presentation about gm food

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

indigenous canada

8 templates

6 templates

113 templates

first day of school

68 templates

machine learning

5 templates

welcome back to school

124 templates

Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

It seems that you like this template, introduction of genetically modified organisms (gmos) presentation, free google slides theme, powerpoint template, and canva presentation template.

Revolutionary, valuable addition to our food or harmful health risk? Genetically modified organisms (or GMOs for short) are still an unknown quantity for many people. There’s little factual information and lots of conspiracy theories around modified crops and animals, making people cautious to say the least. This Google Slides and PowerPoint template is your chance to compile information, speak about the science, advantages and risks of genetic modification, and give your audience a foundation for building their own opinion. Download and edit this slide deck full of subject-related illustrations and clear visual representations of data!

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 35 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides, Canva, and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the resources used

How can I use the template?

Am I free to use the templates?

How to attribute?

Attribution required If you are a free user, you must attribute Slidesgo by keeping the slide where the credits appear. How to attribute?

Related posts on our blog.

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Register for free and start editing online

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
• Triple Billion
• 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

• 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

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

How has genetic engineering changed plant and animal breeding?

Did you know.

Genetic engineering is often used in combination with traditional breeding to produce the genetically engineered plant varieties on the market today.

For thousands of years, humans have been using traditional modification methods like selective breeding and cross-breeding to breed plants and animals with more desirable traits. For example, early farmers developed cross-breeding methods to grow corn with a range of colors, sizes, and uses. Today’s strawberries are a cross between a strawberry species native to North America and a strawberry species native to South America.

Most of the foods we eat today were created through traditional breeding methods. But changing plants and animals through traditional breeding can take a long time, and it is difficult to make very specific changes. After scientists developed genetic engineering in the 1970s, they were able to make similar changes in a more specific way and in a shorter amount of time.

A Timeline of Genetic Modification in Agriculture

A Timeline of Genetic Modification in Modern Agriculture

Circa 8000 BCE: Humans use traditional modification methods like selective breeding and cross-breeding to breed plants and animals with more desirable traits.

1866: Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, breeds two different types of peas and identifies the basic process of genetics.

1922: The first hybrid corn is produced and sold commercially.

1940: Plant breeders learn to use radiation or chemicals to randomly change an organism’s DNA.

1953: Building on the discoveries of chemist Rosalind Franklin, scientists James Watson and Francis Crick identify the structure of DNA.

1973: Biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen develop genetic engineering by inserting DNA from one bacteria into another.

1982: FDA approves the first consumer GMO product developed through genetic engineering: human insulin to treat diabetes.

1986: The federal government establishes the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. This policy describes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) work together to regulate the safety of GMOs.

1992: FDA policy states that foods from GMO plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants.

1994: The first GMO produce created through genetic engineering—a GMO tomato—becomes available for sale after studies evaluated by federal agencies proved it to be as safe as traditionally bred tomatoes.

1990s: The first wave of GMO produce created through genetic engineering becomes available to consumers: summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, papayas, tomatoes, potatoes, and canola. Not all are still available for sale.

2003: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations develop international guidelines and standards to determine the safety of GMO foods.

2005: GMO alfalfa and sugar beets are available for sale in the United States.

2015: FDA approves an application for the first genetic modification in an animal for use as food, a genetically engineered salmon.

2016: Congress passes a law requiring labeling for some foods produced through genetic engineering and uses the term “bioengineered,” which will start to appear on some foods.

2017: GMO apples are available for sale in the U.S.

2019: FDA completes consultation on first food from a genome edited plant.

2020 : GMO pink pineapple is available to U.S. consumers.

2020 : Application for GalSafe pig was approved.

How are GMOs made?

“GMO” (genetically modified organism) has become the common term consumers and popular media use to describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a process that involves:

• Identifying the genetic information—or “gene”—that gives an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) a desired trait
• Copying that information from the organism that has the trait
• Inserting that information into the DNA of another organism
• Then growing the new organism

How Are GMOs Made? Fact Sheet

Making a GMO Plant, Step by Step

The following example gives a general idea of the steps it takes to create a GMO plant. This example uses a type of insect-resistant corn called “Bt corn.” Keep in mind that the processes for creating a GMO plant, animal, or microorganism may be different.

To produce a GMO plant, scientists first identify what trait they want that plant to have, such as resistance to drought, herbicides, or insects. Then, they find an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) that already has that trait within its genes. In this example, scientists wanted to create insect-resistant corn to reduce the need to spray pesticides. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) , which produces a natural insecticide that has been in use for many years in traditional and organic agriculture.

After scientists find the gene with the desired trait, they copy that gene.

For Bt corn, they copied the gene in Bt that would provide the insect-resistance trait.

Next, scientists use tools to insert the gene into the DNA of the plant. By inserting the Bt gene into the DNA of the corn plant, scientists gave it the insect resistance trait.

This new trait does not change the other existing traits.

In the laboratory, scientists grow the new corn plant to ensure it has adopted the desired trait (insect resistance). If successful, scientists first grow and monitor the new corn plant (now called Bt corn because it contains a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis) in greenhouses and then in small field tests before moving it into larger field tests. GMO plants go through in-depth review and tests before they are ready to be sold to farmers.

The entire process of bringing a GMO plant to the marketplace takes several years.

Learn more about the process for creating genetically engineered microbes and genetically engineered animals .

What are the latest scientific advances in plant and animal breeding?

Scientists are developing new ways to create new varieties of crops and animals using a process called genome editing . These techniques can make changes more quickly and precisely than traditional breeding methods.

There are several genome editing tools, such as CRISPR . Scientists can use these newer genome editing tools to make crops more nutritious, drought tolerant, and resistant to insect pests and diseases.

Learn more about Genome Editing in Agricultural Biotechnology .

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

Accept cookies?

We use cook ies  to give you the best online experience and to show personalised content and marketing. We use them to improve our website and content as well as to tailor our digital advertising on third-party platforms. You can change your preferences at any time.  

Popular search terms:

• British wildlife
• Wildlife Photographer of the Year
• Explore the Museum
• Anthropocene

British Wildlife

Collections

Human evolution

What on Earth?

Farmers of the future face a big challenge: feeding Earth's expanding population while minimising environmental impacts and keeping food affordable. Image: Varga Jozsef Zoltan/ Shutterstock.com .

During Beta testing articles may only be saved for seven days.

Create a list of articles to read later. You will be able to access your list from any article in Discover.

You don't have any saved articles.

The future of eating: how genetically modified food will withstand climate change

Climate change is transforming how we feed ourselves. Floods, droughts and new diseases can have a big impact on the crops we rely on for food, including staples such as wheat, maize and rice. 

Future farmers face a big challenge: feeding everyone on Earth while being kind to the planet. Could genetically modified food be the answer?

Discover which foods can be genetically modified, how they can be improved, and whether people should worry about eating them.

What is genetically modified food?

Genetically modified crops are plants which have had their DNA changed by scientists to create desired traits, often by adding just one gene from a close wild relative.

For example, GM crops can be engineered to require less water to grow or to resist diseases or pests. More ambitious projects are underway to engineer crops that make their own fertiliser. This type of technology could be key in making some of our most important food crops more resilient in the face of climate change , and it could decrease the chemicals and energy needed to grow them.

Wheat is the most commonly grown crop across the world by acreage. Image: ESB Professional/ Shutterstock.com .

Wheat is the most commonly grown crop across the world by acreage. It is often used to make bread, pasta and noodles, and also feeds livestock.

Helping to find ways to meet this demand is Prof Matt Clark, a Museum research leader who is studying wheat DNA.

It took over 600 scientists working together to finally sequence the wheat genome in 2018 . This was once thought to difficult to do, as the wheat genome is five times bigger than the human one. By understanding and changing wheat genomes, scientists like Matt will help to protect the crop for future generations. Breeders will be able to select traits which will improve wheat harvests and help to secure food stores for billions of people around the world.

Wheat can be bred to withstand severe weather and disease, both of which could become more common as the world warms.

Wheat strains are also being adapted to produce flour with increased iron levels. The ongoing trial, which is being carried out at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, has shown that the new grain contained double the amount of iron compared to a normal grain. This could help to reduce levels of iron deficiency-related anaemia globally. Anaemia is especially common in girls and young women. 

Maize, sometimes referred to as corn in the US and Canada, has seen demand surge globally because it is used to feed animals and to create new fuels.  Image: naramit/ Shutterstock.com .

Maize, sometimes referred to as corn in the US and Canada, has seen demand surge globally because it is used to feed animals and to create new fuels.

In 2019, researchers in Delaware, USA, successfully increased corn yields by 10% by changing the gene that controls its growth. This modification has proved successful even in poor conditions: plants were given bigger leaves to improve how they turn sunlight into sugar and boost how efficient they are at using nitrogen in the soil.

Genetic modification can have unexpected positive effects, too. Corn which has been engineered to require fewer pesticides may also be safer for humans and animals to eat. That's because corn damaged by insects contains fumonisins - toxins generated by fungi introduced to the corn by insects - which are thought to cause cancer. There is a link between people who eat lots of corn, such as populations in South Africa, China and Italy, and higher rates of oesophageal cancer.

Rice is the main food source for three billion people. Image: Chaded Panichsri/ Shutterstock.com .

Around 20% of calories consumed across the world come from rice, and it is the main food source for three billion people. Yet the places where rice is most often grown, including areas of India, Bangladesh and China, are constantly at risk of flooding. Rising sea levels and increasingly intense tropical storms mean that this problem is only going to worsen.

One solution to this is scuba rice, which can withstand being soaked in flood water and has been successfully grown in southeast Asia.

Genetic modification can also make rice kinder to nature. Rice paddy fields are a big source of the greenhouse gas methane, but the creation of the SUSIBA2 variety is helping. This rice contains a gene from the barley plant, which can help to reduce methane emissions. A three-year trial showed that this method increased yield by 10% while reducing methane emissions.

The aim of the C4 Rice Project, led by a team from 12 universities across eight countries, is to engineer C4 photosynthesis, meaning to convert the energy from sunlight into rice. C4 photosynthesis is up to 50% more water-efficient than other types of rice and naturally occurs in drought-tolerant or very fast-growing plant species such as bamboo.

The University of Sheffield is one of several institutions working on growing rice with fewer stomata, the tiny openings used for gas exchange. This will result in less water being lost and better performance in exceptionally hot or wet conditions. Results so far show that lower stomatal density means that 60% less water is used. When 4,000 litres of water are needed to grow a kilogram of rice, and rice uses 70% of the agricultural water supply in China, this could be a significant saving.

