extremely challenging (Jacobsen et al.,  2013 ). In those situations, the world leaders and scientists will not have the luxury of choosing agricultural technologies, but try all that are available and create new ones to increase food production. According to the population data extracted from the World Bank (WB,  2021 ), and staple crops production data extracted from FAOSTAT (FAO,  2021 ), the major staple crops (cereals and pulses) production has not been keeping pace with the global population growth over the last half century (Figure  4 ), regardless of the ground breaking innovations in agriculture. This implies that we need to be much more concerned about being able to continue feeding humanity into the future than choosing and accusing technologies made available to increase food production and sustain supplies.

Population versus crop production, not keeping pace of each other

The Europeans have been against GMO and other agricultural technologies by setting controversial regulations. The Europeans have also been promoting and funding organic and conventional agricultural practices in developing world and restricting them from producing enough toward food security (Popescu,  2019 ; Willer & Lernoud,  2019 ). Europe is the major region of the world being continuously challenged by migrations of people from developing countries and should work to support these populations toward ensuring food security, rather than dealing with migration crisis (Mavroudi & Nagel,  2016 ).

Ray et al. ( 2013 ) reported that yields in maize, rice, wheat, and soybean—that comprises nearly two‐thirds of global agricultural calories, are increasing at 1.6%, 1.0%, 0.9%, and 1.3% per year noncompounding rates, respectively, which is less than the 2.4% per year rate required to double global food production by 2050. Europe does not seem to be caring about the grand global challenge ahead of us, but the unrealistic “food safety” concerns associated with the GMO products.

It should be clear that the world prioritizes boosting agricultural production to be able to feed humanity, and no exception for Europe and other powers. Feeding the increasing population should be a matter of grave concern to the scientists, leaders, and the general public. It is projected that the current pace of food production and yield is not being able to keep up with the population growth (Figure  4 ), which is expected to hit 10 billion over the next three decades (Hickey,  2019 ). In addition to decisions to use all available technologies, it is a necessity that efforts are made to develop new agricultural technologies and increase food productions and yield to supply enough foods to the increasing population. In this respect, GMO technology is not just a matter of choice, but the technology with great potential to be explored towards achieving global food and nutrition security, as there are no other promising resources and mechanisms more important in achieving goal of feeding 10+ billion people around the globe, in just three decades.

The hugely controversial concerns over the GMO foods in terms of consumer safety and environmental sustainability seem to remain unchanged. There are tangible reasons for the world to still worry about GMO, although new techniques emerged and are getting popularity in Biotechnology. There are also arguments that advanced GE technologies remain alternative means for increasing food production and should get the necessary attentions by the scientists and leaders at global level. Even if the transgenic GMOs are seemingly giving ways to the CRISPR edited nontransgenic GMOs that are exempted from the strict regulations, the world will remain threatened by the heavy presence of the transgenic GMOs and their potential risks. It seems that rather than worrying about the GMO food safety and environmental sustainability, the world should be worried by the increasing global population that is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, leaving the world short of food supply by over 70%. The population pressure, coupled with corrupt leadership in developing countries, is more concerning to sustain humanity. Worrying only about the issues of the populations in the developed world and ignoring those of the developing countries will make the world pay steeper and real prices than just a worry about uncertainties in a particular technology. Developed countries have already started dealing with immigration crises by people escaping the corrupted leaderships in Africa, Asia, and the rest of the continents. Increasing food production and health services with all the available technologies including GE should be the way forward.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declare that he does not have any conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Tadesse Fikre Teferra: Conceptualization (lead); Data curation (lead); Investigation (lead); Writing‐original draft (lead); Writing‐review & editing (lead).

ETHICAL REVIEW

This study did not involve any human or animal testing.

INFORMED CONSENT

This review article did not involve study participants, and informed consent was not required.