Dr Haiyan Xiong, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge, is working on a similar strategy. Her PhD and postdoctoral work in China focussed on introducing the drought-resistant gene found in upland rice (which grows in dry and hilly conditions) into lowland rice. Lowland rice tends to be better quality but less hardy, so aims to merge the desirable traits of both crops.

So far, Xiong's team has identified three genes which could help make rice more resistant to drought. Her current work at the University of Cambridge is aimed at changing rice plants so they are better at converting the energy from sunlight into food. 

Xiong's upbringing in rural Sichuan drew her to a career researching rice. She witnessed drought conditions first-hand, which led to a dream of 'becoming a scientist who can contribute to improving rice resistance to drought stress'. She says, 'Rice is not only one of the most important food crops in the world - it is also a model plant for studying other cereal crops.'

Around 45% of this soya is crushed to produce oil and meals which are then exported globally. Image: nnattalli/ Shutterstock .com

Soya beans are the Americas' most exported crop, making up 82% of its agricultural exports. Around 45% of this soya is crushed to produce oil and meals which are then exported globally. Among these crops are genetically modified soybeans, which have been spliced with the pigeonpea gene to increase resistance to Asian soybean rust (ASR). ASR is caused by a fungus and is one of the most common crop diseases, only treatable by introducing the fungi-resistant trait of other legumes to increase resistance and improve crop yields. 

There is no sure-fire way to make agriculture more sustainable, but GM crops are helping farmers to adapt to the issues presented by climate change. Image: Varga Jozsef Zoltan/ Shutterstock.com.

What are the issues surrounding GM crops? 

Some people are wary of GM crops, often due to concerns about the cost of seeds, issues surrounding herbicide resistance and worries about allergens and safety. There are also fears that crossing species could inadvertently introduce allergens such as nuts into the food chain. This fear appears unfounded, as to date no adverse reactions have been found in any approved GM products.

Others worry that modified plants could pollinate wild varieties and cause hybrids to pop up. For this to happen, the GM trait would need to be able to survive in the wild, which is not always the case, and GM crops can be designed to be sterile.

In fact, research has shown that there is nothing that differentiates GM crops from naturally occurring ones in terms of health or safety. GM crops can be a force for good by offering an alternative to spraying pesticides that pollute groundwater and can kill surrounding crops.

Globally, GM crop uptake is divided. In some regions, billions of people have eaten GM crops for decades, whereas the European Union is generally resistant to the use of GM foods, though it does import GM animal feed. Many European countries including France, Germany and Croatia have completely banned GM foods. Others such as Spain, the Czech Republic and Portugal grow GM crops.

The USA is one of the widest growers and adopters of GM foods with 60% of processed foods containing ingredients from engineered soy, corn or canola.

Looking to the future

What does the future of genetically modified crops hold? The Alliance for Science at Cornell University in the USA is currently working on corn which can resist insects and drought for use in Africa. If farmers plant corn which could do this organically, they could save money on fertiliser and pesticides. Funded by charities including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, it should be available to farmers by 2023.

New gene editing tools such as CRISPR can be used to precision-edit genetic material, even to the level of changing a single base of DNA. This has the potential for enormous worldwide benefits. For this reason the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of CRISPR: Profs Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna.

There is no magic fix to climate change and no sure-fire way to make agriculture more sustainable, but GM crops are helping farmers to adapt to the issues presented by climate change. These crops can result in better yields and survive droughts and floods, helping to make sure there is enough food available for an increasing global population while also reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture. 

• Sustainability
• Our Broken Planet
• Biodiversity
• Climate change

Related posts

Why you should care about scientists sequencing the wheat genome

Sequencing the wheat genome could help to protect food supplies in the future.

Sugar: a killer crop?

The world's sugar addiction is destroying tropical rainforest.

What is climate change and why does it matter?

What does this term mean and how could it affect you?

Soil degradation: the problems and how to fix them

The world is running out of soil - here's why that's a problem.

Don't miss a thing

Receive email updates about our news, science, exhibitions, events, products, services and fundraising activities. We may occasionally include third-party content from our corporate partners and other museums. We will not share your personal details with these third parties. You must be over the age of 13. Privacy notice .

Follow us on social media

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Food Sci Technol
• v.50(6); 2013 Dec

Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review

Defence Food Research Laboratory, Siddarthanagar, Mysore, 570011 India

K. R. Anilakumar

Genetic modification is a special set of gene technology that alters the genetic machinery of such living organisms as animals, plants or microorganisms. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology and the resulting organism is said to be ‘Genetically modified (GM)’, ‘Genetically engineered’ or ‘Transgenic’. The principal transgenic crops grown commercially in field are herbicide and insecticide resistant soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Other crops grown commercially and/or field-tested are sweet potato resistant to a virus that could destroy most of the African harvest, rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries and a variety of plants that are able to survive weather extremes. There are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. Technologies for genetically modifying foods offer dramatic promise for meeting some areas of greatest challenge for the 21st century. Like all new technologies, they also pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies and public concern surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labelling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction and environmental conservation. With this new technology on gene manipulation what are the risks of “tampering with Mother Nature”?, what effects will this have on the environment?, what are the health concerns that consumers should be aware of? and is recombinant technology really beneficial? This review will also address some major concerns about the safety, environmental and ecological risks and health hazards involved with GM foods and recombinant technology.

Introduction

Scientists first discovered in 1946 that DNA can be transferred between organisms (Clive 2011 ). It is now known that there are several mechanisms for DNA transfer and that these occur in nature on a large scale, for example, it is a major mechanism for antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria. The first genetically modified (GM) plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in the early 1990s with the introduction of virus resistant tobacco. In 1994, the transgenic ‘Flavour Saver tomato’ was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing in the USA. The modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking. In 1995, few transgenic crops received marketing approval. This include canola with modified oil composition (Calgene), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn/maize (Ciba-Geigy), cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil (Calgene), Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes (Monsanto), soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto), virus-resistant squash (Asgrow) and additional delayed ripening tomatoes (DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto) (Clive 2011 ). A total of 35 approvals had been granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and one flower crop of carnations with 8 different traits in 6 countries plus the EU till 1996 (Clive 1996 ). As of 2011, the USA leads a list of multiple countries in the production of GM crops. Currently, there are a number of food species in which a genetically modified version exists (Johnson 2008 ). Some of the foods that are available in the market include cotton, soybean, canola, potatoes, eggplant, strawberries, corn, tomatoes, lettuce, cantaloupe, carrots etc. GM products which are currently in the pipeline include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds and fibres. Locating genes for important traits, such as those conferring insect resistance or desired nutrients-is one of the most limiting steps in the process.

Foods derived from GM crops

At present there are several GM crops used as food sources. As of now there are no GM animals approved for use as food, but a GM salmon has been proposed for FDA approval. In instances, the product is directly consumed as food, but in most of the cases, crops that have been genetically modified are sold as commodities, which are further processed into food ingredients.

Fruits and vegetables

Papaya has been developed by genetic engineering which is ring spot virus resistant and thus enhancing the productivity. This was very much in need as in the early 1990s the Hawaii’s papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ring spot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state’s papaya industry would have collapsed. Today 80 % of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and till now no conventional or organic method is available to control ring spot virus.

The NewLeaf™ potato, a GM food developed using naturally-occurring bacteria found in the soil known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle. This was brought to market by Monsanto in the late 1990s, developed for the fast food market. This was forced to withdraw from the market in 2001as the fast food retailers did not pick it up and thereby the food processors ran into export problems. Reports say that currently no transgenic potatoes are marketed for the purpose of human consumption. However, BASF, one of the leading suppliers of plant biotechnology solutions for agriculture requested for the approval for cultivation and marketing as a food and feed for its ‘Fortuna potato’. This GM potato was made resistant to late blight by adding two resistance genes, blb1 and blb2, which was originated from the Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum . As of 2005, about 13 % of the zucchini grown in the USA is genetically modified to resist three viruses; the zucchini is also grown in Canada (Johnson 2008 ).

Vegetable oil

It is reported that there is no or a significantly small amount of protein or DNA remaining in vegetable oil extracted from the original GM crops in USA. Vegetable oil is sold to consumers as cooking oil, margarine and shortening, and is used in prepared foods. Vegetable oil is made of triglycerides extracted from plants or seeds and then refined, and may be further processed via hydrogenation to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining process removes nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients (Crevel et al. 2000 ). Cooking oil, margarine and shortening may also be made from several crops. A large percentage of Canola produced in USA is GM and is mainly used to produce vegetable oil. Canola oil is the third most widely consumed vegetable oil in the world. The genetic modifications are made for providing resistance to herbicides viz. glyphosate or glufosinate and also for improving the oil composition. After removing oil from canola seed, which is ∼43 %, the meal has been used as high quality animal feed. Canola oil is a key ingredient in many foods and is sold directly to consumers as margarine or cooking oil. The oil has many non-food uses, which includes making lipsticks.

Maize, also called corn in the USA and cornmeal, which is ground and dried maize constitute a staple food in many regions of the world. Grown since 1997 in the USA and Canada, 86 % of the USA maize crop was genetically modified in 2010 (Hamer and Scuse 2010 ) and 32 % of the worldwide maize crop was GM in 2011 (Clive 2011 ). A good amount of the total maize harvested go for livestock feed including the distillers grains. The remaining has been used for ethanol and high fructose corn syrup production, export, and also used for other sweeteners, cornstarch, alcohol, human food or drink. Corn oil is sold directly as cooking oil and to make shortening and margarine, in addition to make vitamin carriers, as a source of lecithin, as an ingredient in prepared foods like mayonnaise, sauces and soups, and also to fry potato chips and French fries. Cottonseed oil is used as a salad and cooking oil, both domestically and industrially. Nearly 93 % of the cotton crop in USA is GM.

The USA imports 10 % of its sugar from other countries, while the remaining 90 % is extracted from domestically grown sugar beet and sugarcane. Out of the domestically grown sugar crops, half of the extracted sugar is derived from sugar beet, and the other half is from sugarcane. After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the USA. In USA 95 % of sugar beet acres were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed (Clive 2011 ). Sugar beets that are herbicide-tolerant have been approved in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore and USA. The food products of sugar beets are refined sugar and molasses. Pulp remaining from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugar beets is highly refined and contains no DNA or protein—it is just sucrose, the same as sugar produced from non-GM sugar beets (Joana et al. 2010 ).

Quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. These tests are based on screening genetic elements like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar or event specific markers for the official GMOs like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73. The array based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for different potential GMO combining different approaches viz. screening elements, plant-specific markers, and event-specific markers. The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening elements or event specific markers. Controls are necessary to avoid false positive or false negative results. For example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in the event of a virus contaminated sample.

Joana et al. ( 2010 ) reported the extraction and detection of DNA along with a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean. The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps. This excluded the intermediate steps of refining viz. neutralization, washing and bleaching possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify GMOs in the fully refined soybean oil.

Figure  1 gives the overall protocol for the testing of GMOs. This is based on a PCR detection system specific for 35S promoter region originating from cauliflower mosaic virus (Deisingh and Badrie 2005 ). The 35S-PCR technique permits detection of GMO contents of foods and raw materials in the range of 0.01–0.1 %. The development of quantitative detection systems such as quantitative competitive PCR (QC-PCR), real-time PCR and ELISA systems resulted in the advantage of survival of DNA in most manufacturing processes. Otherwise with ELISA, there can be protein denaturing during food processing. Inter-laboratory differences were found to be less with the QC-PCR than with quantitative PCR probably due to insufficient homogenisation of the sample. However, there are disadvantages, the major one being the amount of DNA, which could be amplified, is affected by food processing techniques and can vary up to 5-fold. Thus, results need to be normalised by using plant-specific QC-PCR system. Further, DNA, which cannot be amplified, will affect all quantitative PCR detection systems.

Protocol for the testing of genetically modified foods

In a recent work La Mura et al. ( 2011 ) applied QUIZ (quantization using informative zeros) to estimate the contents of RoundUp Ready™ soya and MON810 in processed food containing one or both GMs. They reported that the quantification of GM in samples can be performed without the need for certified reference materials using QUIZ. Results showed good agreement between derived values and known input of GM material and compare favourably with quantitative real-time PCR. Detection of Roundup Ready soybean by loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral-flow dipstick has been reported recently (Xiumin et al. 2012 ).

GM foods-merits and demerits

Before we think of having GM foods it is very important to know about is advantages and disadvantages especially with respect to its safety. These foods are made by inserting genes of other species into their DNA. Though this kind of genetic modification is used both in plants and animals, it is found more commonly in the former than in the latter. Experts are working on developing foods that have the ability to alleviate certain disorders and diseases. Though researchers and the manufacturers make sure that there are various advantages of consuming these foods, a fair bit of the population is entirely against them.

GM foods are useful in controlling the occurrence of certain diseases. By modifying the DNA system of these foods, the properties causing allergies are eliminated successfully. These foods grow faster than the foods that are grown traditionally. Probably because of this, the increased productivity provides the population with more food. Moreover these foods are a boon in places which experience frequent droughts, or where the soil is incompetent for agriculture. At times, genetically engineered food crops can be grown at places with unfavourable climatic conditions too. A normal crop can grow only in specific season or under some favourable climatic conditions. Though the seeds for such foods are quite expensive, their cost of production is reported to be less than that of the traditional crops due to the natural resistance towards pests and insects. This reduces the necessity of exposing GM crops to harmful pesticides and insecticides, making these foods free from chemicals and environment friendly as well. Genetically engineered foods are reported to be high in nutrients and contain more minerals and vitamins than those found in traditionally grown foods. Other than this, these foods are known to taste better. Another reason for people opting for genetically engineered foods is that they have an increased shelf life and hence there is less fear of foods getting spoiled quickly.

The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. Besides, as these foods are new inventions, not much is known about their long term effects on human beings. As the health effects are unknown, many people prefer to stay away from these foods. Manufacturers do not mention on the label that foods are developed by genetic manipulation because they think that this would affect their business, which is not a good practice. Many religious and cultural communities are against such foods because they see it as an unnatural way of producing foods. Many people are also not comfortable with the idea of transferring animal genes into plants and vice versa. Also, this cross-pollination method can cause damage to other organisms that thrive in the environment. Experts are also of the opinion that with the increase of such foods, developing countries would start depending more on industrial countries because it is likely that the food production would be controlled by them in the time to come.

Safety tests on commercial GM crops

The GM tomatoes were produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an ‘antisense’ GM method (IRDC 1998 ). The results show that there were no significant alterations in total protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids (Redenbaugh et al. 1992 ). Therefore, the GM and parent tomatoes were deemed to be “substantially equivalent”. In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed with homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were reported to be absent. A study with a GM tomato expressing B. thuringiensis toxin CRYIA (b) was underlined by the immunocytochemical demonstration of in vitro binding of Bt toxin to the caecum/colon from humans and rhesus monkeys (Noteborn et al. 1995 ).

Two lines of Chardon LL herbicide-resistant GM maize expressing the gene of phosphinothricin acetyltransferase before and after ensiling showed significant differences in fat and carbohydrate contents compared with non-GM maize and were therefore substantially different come. Toxicity tests were only performed with the maize even though with this the unpredictable effects of the gene transfer or the vector or gene insertion could not be demonstrated or excluded. The design of these experiments was also flawed because of poor digestibility and reduction in feed conversion efficiency of GM corn. One broiler chicken feeding study with rations containing transgenic Event 176 derived Bt corn (Novartis) has been published (Brake and Vlachos 1998 ). However, the results of this trial are more relevant to commercial than academic scientific studies.

GM soybeans

To make soybeans herbicide resistant, the gene of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium was used. Safety tests claim the GM variety to be “substantially equivalent” to conventional soybeans (Padgette et al. 1996 ). The same was claimed for GTS (glyphosate-resistant soybeans) sprayed with this herbicide (Taylor et al. 1999 ). However, several significant differences between the GM and control lines were recorded (Padgette et al. 1996 ) and the study showed statistically significant changes in the contents of genistein (isoflavone) with significant importance for health (Lappe et al. 1999 ) and increased content in trypsin inhibitor.

Studies have been conducted on the feeding value (Hammond et al. 1996 ) and possible toxicity (Harrison et al. 1996 ) for rats, broiler chickens, catfish and dairy cows of two GM lines of glyphosate-resistant soybean (GTS). The growth, feed conversion efficiency, catfish fillet composition, broiler breast muscle and fat pad weights and milk production, rumen fermentation and digestibilities in cows were found to be similar for GTS and non-GTS. These studies had the following lacunae: (a) No individual feed intakes, body or organ weights were given and histology studies were qualitative microscopy on the pancreas, (b) The feeding value of the two GTS lines was not substantially equivalent either because the rats/catfish grew significantly better on one of the GTS lines than on the other, (c) The design of study with broiler chicken was not much convincing, (d) Milk production and performance of lactating cows also showed significant differences between cows fed GM and non-GM feeds and (e) Testing of the safety of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, which renders soybeans glyphosate-resistant (Harrison et al. 1996 ), was irrelevant because in the gavage studies an E. coli recombinant and not the GTS product were used. In a separate study (Teshima et al. 2000 ), it was claimed that rats and mice which were fed 30 % toasted GTS or non-GTS in their diet had no significant differences in nutritional performance, organ weights, histopathology and production of IgE and IgG antibodies.

GM potatoes

There were no improvements in the protein content or amino acid profile of GM potatoes (Hashimoto et al. 1999a ). In a short feeding study to establish the safety of GM potatoes expressing the soybean glycinin gene, rats were daily force-fed with 2 g of GM or control potatoes/kg body weight (Hashimoto et al 1999b ). No differences in growth, feed intake, blood cell count and composition and organ weights between the groups were found. In this study, the intake of potato by animals was reported to be too low (Pusztai 2001 ).

Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells (Fares and El-Sayed 1998 ). The results showed CryI toxin which was stable in the mouse gut. Growing rats pair-fed on iso -proteinic and iso -caloric balanced diets containing raw or boiled non-GM potatoes and GM potatoes with the snowdrop ( Galanthus nivalis ) bulb lectin (GNA) gene (Ewen and Pusztai 1999 ) showed significant increase in the mucosal thickness of the stomach and the crypt length of the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes. Most of these effects were due to the insertion of the construct used for the transformation or the genetic transformation itself and not to GNA which had been pre-selected as a non-mitotic lectin unable to induce hyperplastic intestinal growth (Pusztai et al. 1990 ) and epithelial T lymphocyte infiltration.

The kind that expresses soybean glycinin gene (40–50 mg glycinin/g protein) was developed (Momma et al. 1999 ) and was claimed to contain 20 % more protein. However, the increased protein content was found probably due to a decrease in moisture rather than true increase in protein.

Several lines of GM cotton plants have been developed using a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki providing increased protection against major lepidopteran pests. The lines were claimed to be “substantially equivalent” to parent lines (Berberich et al. 1996 ) in levels of macronutrients and gossypol. Cyclopropenoid fatty acids and aflatoxin levels were less than those in conventional seeds. However, because of the use of inappropriate statistics it was questionable whether the GM and non-GM lines were equivalent, particularly as environmental stresses could have unpredictable effects on anti-nutrient/toxin levels (Novak and Haslberger 2000 ).

The nutritional value of diets containing GM peas expressing bean alpha-amylase inhibitor when fed to rats for 10 days at two different doses viz. 30 % and 65 % was shown to be similar to that of parent-line peas (Pusztai et al. 1999 ). At the same time in order to establish its safety for humans a more rigorous specific risk assessment will have to be carried out with several GM lines. Nutritional/toxicological testing on laboratory animals should follow the clinical, double-blind, placebo-type tests with human volunteers.

Allergenicity studies

When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2S proteins (Nordlee et al. 1996 ) or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes (Noteborn et al. 1995 ). It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens (Burks and Fuchs 1995 ). Farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin (Bernstein et al. 1999 ). It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000 ).

The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors such as size and stability of the transgenically expressed protein (O’Neil et al. 1998 ) is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing (Metcalf et al. 1996 ) instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins may be misleading because, for example, Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000 ). However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy (Nakamura and Matsuda 1996 ).

It is known that the main concerns about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity and allergenicity. There are two issues from an allergic standpoint. These are the transfer of a known allergen that may occur from a crop into a non-allergenic target crop and the creation of a neo-allergen where de novo sensitisation occurs in the population. Patients allergic to Brazil nuts and not to soy bean then showed an IgE mediated response towards GM soy bean. Lack ( 2002 ) argued that it is possible to prevent such occurrences by doing IgE-binding studies and taking into account physico-chemical characteristics of proteins and referring to known allergen databases. The second possible scenario of de novo sensitisation does not easily lend itself to risk assessment. He reports that evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se is lacking very much compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry.