Teferra, T. F. (2021). Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not? A review . Food Science & Nutrition , 9 , 5324–5331. 10.1002/fsn3.2499 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Al‐Khayri, J. M., Jain, S. M., & Johnson, D. V. (Eds.) (2016). Advances in plant breeding strategies: Breeding, biotechnology and molecular tools (Vol. 1 , pp. 3–645). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-22521-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ammann, K. (2014). Genomic misconception: A fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation . New Biotechnology , 31 ( 1 ), 1–17. 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, E. (1944). The sources of effective germ‐plasm in hybrid maize . Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden , 31 ( 4 ), 355. 10.2307/2394369 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beyer, P., Al‐Babili, S., Ye, X., Lucca, P., Schaub, P., Welsch, R., & Potrykus, I. (2002). Golden rice: Introducing the β‐carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency . Journal of Nutrition , 132 ( 3 ), 506S–510S. 10.1093/jn/132.3.506s [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birchfield, A. S., & McIntosh, C. A. (2020). Metabolic engineering and synthetic biology of plant natural products – A minireview . Current Plant Biology , 24 , 100163. 10.1016/j.cpb.2020.100163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castro Galvan, E., Maldonado Torres, M., & Pérez Urquiza, M. (2019). Zea maize reference materials for genetically modified organism detection in Mexico . Ecology and Evolution , 9 , 12353–12356. 10.1002/ece3.5667 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cellini, F., Chesson, A., Colquhoun, I., Constable, A., Davies, H. V., Engel, K. H., Gatehouse, A., Kärenlampi, S., Kok, E. J., Leguay, J.‐J., Lehesranta, S., Noteborn, H., Pedersen, J., & Smith, M. (2004). Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops . Food and Chemical Toxicology , 42 ( 7 ), 1089–1125. 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chassy, B. M. (2007). The history and future of GMOs in food and agriculture . Cereal Foods World , 52 , 169–172. 10.1094/CFW-52-4-0169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Custers, R., Casacuberta, J. M., Eriksson, D., Sági, L., & Schiemann, J. (2019). Genetic alterations that do or do not occur naturally; Consequences for genome edited organisms in the context of regulatory oversight . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 6 ( Jan ), 1–7. 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00213 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison, J., & Ammann, K. (2017). January 2). New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology . GM Crops and Food , 8 , 13–34. 10.1080/21645698.2017.1289305 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan, B., Leyva‐Guerrero, E., Werk, T., Stojšin, D., Baltazar, B. M., García‐Lara, S., Zavala‐López, M., de la Fuente‐Martínez, J. M., & Meng, C. (2019). Assessment of potential impacts associated with gene flow from transgenic hybrids to Mexican maize landraces . Transgenic Research , 28 ( 5–6 ), 509–523. 10.1007/s11248-019-00160-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckerstorfer, M. F., Engelhard, M., Heissenberger, A., Simon, S., & Teichmann, H. (2019). Plants developed by new genetic modification techniques – Comparison of existing regulatory frameworks in the EU and Non‐EU countries . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 7 , 1–16. 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson, D. (2018, May 4). Recovering the original intentions of risk assessment and management of genetically modified organisms in the European Union . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 6 , 1–4. 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00052 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson, D. (2019, March 1). The evolving EU regulatory framework for precision breeding . Theoretical and Applied Genetics , 132 , 569–573. 10.1007/s00122-018-3200-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO (2021). Wolrd Staple Crops Production Data . Retrieved May 2, 2021, from FAOSTAT website: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC [ Google Scholar ]
• FDA (2020). GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond | FDA . Retrieved June 5, 2021, from fda.gov website: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural‐biotechnology/gmo‐crops‐animal‐food‐and‐beyond [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonsalves, D. (1998). Control of papaya ringspot virus in papaya: A case study . Annual Review of Phytopathology , 36 ( 1 ), 415–437. 10.1146/annurev.phyto.36.1.415 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonsalves, D., & Ferreira, S. (2003). Transgenic papaya: A case for managing risks of papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii . Plant Health Progress , 4 ( 1 ), 17. 10.1094/php-2003-1113-03-rv [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halfhill, M. D., Millwood, R. J., Weissinger, A. K., Warwick, S. I., & Stewart, C. N. (2003). Additive transgene expression and genetic introgression in multiple green‐fluorescent protein transgenic crop × weed hybrid generations . Theoretical and Applied Genetics , 107 ( 8 ), 1533–1540. 10.1007/s00122-003-1397-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halford, N. G. (2019). Legislation governing genetically modified and genome‐edited crops in Europe: The need for change . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture , 99 ( 1 ), 8–12. 10.1002/jsfa.9227 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartung, U., & Schaub, S. (2018). The regulation of genetically modified organisms on a local level: Exploring the determinants of cultivation bans . Sustainability (Switzerland) , 10 ( 10 ), 3392. 10.3390/su10103392 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hickey, L. T., N. Hafeez, A., Robinson, H., Jackson, S. A., Leal‐Bertioli, S. C. M., Tester, M., Gao, C., Godwin, I. D., Hayes, B. J., & Wulff, B. B. H. (2019). Breeding crops to feed 10 billion . Nature Biotechnology , 37 , 744–754. 