Risks and controversy

There are controversies around GM food on several levels, including whether food produced with it is safe, whether it should be labelled and if so how, whether agricultural biotechnology and it is needed to address world hunger now or in the future, and more specifically with respect to intellectual property and market dynamics, environmental effects of GM crops and GM crops’ role in industrial agricultural more generally.

Many problems, viz. the risks of “tampering with Mother Nature”, the health concerns that consumers should be aware of and the benefits of recombinant technology, also arise with pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants. The evolution of resistant pests and weeds termed superbugs and super weeds is another problem. Resistance can evolve whenever selective pressure is strong enough. If these cultivars are planted on a commercial scale, there will be strong selective pressure in that habitat, which could cause the evolution of resistant insects in a few years and nullify the effects of the transgenic. Likewise, if spraying of herbicides becomes more regular due to new cultivars, surrounding weeds could develop a resistance to the herbicide tolerant by the crop. This would cause an increase in herbicide dose or change in herbicide, as well as an increase in the amount and types of herbicides on crop plants. Ironically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research (Steinbrecher 1996 ).

Another issue is the uncertainty in whether the pest-resistant characteristic of these crops can escape to their weedy relatives causing resistant and increased weeds (Louda 1999 ). It is also possible that if insect-resistant plants cause increased death in one particular pest, it may decrease competition and invite minor pests to become a major problem. In addition, it could cause the pest population to shift to another plant population that was once unthreatened. These effects can branch out much further. A study of Bt crops showed that “beneficial insects, so named because they prey on crop pests, were also exposed to harmful quantities of Bt.” It was stated that it is possible for the effects to reach further up the food web to effect plants and animals consumed by humans (Brian 1999 ). Also, from a toxicological standpoint, further investigation is required to determine if residues from herbicide or pest resistant plants could harm key groups of organisms found in surrounding soil, such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and other microorganisms (Allison and Palma 1997 ).

The potential risks accompanied by disease resistant plants deal mostly with viral resistance. It is possible that viral resistance can lead to the formation of new viruses and therefore new diseases. It has been reported that naturally occurring viruses can recombine with viral fragments that are introduced to create transgenic plants, forming new viruses. Additionally, there can be many variations of this newly formed virus (Steinbrecher 1996 ).

Health risks associated with GM foods are concerned with toxins, allergens, or genetic hazards. The mechanisms of food hazards fall into three main categories (Conner and Jacobs 1999 ). They are inserted genes and their expression products, secondary and pleiotropic effects of gene expression and the insertional mutagenesis resulting from gene integration. With regards to the first category, it is not the transferred gene itself that would pose a health risk. It should be the expression of the gene and the affects of the gene product that are considered. New proteins can be synthesized that can produce unpredictable allergenic effects. For example, bean plants that were genetically modified to increase cysteine and methionine content were discarded after the discovery that the expressed protein of the transgene was highly allergenic (Butler and Reichhardt 1999 ). Due attention should be taken for foods engineered with genes from foods that commonly cause allergies, such as milk, eggs, nuts, wheat, legumes, fish, molluscs and crustacean (Maryanski 1997 ). However, since the products of the transgenic are usually previously identified, the amount and effects of the product can be assessed before public consumption. Also, any potential risk, immunological, allergenic, toxic or genetically hazardous, could be recognized and evaluated if health concerns arise. The available allergen data bases with details are shown in Table  1 .

Allergen databases (Kleter and Peijnenburg 2002 )

More concern comes with secondary and pleiotropic effects. For example, many transgenes encode an enzyme that alters biochemical pathways. This could cause an increase or decrease in certain biochemicals. Also, the presence of a new enzyme could cause depletion in the enzymatic substrate and subsequent build up of the enzymatic product. In addition, newly expressed enzymes may cause metabolites to diverge from one secondary metabolic pathway to another (Conner and Jacobs 1999 ). These changes in metabolism can lead to an increase in toxin concentrations. Assessing toxins is a more difficult task due to limitations of animal models. Animals have high variation between experimental groups and it is challenging to attain relevant doses of transgenic foods in animals that would provide results comparable to humans (Butler and Reichhardt 1999 ). Consequently, biochemical and regulatory pathways in plants are poorly understood.

Insertional mutagenesis can disrupt or change the expression of existing genes in a host plant. Random insertion can cause inactivation of endogenous genes, producing mutant plants. Moreover, fusion proteins can be made from plant DNA and inserted DNA. Many of these genes create nonsense products or are eliminated in crop selection due to incorrect appearance. However, of most concern is the activation or up regulation of silent or low expressed genes. This is due to the fact that it is possible to activate “genes that encode enzymes in biochemical pathways toward the production of toxic secondary compounds” (Conner and Jacobs 1999 ). This becomes a greater issue when the new protein or toxic compound is expressed in the edible portion of the plant, so that the food is no longer substantially equal to its traditional counterpart.

There is a great deal of unknowns when it comes to the risks of GM foods. One critic declared “foreign proteins that have never been in the human food chain will soon be consumed in large amounts”. It took us many years to realize that DDT might have oestrogenic activities and affect humans, “but we are now being asked to believe that everything is OK with GM foods because we haven’t seen any dead bodies yet” (Butler and Reichhardt 1999 ). As a result of the growing public concerns over GM foods, national governments have been working to regulate production and trade of GM foods.

Reports say that GM crops are grown over 160 million hectares in 29 countries, and imported by countries (including European ones) that don’t grow them. Nearly 300 million Americans, 1350 million Chinese, 280 million Brazilians and millions elsewhere regularly eat GM foods, directly and indirectly. Though Europeans voice major fears about GM foods, they permit GM maize cultivation. It imports GM soy meal and maize as animal feed. Millions of Europeans visit the US and South America and eat GM food.

Around three million Indians have become US citizens, and millions more go to the US for tourism and business and they will be eating GM foods in the USA. Indian activists claim that GM foods are inherently dangerous and must not be cultivated in India. Activists strongly opposed Bt cotton in India, and published reports claiming that the crop had failed in the field. At the same time farmers soon learned from experience that Bt cotton was very profitable, and 30 million rushed to adopt it. In consequence, India’s cotton production doubled and exports zoomed, even while using much less pesticide. Punjab farmers lease land at Rs 30,000 per acre to grow Bt cotton.

Public concerns-global scenario

In the late 1980s, there was a major controversy associated with GM foods even when the GMOs were not in the market. But the industrial applications of gene technology were developed to the production and marketing status. After words, the European Commission harmonized the national regulations across Europe. Concerns from the community side on GMOs in particular about its authorization have taken place since 1990s and the regulatory frame work on the marketing aspects underwent refining. Issues specifically on the use of GMOs for human consumption were introduced in 1997, in the Regulation on Novel Foods Ingredients (258/97/EC of 27 January 1997). This Regulations deals with rules for authorization and labelling of novel foods including food products made from GMOs, recognizing for the first time the consumer’s right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. The labelling of GM maize varieties and GM soy varieties that did not fall under this Regulation are covered by Regulation (EC 1139/98). Further legislative initiatives concern the traceability and labelling of GMOs and the authorization of GMOs in food and feed.

The initial outcome of the implementation of the first European directive seemed to be a settlement of the conflicts over technologies related to gene applications. By 1996, the second international level controversy over gene technology came up and triggered the arrival of GM soybeans at European harbours (Lassen et al. 2002 ). The GM soy beans by Monsanto to resist the herbicide represented the first large scale marketing of GM foods in Europe. Events such as commercialisation of GM maize and other GM modified commodities focused the public attention on the emerging biosciences, as did other gene technology applications such as animal and human cloning. The public debate on the issues associated with the GM foods resulted in the formation of many non-governmental organizations with explicit interest. At the same time there is a great demand for public participation in the issues about regulation and scientific strategy who expresses acceptance or rejection of GM products through purchase decisions or consumer boycotts (Frewer and Salter 2002 ).

Most research effort has been devoted to assessing people’s attitudes towards GM foods as a technology. Numerous “opinion poll”—type surveys have been conducted on national and cross-national levels (Hamstra 1998 ). Ethical concerns are also important, that a particular technology is in some way “tampering with nature”, or that unintended effects are unpredictable and thus unknown to science (Miles and Frewer 2001 ).

Consumer’s attitude towards GM foods

Consumer acceptance is conditioned by the risk that they perceive from introducing food into their consumption habits processed through technology that they hardly understand. In a study conducted in Spain, the main conclusion was that the introduction of GM food into agro-food markets should be accompanied by adequate policies to guarantee consumer safety. These actions would allow a decrease in consumer-perceived risk by taking special care of the information provided, concretely relating to health. For, the most influential factor in consumer-perceived risk from these foods is concern about health (Martinez-Poveda et al. 2009 ).

Tsourgiannis et al. ( 2011 ) conducted a study aimed to identify the factors that affect consumers purchasing behaviour towards food products that are free from GMO (GM Free) in a European region and more precisely in the Prefecture of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi. Field interviews conducted in a random selected sample consisted of 337 consumers in the cities of Drama, Kavala, Xanthi in 2009. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to identify the factors that affect people in preferring consuming products that are GM Free. The factors that influence people in the study area to buy GM Free products are: (a) products’ certification as GM Free or organic products, (b) interest about the protection of the environment and nutrition value, (c) marketing issues and (d) price and quality. Furthermore, cluster and discriminant analysis identified two groups of consumers: (a) those influenced by the product price, quality and marketing aspects and (b) those interested in product’s certification and environmental protection (Tsourgiannis et al. 2011 ).

Snell et al. ( 2012 ) examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations) on the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. They referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. They observed some small differences, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

GM foods: issues with respect to India

In a major setback to the proponents of GM technology in farm crops, the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture in 2012 asked Indian government to stop all field trials and sought a bar on GM food crops such as Bt. brinjal. Raising the “ethical dimensions” of transgenics in agricultural crops, as well as studies of a long-term environmental and chronic toxicology impact, the panel noted that there were no significant socio-economic benefits to farmers.

Countries like India have great security concerns at the same time specific problems exist for small and marginal farmers. India could use a toxin free variety of the Lathyrus sativus grown on marginal lands and consumed by the very poor. GM mustard is a variety using the barnase-barstar-bar gene complex, an unstable gene construct with possible undesirable effects, to achieve male sterile lines that are used to make hybrid mustard varieties. In India we have good non-GM alternatives for making male sterile lines for hybrid production so the Proagro variety is of little use. Being a food crop, GM mustard will have to be examined very carefully. Even if there were to be benefits, they have to be weighed against the risks posed to human health and the environment. Apart from this, mustard is a cross-pollinating crop and pollen with their foreign genes is bound to reach non-GM mustard and wild relatives. We do not know what impact this will have. If GM technology is to be used in India, it should be directed at the real needs of Indian farmers, on crops like legumes, oilseeds and fodder and traits like drought tolerance and salinity tolerance.

Basmati rice and Darjeeling tea are perhaps India’s most easily identifiable premium products in the area of food. Basmati is highly prized rice, its markets are growing and it is a high end, expensive product in the international market. Like Champagne wine and truffles from France, international consumers treat it as a special, luxury food. Since rice is nutritionally a poor cereal, it is thought that addition of iron and vitamin A by genetic modification would increase the nutritional quality. So does it make any sense at all to breed a GM Basmati, along the lines of Bt Cotton? However, premium wine makers have outright rejected the notion of GM doctored wines that were designed to cut out the hangover and were supposed to be ‘healthier’. Premium products like special wines, truffles and Basmati rice need to be handled in a special, premium way (Sahai 2003 ).

Traceability of GMOs in the food production chain

Traceability systems document the history of a product and may serve the purpose of both marketing and health protection. In this framework, segregation and identity preservation systems allow for the separation of GM and non-GM products from “farm to fork”. Implementation of these systems comes with specific technical requirements for each particular step of the food processing chain. In addition, the feasibility of traceability systems depends on a number of factors, including unique identifiers for each GM product, detection methods, permissible levels of contamination, and financial costs. Progress has been achieved in the field of sampling, detection, and traceability of GM products, while some issues remain to be solved. For success, much will depend on the threshold level for adventitious contamination set by legislation (Miraglia et al. 2004 ).

Issues related to detection and traceability of GMOs is gaining interest worldwide due to the global diffusion and the related socio-economical implications. The interest of the scientific community into traceability aspects has also been increased simultaneously. Crucial factors in sampling and detection methodologies are the number of the GMOs involved and international agreement on traceability. The availability of reliable traceability strategies is very important and this may increase public trust in transparency in GMO related issues.

Heat processing methods like autoclaving and microwave heating can damage the DNA and reduce the level to detectable DNA. The PCR based methods have been standardised to detect such DNA in GM soybean and maize (Vijayakumar et al. 2009 ). Molecular methods such as multiplex and real time PCR methods have been developed to detect even 20 pg of genomic DNA in genetically modified EE-1 brinjal (Ballari et al. 2012 ).

DNA and protein based methods have been adopted for the detection and identification of GMOs which is relatively a new area of diagnostics. New diagnostic methodologies are also being developed, viz. the microarray-based methods that allow for the simultaneous identification of the increasing number of GMOs on the global market in a single sample. Some of these techniques have also been discussed for the detection of unintended effects of genetic modification by Cellini et al. ( 2004 ). The implementation of adequate traceability systems requires more than technical tools alone and is strictly linked to labelling constraints. The more stringent the labelling requirements, the more expensive and difficult the associated traceability strategies are to meet these requirements.

Both labelling and traceability of GMOs are current issues that are considered in trade and regulation. Currently, labelling of GM foods containing detectable transgenic material is required by EU legislation. A proposed package of legislation would extend this labelling to foods without any traces of transgenics. These new legislations would also impose labelling and a traceability system based on documentation throughout the food and feed manufacture system. The regulatory issues of risk analysis and labelling are currently harmonised by Codex Alimentarius. The implementation and maintenance of the regulations necessitates sampling protocols and analytical methodologies that allow for accurate determination of the content of GM organisms within a food and feed sample. Current methodologies for the analysis of GMOs are focused on either one of two targets, the transgenic DNA inserted- or the novel protein(s) expressed- in a GM product. For most DNA-based detection methods, the polymerase chain reaction is employed. Items that need consideration in the use of DNA-based detection methods include the specificity, sensitivity, matrix effects, internal reference DNA, availability of external reference materials, hemizygosity versus homozygosity, extra chromosomal DNA and international harmonisation.

For most protein-based methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with antibodies binding the novel protein are employed. Consideration should be given to the selection of the antigen bound by the antibody, accuracy, validation and matrix effects. Currently, validation of detection methods for analysis of GMOs is taking place. New methodologies are developed, in addition to the use of microarrays, mass spectrometry and surface plasmon resonance. Challenges for GMO detection include the detection of transgenic material in materials with varying chromosome numbers. The existing and proposed regulatory EU requirements for traceability of GM products fit within a broader tendency towards traceability of foods in general and, commercially, towards products that can be distinguished from one another.

Gene transfer studies in human volunteers

As of January 2009, there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of GM foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. These volunteers were provided with GM soy to eat to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soya transferred into the bacteria living in their gut before the start of the feeding experiment. As this low-frequency transfer did not increase after the consumption of GM soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur during the experiment. In volunteers with complete digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive passage through intact gastrointestinal tract (Netherwood 2004 ). Other studies have found DNA from M13 virus, GFP and even ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco) genes in the blood and tissue of ingesting animals (Guertler et al. 2009 ; Brigulla and Wackernagel 2010 ).

Two studies on the possible effects of giving GM feed to animals found that there were no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from GM plants (Gerhard et al. 2005 ; Beagle et al. 2006 ). Specifically, the studies noted that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with GM plants (Nordlee 1996 ; Streit 2001 ).

Future developments

The GM foods have the potential to solve many of the world’s hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Challenges ahead lie in many areas viz. safety testing, regulation, policies and food labelling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits.

Future also envisages that applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B (Kumar et al. 2005 ), metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new biodegradable plastics with unique properties (van Beilen and Yves 2008 ). While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects.

One has to agree that there are many opinions (Domingo 2000 ) about scarce data on the potential health risks of GM food crops, even though these should have been tested for and eliminated before their introduction. Although it is argued that small differences between GM and non-GM crops have little biological meaning, it is opined that most GM and parental line crops fall short of the definition of substantial equivalence. In any case, we need novel methods and concepts to probe into the compositional, nutritional, toxicological and metabolic differences between GM and conventional crops and into the safety of the genetic techniques used in developing GM crops if we want to put this technology on a proper scientific foundation and allay the fears of the general public. Considerable effort need to be directed towards understanding people’s attitudes towards this gene technology. At the same time it is imperative to note the lack of trust in institutions and institutional activities regarding GMOs and the public perceive that institutions have failed to take account of the actual concerns of the public as part of their risk management activities.