10.1038/s41587-019-0152-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hokanson, K. E. (2019). When policy meets practice: The dilemma for guidance on risk assessment under the Cartagena protocol on biosafety . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 7 , 1–18. 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00082 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinitz, B. F. (2018). Summation and a look to the future. In Bock J. H. & Norris D. O. (Eds.), Forensic plant science (pp. 149–168). Ewing: Springer International Publishing. 10.1016/b978-0-12-801475-2.00011-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishino, Y., Krupovic, M., & Forterre, P. (2018). History of CRISPR‐Cas from encounter with a mysterious repeated sequence to genome editing technology . Journal of Bacteriology , 200 ( 7 ), 1–17. 10.1128/JB.00580-17 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen, S. E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., & Weiner, J. (2013, October). Feeding the world: Genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity . Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 33 , 651–662. 10.1007/s13593-013-0138-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jhala, A. J., Norsworthy, J. K., Ganie, Z. A., Sosnoskie, L. M., Beckie, H. J., Mallory‐Smith, C. A., Liu, J., Wei, W., Wang, J., & Stoltenberg, D. E. (2021, April 1). Pollen‐mediated gene flow and transfer of resistance alleles from herbicide‐resistant broadleaf weeds . Weed Technology , 35 , 173–187. 10.1017/wet.2020.101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, H., Kim, S. T., Ryu, J., Kang, B. C., Kim, J. S., & Kim, S. G. (2017). CRISPR/Cpf1‐mediated DNA‐free plant genome editing . Nature Communications , 8 ( 1 ), 1–7. 10.1038/ncomms14406 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krieg, D. R. (1963). Ethyl methanesulfonate‐induced reversion of bacteriophage T4rII mutants . Genetics , 48 ( 4 ), 561–580. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1210494/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuntz, M. (2012). Destruction of public and governmental experiments of GMO in Europe . GM Crops & Food , 3 , 258–264. 10.4161/gmcr.21231 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrum, A. R., Hallman, W. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2019). Examining the impact of expert voices: Communicating the scientific consensus on genetically‐modified organisms . Environmental Communication , 13 ( 1 ), 51–70. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, J. (1998). AFP genes confer disease resistance to transgenic potato and wheat plants . International Workshop on Pathogenesis‐Related Proteins in Plants ; Signalling Pathways and Biological Activities 1998. Aussois, France . Retrieved from https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10021908444
• Long, S. P., Marshall‐Colon, A., & Zhu, X.‐G. (2015). Meeting the global food demand of the future by engineering crop photosynthesis and yield potential . Cell , 161 , 56–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynas, M. (2015). With G.M.O. Policies, Europe turns against science . The New York times . Retrieved December 1, 2019, from New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with‐gmo‐policies‐europe‐turns‐against‐science.html?_r=0 [ Google Scholar ]
• Masip, G., Sabalza, M., Pérez‐Massot, E., Banakar, R., Cebrian, D., Twyman, R. M., & Christou, P. (2013, June). Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops . Trends in Plant Science , 18 , 312–324. 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.03.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mavroudi, E., & Nagel, C. (2016). Global migration: Patterns, processes, and politics . Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3sVJDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Global+Migration:+Patterns,+processes,+and+politics+‐+Elizabeth+Mavroudi,+Caroline+Nagel+&ots=NNcri‐nJrJ&sig=0OVrtF18ThkB9g1HHGGnnasE‐ho
• Melchers, L. S., & Stuiver, M. H. (2000, April 1). Novel genes for disease‐resistance breeding . Current Opinion in Plant Biology , 3 , 147–152. 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00055-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer, K. L., & Wainwright, J. D. (2008). Gene flow from transgenic maize to landraces in Mexico: An analysis . Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 123 ( 1–3 ), 109–115. 10.1016/j.agee.2007.05.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myhr, A. I. (2009). The role of precautionary motivated science in addressing scientific uncertainties related to GMOS. In Traavik T. & Lim L. C. (Eds.), Biosafety first – Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (pp. 279–287). Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakayama, T. J., Borém, A., Chiari, L., Molinari, H. B. C., & Nepomuceno, A. L. (2014). Precision genetic engineering. In Borém A. & Fritsche‐Neto R. (Eds.), Omics in plant breeding (Vol. 9781118820995 , pp. 187–205). John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118820971.ch10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nidhi, S., Anand, U., Oleksak, P., Tripathi, P., Lal, J. A., Thomas, G., & Tripathi, V. (2021, April 1). Novel crispr–cas systems: An updated review of the current achievements, applications, and future research perspectives . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 22 , 1–42. 10.3390/ijms22073327 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen, K. M., & Myhr, A. I. (2007). Understanding the uncertainties arising from technological interventions in complex biological systems: The case of GMOs. (pp. 107–122). In Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz‐Garcia, S., Ezcurra, E., Schoel, B., Acevedo, F., Soberón, J., & Snow, A. A. (2005). Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004) . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 102 ( 35 ), 12338–12343. 10.1073/pnas.0503356102 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parrott, W. (2010, November 30). Genetically modified myths and realities . New Biotechnology , 27 , 545–551. 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.05.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter, R., Mojca, J., & Primož, P. (2011). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) . In Encyclopedia of environmental health (pp. 879–888). 10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00481-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polansek, T. (2021). U.S. says Mexico plan to ban GMO corn imports does not apply to animal feed | Reuters . Reuters . Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐usa‐corn‐mexico‐idUSKBN2BI32G [ Google Scholar ]