Contributor Information

A. S. Bawa, Email: ni.oc.oohay@awabrednirama .

K. R. Anilakumar, Email: moc.liamg@rkramukalina .

• Allison S, Palma PM. Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience. 1997; 47 :86–96. doi: 10.2307/1313019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ballari VR, Martin A, Gowda LR (2012) Detection and identification of genetically modified EE-1 brinjal ( Solanum melongena ) by single, multiplex and SYBR® real-time PCR. J Sci Food Agric. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5764, Published online 22 June 2012 [ PubMed ]
• Beagle JM, Apgar GA, Jones KL, Griswold KE, Radcliffe JS, Qiu X, Lightfoot DA, Iqbal MJ. The digestive fate of Escherichia coli glutamate dehydrogenase deoxyribonucleic acid from transgenic corn in diets fed to weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 2006; 84 (3):597–607. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berberich SA, Ream JE, Jackson TL, Wood R, Stipanovic R, Harvey P, Patzer S, Fuchs RL. The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. J Agric Food Chem. 1996; 44 :365–371. doi: 10.1021/jf950304i. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M, Tierzieva S, Bernstein DI, Lummus Z, Selgrade MK, Doerfler DL, Seligy VL. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides . Environ Health Perspect. 1999; 107 :575–582. doi: 10.1289/ehp.99107575. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brake J, Vlachos D. Evaluation of transgenic Event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chicken. Poult Sci. 1998; 77 :648–653. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brian H. Unintended effects of Bt crops. World Watch. 1999; 12 :9–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brigulla M, Wackernagel W. Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010; 86 (4):1027–1041. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2489-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burks AW, Fuchs RL. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and commercial soybean varieties. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995; 96 :1008–1010. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6749(95)70243-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler T, Reichhardt T. Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought. Nature. 1999; 398 (6729):651–653. doi: 10.1038/19348. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AMR, Karenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay JJ, Lehasranta S, Noteborn HPJM, Pedersen J, Smith M. Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004; 42 :1089–1125. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman MD. Allergen nomenclature. In: Lockey RF, Dennis Ledford K, editors. Allergens and allergen immunotherapy. 4. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008. pp. 47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clive J (1996) Global review of the field testing and commercialization of transgenic plants: 1986 to 1995. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/isaaabriefs/Briefs%201.pdf . Retrieved on 17 July 2010
• Clive J. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Briefs 43 . Ithaca: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conner AJ, Jacobs JME. Genetic engineering of crops as potential source of genetic hazard in the human diet. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 1999; 443 :223–234. doi: 10.1016/S1383-5742(99)00020-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crevel RWR, Lerkhof MAT, Koning MMG. Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000; 38 (4):385–393. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00158-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deisingh AK, Badrie N. Detection approaches for genetically modified organisms in foods. Food Res Int. 2005; 38 :639–649. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2005.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Domingo JL. Health risks of genetically modified foods: many opinions but few data. Science. 2000; 288 :1748–1749. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5472.1748. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 1999; 354 :1353–1354. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998; 6 :219–233. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-7189(199811/12)6:6<219::AID-NT30>3.0.CO;2-K. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frewer LI, Salter B. Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy the case of BSE. Sci Public Policy. 2002; 29 :137–145. doi: 10.3152/147154302781781092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerhard F, Andrew C, Karen A. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Arch Anim Nutr. 2005; 59 :1–40. doi: 10.1080/17450390512331342368. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guertler P, Paul V, Albrech C, Meyer HH. Sensitive and highly specific quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA for recording a potential transfer of novel DNA and Cry1Ab protein from feed into bovine milk. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009; 393 :1629–1638. doi: 10.1007/s00216-009-2667-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamer H, Scuse T (2010) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture. Acreage report, NY
• Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J Nutr. 1996; 126 :717–727. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamstra A (1998) Public opinion about Biotechnology. A survey of surveys. European Federation of Biotechnology, The Hague
• Harrison LA, Bailey MR, Naylor MW, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Nida DL, Burnette BL, Nickson TE, Mitsky TA, Taylor ML, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J Nutr. 1996; 126 :728–740. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashimoto W, Momma K, Katsube T, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of genetically engineered potatoes with designed soybean glycinin: compositional analyses of the potato tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed protein in transgenic potatoes. J Sci Food Agric. 1999; 79 :1607–1612. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199909)79:12<1607::AID-JSFA408>3.0.CO;2-T. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashimoto W, Momma K, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of transgenic potatoes with soybean glycinin by feeding studies in rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999; 63 :1942–1946. doi: 10.1271/bbb.63.1942. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IRDC (1998) Alliance for biointegrity. http://www.biointegrity.org including Calgene FLAVR SAVR™ tomato report, pp 1–604; International Research and Development Corp. first test report, pp 1736–1738; Conclusions of the expert panel regarding the safety of the FLAVR SAVR™ tomato, ENVIRON, Arlington VA, USA pp 2355–2382; Four week oral (intubation) toxicity study in rats by IRDC, pp 2895–3000
• Ivanciuc O, Schein CH, Braun W. SDAP: database and computational tools for allergenic proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31 :359–362. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg010. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joana C, Isabel M, Joana SA, Oliveira MBPP. Monitoring genetically modified soybean along the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining processes by polymerase chain reaction techniques. Food Res Int. 2010; 43 :301–306. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SR. Quantification of the impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006. Washington DC: National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AACM. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct Biol. 2002; 2 :8–19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6807-2-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar GBS, Ganapathi TR, Revathi CJ, Srinivas L, Bapat VA. Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants. Planta. 2005; 222 :484–493. doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lack G. Clinical risk assessment of GM foods. Toxicol Lett. 2002; 127 :337–340. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4274(01)00517-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• La Mura M, Allnutt TR, Greenland A, Mackay LD. Application of QUIZ for GM quantification in food. Food Chem. 2011; 125 :1340–1344. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lappe MA, Bailey EB, Childress C, Setchell KDR. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Med Food. 1999; 1 :241–245. doi: 10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lassen J, Allansdottir A, Liakoupulos M, Olsson A, Mortensen AT. Testing times: the reception of round-up ready soya in Europe. In: Bauer M, Gaskell G, editors. Biotechnology—the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 279–312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Louda SM (1999) Insect Limitation of weedy plants and its ecological implications. In: Traynor PL, Westwood J H (eds) Proceedings of a workshop on: ecological effects of pest resistance genes in managed ecosystems. Information Systems for Biotechnology. Blacksburg, Virginia, pp 43–48, http://www.isb.vt.edu
• Mari A, Riccioli D. The allergome web site—a database of allergenic molecules. Aim, structure, and data of a web-based resource. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004; 113 :S301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez-Poveda A, Molla-Bauza MB, Gomis FJC, Martinez LMC. Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy. 2009; 34 :519–528. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maryanski JH. Bioengineered foods: will they cause allergic reactions? NY: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN); 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalf DD, Astwood JD, Townsend R, Sampson HA, Taylor SL, Fuchs RL (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. In: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(S):S165–S186. CRC, Boca Raton [ PubMed ]
• Miles S, Frewer LI. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards—higher and lower order attributes. Food Qual Prefer. 2001; 12 :47–61. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00029-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miraglia M, Berdal K, Brera C, Corbisier P, Holst-jensen A, Kok E, Marvin H, Schimmel H, Rentsch J, van Rie J, Zagon J. Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004; 42 :1157–1180. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Momma K, Hashimoto W, Ozawa S, Kawai S, Katsube T, Takaiwa F, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean glycinin: analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999; 63 :314–318. doi: 10.1271/bbb.63.314. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakamura R, Matsuda T. Rice allergenic protein and molecular-genetic approach for hypoallergenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1996; 60 :1215–1221. doi: 10.1271/bbb.60.1215. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Netherwood T. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 2004; 22 :204–209. doi: 10.1038/nbt934. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nordlee JA. Identification of Brazil-Nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New Engl J Med. 1996; 334 :688–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybean. New Engl J Med. 1996; 334 :688–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noteborn HPJM, Bienenmann-Ploum ME, van den Berg JHJ, Alink GM, Zolla L, Raynaerts A, Pensa M, Kuiper HA. Safety assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein CRYIA(b) expressed in transgenic tomatoes. In: Engel KH, Takeoka GR, Teranishi R, editors. ACS Symp series 605 Genetically modified foods—safety issues. Washington, D.C: American Chemical Society; 1995. pp. 135–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novak WK, Haslberger AG. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000; 38 :473–483. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00040-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Neil C, Reese G, Lehrer SB. Allergenic potential of recombinant food proteins. Allergy Clin Immunol Int. 1998; 10 :5–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Bailey MR, MacDonald J, Holden LR, Fuchs RL. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr. 1996; 126 :702–716. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pusztai A (2001) Safety tests on commercial crops. American Institute of Biological Sciences. actionbioscience.org, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html viewed 2 March 2010
• Pusztai A, Ewen SWB, Grant G, Peumans WJ, van Damme EJM, Rubio L, Bardocz S. Relationship between survival and binding of plant lectins during small intestinal passage and their effectiveness as growth factors. Digestion. 1990; 46 (suppl 2):308–316. doi: 10.1159/000200402. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pusztai A, Grant G, Bardocz S, Alonso R, Chrispeels MJ, Schroeder HE, Tabe LM, Higgins TJV. Expression of the insecticidal bean alpha-amylase inhibitor transgene has minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30 % of the diet. J Nutr. 1999; 129 :1597–1603. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Redenbaugh K, Hiatt W, Martineau B, Kramer M, Sheehy R, Sanders R, Houck C, Emlay D (1992) Safety assessment of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables: a case study of the Flavr Savr Tomato. CRC Press, Boca Raton
• Sahai S. Genetically modified crops: issues for India. Fin Agric. 2003; 35 :7–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé J-B, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Agnès ER. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012; 50 :1134–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbrecher RA. From green to gene evolution: the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. Ecologist. 1996; 26 :273–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Streit L. Association of the Brazil nut protein gene and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor alleles with soybean protease inhibitor activity and agronomic traits. Crop Sci. 2001; 41 :1757–1760. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.1757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor NB, Fuchs RL, MacDonald J, Shariff AB, Padgette SR. Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem. 1999; 47 :4469–4473. doi: 10.1021/jf990056g. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teshima R, Akiyama H, Okunuki H, Sakushima J-i, Goda Y, Onodera H, Sawada J-i, Toyoda M. Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. J Food Hyg Soc Jpn. 2000; 41 :188–193. doi: 10.3358/shokueishi.41.188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsourgiannis L, Karasavvoglou A, Florou G. Consumers’ attitudes towards GM free products in a European region. The case of the Prefecture of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi in Greece. Appetite. 2011; 57 :448–458. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Beilen JB, Yves P. Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and biomaterials: production of renewable polymers from crop plants. Plant J. 2008; 54 (4):684–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, Martinez-Gil AF, de la Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Characterization of the mucosal and sytemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000; 33 :147–155. doi: 10.1590/S0100-879X2000000200002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vijayakumar KR, Martin A, Gowda LR, Prakash V. Detection of genetically modified soya and maize: impact of heat processing. Food Chem. 2009; 117 :514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.04.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiumin W, Da T, Qingfeng G, Fang T, Jianhua W. Detection of Roundup Ready soybean by loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral-flow dipstick. Food Control. 2012; 29 :213–220. [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 05 June 2018

Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study

• Kai Cui 1 , 2 &
• Sharon P. Shoemaker 1  

npj Science of Food volume  2 , Article number:  10 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

94k Accesses

126 Citations

109 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Environmental biotechnology

After more than 25 years of research and development on the genetic modification of a wide range of crops for food and fodder, China has reached a decision point as to whether it should accept, reject, or go slow with the use of genetically modified (GM) technology to produce the food and feed needed to sustain its population growth and economic renaissance. Here, we report a consumer survey on GM food that includes input from all provinces in China. Chinese consumers were surveyed for their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM food. The survey resulted in 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7% of respondents having a positive, neutral, or negative view on GM food, respectively. A minority of respondents (11.7%) claimed they understood the basic principles of GM technology, while most were either “neutral” or “unfamiliar with GM technology”. Most respondents (69.3%) obtained their information on GM food through the Internet and 64.3% of respondents thought that media coverage was predominately negative on GM food. The reasons given by consumers in favor of, or against, the use of GM food, were complex, as seen by the response of 13.8% of respondents who felt GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China. China’s Ministry of Agriculture and the science community generally expressed a positive attitude toward GM food, but the percentage of respondents that trusted the government and scientists was only 11.7 and 23.2%, respectively. Post-survey comments of respondents made suggestions on how the industrialization of GM technology might impact the future of China’s food supply and value chains. Finally, the impact of emerging technologies like genome editing and genome-edited organisms (GEOs) on the GM food debate is discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Chinese public’s awareness and attitudes toward genetically modified foods with different labeling

Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge

Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies

Introduction.

Genetically modified (GM) technology is a highly controversial topic for today’s global food consumer. The commercial development of GM crops began in 1996 with GM corn and has expanded every year with the cultivation of GM crops. In 2016, global land use for GM crops reached 185.1 million hectors. 1 Although GM foods had helped sustain the nutritional needs of human beings and farm animals and mounting evidence showed that GM foods were substantially equivalent to traditionally bred food sources, it has also sparked fierce debate about its safety. This has generated worldwide interest in finding a common and harmonious narrative to deal with new opportunities and challenges of biotechnology. A recent review of public perceptions of animal biotechnology, 2 provides an excellent context for understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and perception of GM Food in China.

China comprises 20% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s grain output, 7% of the world’s arable land, and 35% of the world’s use of agricultural chemicals. 3 Consequently, China faces risks to its food security and pollution of the environment. The government has invested heavily in research and development of technologies to improve quality and increase the output of its foodstuffs, especially grains. GM technology provides a such feasible approach 4 , 5 to realize these goals. As the complexity of the GM issue mounts, the controversy surrounding GM food has moved farther away from science. While China’s president calls for its scientists to “boldly research and innovate [and] dominate the high points of GMO techniques”, 6 the people of China are largely opposed to GMO foods, but are not sure why. 7 Thus, this nationwide survey on the current Chinese public perception of GM food should be helpful to policy-makers, technology developers, as well as to consumers.

Consumer attitudes about GM food are complex and interwoven with the consumer’s knowledge of the science, lifestyle and public perception. Since 2002, surveys have been conducted in China on public acceptance of GM food from the perspective of consumer behavior, such as intent to purchase, presence of GM markers, and sensitivity to price point 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 (Table 1 ). There has been a general lack of fundamental studies on the public’s scientific perception and policy interpretation of GM food. Moreover, the scope of previous surveys has been limited to a few of the largest cities in developed areas of China, with little or no coverage of rural areas. In all cases, the number of respondents in most of these earlier surveys was less than 1000. This study summarizes the status of GM food in China and provides the results of questionnaires that surveyed consumers from every province on their knowledge level, present attitudes, and future thoughts of GM food in China. A statistically relevant sample size of 2063 questionnaires were satisfactorily completed. The findings in this survey provide insight into Chinese consumers and offer a possible path for “smart” industrialization of GM technologies in China.

General consumer attitudes of GM food

The first six questions of the survey asked about the respondent’s background, followed by 18 questions that addressed their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM Foods. The seventh question asked, “In general, will you support GM food?” The percentage of those who supported, opposed or were neutral were 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7%, respectively. These results suggest that the overall attitude of the Chinese consumer is cautious of GM food.

GM technology was first introduced in the pharmaceutical industry and then applied to agriculture. Did the public’s skepticism originate from GM food safety or GM technology itself? Question #8 was designed to address this question. “If GM technology is applied in medical area to produce medicine, such as insulin and hepatitis B vaccine, what is your opinion?” The percentage of those who supported, opposed or were neutral to GM pharmaceuticals was 46.8, 12.8, and 40.4%, respectively. Support for GM pharmaceuticals was higher than that found for GM food and again, there were many in the neutral category. This result suggests that some respondents were against GM food but not against GM technology. Still, there were 12.8% of respondents that took a negative view about GM pharmaceuticals, although they may not have known that the insulin and hepatitis B vaccine widely used today are GM-derived pharmaceuticals.

Since 2002, the year when China implemented legislation mandating the labeling of GM food products, numerous surveys in China were carried out to gain insight into the public’s attitude to GM food. The results from these early surveys were compared to the results of the present survey (Table 1 ). Significant differences were found between the surveys, likely due, in part, to differences in the number of respondents, where they resided, and when the surveys were conducted. The results were also difficult to interpret because of differences in content of each survey and in the respondents. The respondents in the surveys represented the public, media, private enterprise and government. Overall, the trends were interesting even with this inherent variability, and reflected consumer preferences about GM food. The ratio of “support” vs. “oppose” GM food was used as a measure to compare the different surveys (Table 1 ). This measure suggests an interesting trend in that the ratios before 2012 were larger than 1.0 (with one exception) and thereafter, were less than 1.0. The survey reported here gave the lowest ratio, 0.29. In summary, the initial positive attitude towards GM food in 2002 generally decreased in subsequent years.

To gain further insight into consumer attitudes toward GM food among the respondents, six factors were selected as research variables. As shown in Table 2 , respondent’s attitudes towards GM food were correlated to their age, sampling location, educational level, major in college and income. A negative attitude toward GM food was more frequent among those respondents born before 1969 (59.3%). The public-sector group from Western China reported 51.3% against GM food, compared to 29.7% from those located in the center and in northeastern China. The percentage of those respondents with college degrees who supported GM food was 9.5%, which was the lowest number relative to any other group. The percentage of respondents with a positive attitude was higher for those with a science background (14.1%) compared to those with a liberal arts background (7.5%). The percentage of respondents with a negative attitude was higher (51.6%) with those who reported an annual household income above one million Chinese Yuan (RMB), compared to those with an annual household income below 80,000 RMB (34.2%). Gender was not found to be a factor in shaping attitudes towards GM food.

We further queried the state of Chinese public opinions on GM food and determined the main reasons for the either their support (Question #9) or opposition-against (Question #10) to GM food, from what was known previously. The statistical results showed that the total number of “support” and “oppose” was 3248 and 4751, respectively. This demonstrates again that the public is cautious about GM food. The relative percentage of choice, “frequency” (defined as the number in support or against divided by the total number in the respective area) is listed in Table 3 .

GM technology is potentially a paradigm shift for farmers in developing countries and is an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, climate change, and the challenge of feeding 9.7 billion people by 2050. Some studies suggested that efforts to change consumer perception about GM food should address risk perception factors and promote the beneficial effects of biotech crops. 24 As a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Intelligence Squared U.S held a TV debate on December 4, 2014 on whether the world is better off with or without GM food. The discussion was whether GM food is safe, how it impacts the environment and can it improve food security). Both the positive and negative sides had experts debating for or against GM food. Among the attendees who were present, the percentages in favor or against “genetically modified food” were 32 and 30%, respectively, before the debate, but this changed to 60 and 31%, respectively, after 100 min of debating the topic. This result suggests that efforts to change public perception about GM food should address risk perception factors and promote the beneficial effects of biotech crops. It should be noted that some opponents of GM food have started to rethink their prior attitudes about GM food. 25 On the other hand, some research suggested that many opponents are evidence-insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks vs. benefits. 26 Food Evolution, a 2017 documentary film directed by Scott Hamilton Kennedy and sponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) vividly illustrated the polarizing worldwide debate, “for and against” GM food. Its fact based, story telling narrative delivered a powerful educational message on new technologies and the process of acceptance by consumers. People involved in the making of the film tried to encourage audiences to think critically and reexamine their information sources and beliefs regarding GM food.

Factors shaping public perception of GM food

How much did the public know about GM technologies? Some earlier studies 12 , 17 , 27 , 28 , 29 based their conclusions on individual and subjective questioning, and only asked the respondents: “Do you know GM technologies?” The authors in this study agree with Hallman 30 that the self-reported awareness of GM does not necessarily mean respondents understand the principles and purpose of GM food. Thus, Question #11 was asked in this survey: “Do you know the principle of GMO such as introducing foreign genes, genetic recombination and gene expression? “

The result of our survey showed only 11.7% of the respondents self-reported that they were familiar with the general scientific principles of GM technology, contrasted to 49.5 and 38.8% saying they know something and nothing, respectively, about the subject. In the absence of sufficient understanding of biotechnology, the public’s attitude towards GM food safety can be misleading. Thus, we carried out a correlation analysis between the public’s perception (Question #11) and attitudes towards GM technology (Question #7). The results are given in Table 4 .

The design of this questionnaire was based on the following hypothesis: The opinion of consumers to GM food will be related to their knowledge of GM food. This was confirmed in this survey. There were positive correlations between “know a lot” and “support”, “know nothing” and “oppose”. At the same time, there were negative correlations between “know a lot” and “oppose”, “know nothing” and “support”. The lower the understanding of GM technology, the more hesitant the respondents were to accept GM food. These results also highlight the influence and importance of studies on the public perception of science in China.

Chinese food safety scandals have been a growing concern for Chinese consumers in recent years. The incidences of illegal “gutter oil” used in cooking, pesticide residue contamination, use of feed additives and polluted water along the food chain are common problems and even with proper regulatory oversight, the risk for criminal activity is ever present. The consumers in China, as well as consumers in other parts of the world, are increasingly risk adverse and seek out “clean, natural food”. Thus, the perceived risk of GM food was heightened because of these scandals, even though perceived risk of GM food is mostly based in perception rather than in practice. How deeply does the Chinese public think about the safety of GM food? Question #12 was asked to reflect this: “Compared to other food safety issues in China, such as illegal cooking oil, pesticide residue, feed additive and water pollution, your concerns on the safety of GM foods are?” The result illustrated that 20% of respondents thought the safety issue of GM food was more severe than other issues compared 31.8% of respondents thought “nearly the same”, 22.5% of respondents thought “not as severe” and 25.7% of respondents “have no idea”. These results mean that more than half of the respondents were concerned about the safety of GM food, of which 20% were deeply concerned, above and beyond any other food issue facing China.

Source of information on GM foods

The respondents were asked, “Have you actively searched for information on GMO’s using web search, reading books and verbal inquiries after graduation?” (Question #13). The result showed that 38.7% chose “yes”, compared 36.2% who chose “No, but I really care about GMO”, and lastly, 25.2% who chose “No, I don’t care about GMO”. When asked, “How do you acquire information on GM Food?” (Question #14), the result showed that 69.3% of respondents acquire information from the Internet as compared to 45.3% from television, 27.8% from books and periodicals, 22.8% from communication from relatives and friends, 22.4% from learning at school and 9.6% from public lectures. It is well known that GM food is a complex issue, and information from the Internet is often unverified and inaccurate. Thus, there is an urgent need in China to educate the public on GM technology and GM food by providing balanced, evidence-based perspectives of the technology to consumers through presentations, written materials, documentaries and educational courses that are made widely available through various media. The government can play a key leadership role by supporting educational programs, particularly targeting young people. It also crucial to put in place safeguards and the communication needed to ensure to the public that GM foods are thoroughly tested and regarded as safe. Regulatory groups worldwide must demonstrate their ability to ensure the safety of “new” foods and food ingredients, in a harmonious and transparent manner. Another question (#15) asked was, “Based on your experience, you have found that the media reports and Internet rumors about GM Food generally tend to be?” The results showed that respondents answered the question of media atmosphere as negative (64.3%), positive (11.5%) or neutral (24.2%).

Other studies have shown that the public tends to build upon its negative impression of GM food even in the face of positive information. 31 , 32 The lack of understanding of the principles and benefits of GM technology, make the general population more susceptible to negative media reports. The debate around GM food has become increasingly one-sided in recent years, with activists spreading misinformation via social media about the human health dangers of GM food as well as the negative environmental impact of GM crops on transitional agricultural eco-systems. Additional negative information on social media had a great impact, driving down the willingness to accept GM food. This led to food-centered non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) directing their attention to generating debates, educational packages and other formats to reach out to the general public (e.g., work of US based Farmer’s and Rancher’s Association and IFT). Research supported by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences showed that rumors about food security accounted for 45% of all Internet rumors which severely influenced the public’s trust. 33 Our study also attempted to probe into the public attitudes toward rumors about GM food on the Internet. For example, in China, rice is the main staple food for 60% of its people, and hybrid rice accounts for about half the planting area of rice. Rumors were spread that hybrid rice is a GM crop. Through self-interest, some non-GMO food producers condemned GM food with malicious gossip and misplaced nationalism, fomenting the notion that GM technology originated in the U.S. as a form of bioterrorism against China. What did the public think about this? (Question #16, 17 and 18). The result (Table 5 ) showed that 15.8% of respondents think that hybrid rice is one kind of GM crop, 25% of respondents think that there is unfair business competition with GM food, 13.8% of respondents agree that GM technology maybe considered as bioterrorism to China. These results pointed to an underlying problem that the debate on GM food in China has deteriorated. It is worth mentioning, however, that more than half of the respondents (54.4%) believed that debate on GM food should be based on science. This is the basis for why the debate about GM food should be based on scientific evidence.