• Popescu, G. (2019). Agrifood Economics and Sustainable Development in Contemporary Society (G. Popescu, Ed.). 10.4018/978-1-5225-5739-5 [ CrossRef ]
• Quist, D., & Chapela, I. H. (2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico . Nature , 414 , 541–543. 10.1038/35107068 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radman, M., Taddei, F., & Matic, I. (2000, March 1). Evolution‐driving genes . Research in Microbiology , 151 , 91–95. 10.1016/S0923-2508(00)00122-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050 . PLoS One , 8 , e66428. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ringler, C., Zhu, T., & Cai, X. (2010). Climate change impacts on food security in Sub‐Saharan Africa: Insights from comprehensive climate change scenarios The water‐energy‐food nexus: Global, basin and local case studies of resource use efficiency under growing natural resource scarcity View project . Retrieved from , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237137914 [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez‐León, S., Gil‐Humanes, J., Ozuna, C. V., Giménez, M. J., Sousa, C., Voytas, D. F., & Barro, F. (2018). Low‐gluten, nontransgenic wheat engineered with CRISPR/Cas9 . Plant Biotechnology Journal , 16 ( 4 ), 902–910. 10.1111/pbi.12837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schjerling, P. (2005). The basics of gene doping. In Tamburrini C. & Tännsjö T. (Eds.), Genetic technology and sport: Ethical questions (pp. 19–31). Tylor and Francis Group. 10.4324/9780203481646 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin, H. Y., Wang, C., Lee, H. K., Yoo, K. H., Zeng, X., Kuhns, T., & Hennighausen, L. (2017). CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome . Nature Communications , 8 ( 1 ), 1–10. 10.1038/ncomms15464 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., & Jain, R. K. (2006, August 26). Genetically modified crops: Success, safety assessment, and public concern . Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology , 71 , 598–607. 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smulders, M. J. M., & Arens, P. (2018). New developments in molecular techniques for breeding in ornamentals. In Van Huylenbroeck J. (Ed.), Handbook of Plant Breeding (Vol. 11 , pp. 213–230). Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-90698-0_9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smyth, S. J., & Phillips, P. W. B. (2014). Risk, regulation and biotechnology: The case of GM crops . GM Crops & Food , 5 ( 3 ), 170–177. 10.4161/21645698.2014.945880 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart, C. N., Halfhill, M. D., & Warwick, S. I. (2003, October 1). Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives . Nature Reviews Genetics , 4 , 806–817. 10.1038/nrg1179 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tagliabue, G. (2015, September 8). The nonsensical GMO pseudo‐category and a precautionary rabbit hole . Nature Biotechnology , 33 , 907–908. 10.1038/nbt.3333 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tatsis, E. C., & O’Connor, S. E. (2016, December 1). New developments in engineering plant metabolic pathways . Current Opinion in Biotechnology , 42 , 126–132. 10.1016/j.copbio.2016.04.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulukapi, K. & Ayse, N. G. (2015). Developments of gamma ray application on mutation breeding studies in recent years. International Conference on Advances in Agricultural, Biological & Environmental Sciences (AABES‐2015) July 22‐23, 2015 . London, UK. 10.15242/iicbe.c0715044 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• USDA (2020). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US . Retrieved June 5, 2021, from website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/adoption‐of‐genetically‐engineered‐crops‐in‐the‐us.aspxhttps://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/adoption‐of‐genetically‐engineered‐crops‐in‐the‐us.aspx [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Den Eede, G., Aarts, H., Buhk, H. J., Corthier, G., Flint, H. J., Hammes, W., & Wilcks, A. (2004). The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants . Food and Chemical Toxicology , 42 ( 7 ), 1127–1156. 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WB (2021). Population, total ‐ World | Data . Retrieved May 2, 2021, from Population Data website: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=1W [ Google Scholar ]
• Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (2019). The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2019 . Retrieved from http://www.organic‐world.net/yearbook/yearbook‐2019.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Wisniewski, J. P., Frangne, N., Massonneau, A., & Dumas, C. (2002). Between myth and reality: Genetically modified maize, an example of a sizeable scientific controversy . Biochimie , 84 ( 11 ), 1095–1103. 10.1016/S0300-9084(02)00014-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye, X., & Beyer, P. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (β‐carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid‐free) rice endosperm . Science , 287 ( 5451 ), 303–305. 10.1126/science.287.5451.303 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao, J. H., & Ho, P. (2005). A developmental risk society? The politics of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in China . International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development , 4 . Retrieved from www.rug.nl/cds [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng, X., Giuliano, G., & Al‐Babili, S. (2020, November 1). Carotenoid biofortification in crop plants: Citius, altius, fortius . Biochimica et Bssiophysica Acta – Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids , 1865 . 10.1016/j.bbalip.2020.158664 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

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.]

Unilever Global Change location

Leading in the next era of corporate sustainability

Fewer things, done better, with greater impact.

Our Growth Action Plan addresses these challenges head-on. In the coming years, our focus will be on four sustainability priorities .

A montage of Unilever products being used together with agricultural footage.

Detailed description

A jar of Hellmann’s mayonnaise on a kitchen counter, a sandwich in the background with someone holding a knife. The sandwich is then pressed down ready to cut.

Tomatoes growing on a vine. Someone in the foreground with a handful of soil.

A woman rubs Vaseline on her lower legs.

Rain falling into a pool of water in a rice field. A rice field with water droplets rising up.

A man tosses a Persil capsule into a washing machine. A Persil 3-in-1 Bio packshot with the words ‘Dirt is good’.

Our ambition is to deliver net zero emissions across our value chain.

Our ambition is to deliver resilient and regenerative natural and agricultural ecosystems.

Our ambition is an end to plastic pollution through reduction, circulation and collaboration.

Livelihoods

Our ambition is to ensure a decent livelihood for people in our global value chain, including by earning a living wage.

The next era of corporate sustainability

The first era was about ringing the alarm. The second was about setting long-term ambitions. The third is about delivering impact faster , by making sustainability progress integral to business performance.

We intend to lead in this new era by being:

More focused in allocating our resources

using capital allocation to make progress across our sustainability priorities.

More urgent in our actions

with roadmaps, clear accountability and reward.

More systemic in our advocacy

through deeper collaboration and more assertive policy advocacy.

"Our updated commitments are very stretching, but they are also intentionally and, unashamedly, realistic. We are determined that Unilever will deliver against them." Hein Schumacher, CEO Read our CEO Hein Schumacher’s views

Our sustainability news

How sunshine drives sales and powers our ice cream business

10 June 2024

The sun doesn’t just drive our ice cream sales; it also helps power our business in a sustainable way. Find out how solar solutions integrated into our warehouses, fleets and sales kiosks are making energy savings, reducing emissions and contributing to our climate goals.

Why we’ve updated our Climate Transition Action Plan

16 May 2024

Our updated Climate Transition Action Plan (CTAP) sets out Unilever’s ambitious new climate targets. Discover how we’re focusing our efforts so we can deepen our impact by 2030, and why we believe taking urgent climate action now is good for our business in the long term.

UN plastics treaty: reasons to be optimistic

With the fourth round of negotiations for a UN treaty to end plastic pollution now concluded, Unilever CEO Hein Schumacher reflects on the progress made and the road ahead.

How we’re improving livelihoods across our value chain

Head of Social Sustainability, Anouk Heilen, explains how we’re ensuring a living wage for everyone we work with and why better living standards can build a stronger business.

How we’re aiming for greater impact with updated plastic goals

30 April 2024

We recently announced an evolved sustainability agenda to make more tangible progress on the big complex challenges we face. Pablo Costa, Global Head of Packaging, explains what that means for our approach to plastic, and how our updated goals are aimed at making greater impact.

Looking for more on sustainability?

Find out about our approach to sustainability and our ongoing commitment to responsible business.

Our commitment to responsible business

Find out more about our progress and reporting on issues such as positive nutrition, business integrity, and safety.

Human rights

Human rights continue to underpin our sustainability agenda. Find out more about our progress.

Equity, diversity and inclusion

Find out more about how we are working towards a society where everyone is treated equally.

Unilever Annual Report

Read more about our Growth Action Plan and how we are stepping up our execution to deliver improved performance.

Legal disclaimer

Disclaimer covering our sustainability pages.

Read the disclaimer covering our sustainability pages (PDF 92.63 KB) .