Since the GM food debate should be evidence-based, the public needs to put more trust in scientific explanations and research data that can be understood by the average consumer. Many scientists including 110 Nobel Prize winners openly support GMO technology in the recent years. The 2016 Report 34 issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops.” What do the American public think about the above report? A survey carried out by University of Pennsylvania 35 showed that only 22% of those surveyed agreed that scientists have not found any risks to human health from eating GM foods, while 48% of the people disagreed with that statement. What is the situation in China? The result (Question #19) showed that 23.2% of the respondents chose to “believe in biologist’s opinion” compared to 45.5% who chose to “do not trust biologist’s opinion” and 31.3% who chose to “have no idea about this.” This result reflects that scientists are “under suspicion” on the issue of GM food both in China and the US. The film, Food Evolution, and other educational materials are helping to change this viewpoint. “What is the most important information that the public wants to know about GM food?” We asked this question (#20) in the survey. The result (Table 6 ) showed that more than two out of three respondents (68.9%) wanted to know more about the safety of GM food.

Public perception and attitude to policy

The Dean and Shepherd study 36 found that participants’ perceptions of risk lessened when governmental agencies presented a consistent message to the public. China’s Ministry of Agriculture claimed in 2016 that there is no substantiated evidence showing that genetically modified foods are unsafe during the past 20 years of commercial cultivation. But according to our survey (Question #21), only 11.7% of respondents thought that the government’s statement was an “authoritative interpretation”, compared 10.9% who chose “that is concealing the truth” and 77.4% who chose “No evidence now does not mean no evidence in the future. We should still be cautious to GM foods.” To a certain extent this result demonstrates that the public does not consider the government as a credible source of information on the issue of GM food.

Question #22 addressed the following, “What kind of GM crops were approved by the government to cultivate and produce in China?” Seven options were provided, including corn, rice, wheat, soybean, cotton, rape, and papaya. Only GM cotton and GM papaya have been approved for commercial cultivation in China. According to our survey, disappointingly few, only 1.2% of respondents chose the right answers. Apparently, government sources of information on GM crops has not been effective in educating the Chinese public about GM food.

In Question #23, the respondents were asked “What do you think of the force of government supervision for the production and import of GM food?” The result showed that 47.1% of respondents felt that the government should “strengthen supervision force, it is best to totally ban the GM foods”, compared that 43.3% felt “supervision force is appropriate” and 9.6% felt “supervision force is too tight.”

“The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture claimed that GM crops and GM food are advanced technologies that can serve as the foundation of a new industrial sector with broad implications for human health and wellbeing. As a large agricultural county, China should have a place for transgenic (GMO) technologies. What do you think about this?” (Question #24) The result showed that only 28.8% of respondents “support” this policy, compared 18.9% that chose “opposed” and 52.3% that chose “neutral”. In the face of widespread suspicion and misinformation about GM foods, more effort is needed to gain the confidence, trust and support from the public domain.

GM crops and the foods derived from them are considered the most immediate solution to alleviate global hunger and malnutrition. The benefits of GM crops such as greater productivity, reduced need for pesticides and herbicides, increased economic benefits for large and small farmers alike, have been extensively reviewed. 37 However, public attitudes toward GM food from country to country in different regions of the world continue to vary. The recent review by Van Eenennaam and Young 2 gives an excellent summary of the complexity of surveying and interpreting global public opinion on GM foods. In short, the authors noted the negative view of GM food in Europe, was exacerbated by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis first in the late 1980s and again in the 1990s. It was thought that GM technology might be used to mask the effects of poor housing of animals, not to mention the sense of supporting global agro-business rather than smaller family farms which are typical in Europe. In contrast, the United States, Canada and some Latin American countries (namely Brazil and Argentina) have widely adopted GM crops. Brazil is the second only to the United States in the land used for GM food crops. A review of acceptance, policies and actions in the African countries illustrated the complex and myriad issues that slow the adoption of GM food, thereby deleteriously impacting African countries. 38 Though the progress is slow, there seems to be a new receptiveness for GM food amongst some of the African countries. It is interesting to note that a study in Africa in 2005, showed that of the 7000 people surveyed, 80% did not know the meaning of the word “biotechnology”. 2 In Asian countries, it has been noted that China’s initial lead position in GM food has slowed over time due to global resistance 39 to GM food. However, signs of acceptance of GM food in China are encouraging. 40 , 41 Finally, Van Eenennaam and Young 2 compared China with other Asia countries (India, The Philippines) where bans on GM foods or vandalism on GM crops have occurred. On the other hand, Bangladesh has successfully adopted insect-resistant GM eggplant and has become a success story for the adoption of GM crops. 2 , 42

In our analysis, public attitudes toward GM food continue to swing widely across China from opposition to acceptance. On one side, some socialistic organic farmers, environmentalists and NGO’s have questioned the security of GM food, with some even calling for a ban on growing most GM crops. On the other side, agricultural specialists and biotech industry representatives highlight the benefits of GM technology to concerned consumers. The survey reported here was intended to be very broad in the type and range of questions asked. The authors plan to follow up with a more focused survey on safety issues related to GM food. Transparent and harmonious regulatory oversight is helping to further ensure the safety of GM technology and GM food but this must be understood and agreed by consumers as well as scientists. We should not expect, however, any convergence of opinions in the very near future. Based on the results of this study, suggestions about the future industrialization of GM technologies and GM food in China are presented as follows.

Strengthen communication to the public, making order out of confusion

Chinese consumers, in general, were found to be unfamiliar with GM technologies and the benefits they provide. They were also skeptical of scientists and the government on the topic of GMO, GM technologies and GM food. Fortunately, there is consensus in the public domain that more discussion on GMO and GM technologies is needed to better understand the scientific and social implications of GM food. Accordingly, public lectures and other educational formats need to be expanded in China to help the public develop evidence-based attitudes about GM foods. Until public doubts about GM food are addressed in a balanced and evidence-based manner, it will be difficult for China to develop sound policies and programs that will benefit the agribusiness industry and consumers. All forms of the media in China should be encouraged to incorporate scientific facts in their reporting and to discourage exaggerated reports and “fake” news. There should be a constructive vision and plan for building a future society that includes rational attitudes and a foundation for a food secure global society with adequate safety safeguards in place.

Government work should transform passivity into initiatives

China’s central government recently issued a document calling for more research, development and supervision of agricultural GMO and GM technologies, and the careful promotion of GM food that is safe, affordable, and healthy. From the result of the surveys taken in recent years, it was found that the percentage of respondents who opposed GM food is on the rise, and significant effort is needed to overcome that trend. The issue of GM food is very sensitive in China, GM policies have wavered among concerns over the bio-safety debate and development goals, such as food security, poverty reduction and the approval of transgenic commercial planting that was brought to a halt in recent years. In the long run, GM policies will influence the international competitiveness of the seed industry and agricultural development in China. As mentioned above, the safety of GM food should be based on science, and a modern society should not judge the safety of one kind of food by the way of a referendum. The government should enhance communications with the public and strive for the understanding and support of the public for China’s GMO policy.

Respect public opinion, improve gradually

Throughout history, many innovations have experienced both headwinds and tailwinds before being accepted by society. There is a persistent gap between expert knowledge of scientific issues and public perception of these issues. The conclusion of natural sciences usually is only truth, although the culture and attitudes can be diversified, being influenced by religious beliefs and/or political parties. Differences in public opinion towards GMO, GM technologies, and GM food should be respected. What is needed is government leadership in constructing a transparent system for evaluation of these technologies for commercial use while, at the same time, upholding the public’s right to have a choice by labeling GM food products. This will enable the public to make their own choices about GM food.

Lurking in the background, however, are new technologies that can produce genetic modifications in plants and animals in ways that are different and more precise that traditional GM technologies. The CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology 43 together with new signal DNA base editing 44 and RNA base editing 45 are currently revolutionizing the fields of agriculture, medicine and basic research. Unlike the traditional GM technology that adds foreign DNA to the recipient organism as part of the process, genome-editing, and base-editing simply switch out mutated or otherwise undesirable DNA bases that detract from the overall fitness, productivity, quality and usefulness of the organism, in question. Regulatory policies in the United States were written nearly 30 years ago and do not address the safety of genome-edited or base-edited organisms (GEOs). Currently, regulatory agencies are declaring these “edited” organisms and foods as safe and they are exempt from testing and labeling requirements. GM technology opponents have already spoken out against these forms of genetic modification and now that public must make their voices heard.

Only time will tell if foods derived from GM technology or genome-edited and base-edited organisms will be the best solution to achieving food safety, security, and sustainability. At least for GM foods, the lack of any documented adverse effects is encouraging. With the improvement of the scientific literacy, the debate about GM food should return to a rational one and one that will shape the future Chinese society.

Questionnaire development

The initial design, order and questions used in this questionnaire were based on both past information 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 and input from 40 interviewees, representing consumers, agricultural officials, seed companies, farmers, biologists, and sociologists. From this input, 28 questions were generated as a pre-survey test to address the public perception of GM Food. The pre-survey was carried out in March 2016 with 100 respondents. Based on their feedback, the questionnaire was refined further into the final survey of 24 questions used in this study. The goal was to gain insight into the following four questions through this survey:

In general, what are consumer’s attitudes to GM food in China?

How does public perception of GM food correlate to the science behind GM food?

What is their source of information on GM foods and how does this source influence their perception?

How does the public’s perception and attitude correlate to policy?

The survey was designed to offer a range of questions to determine the respondent’s demographics, educational level, knowledge of GM food. The survey was conducted in both public and private meeting rooms between May 2016 and October 2016. The questionnaires were distributed altogether in 38 different venues. All questionnaires were handed out to individuals and collected after 10 min by Dr. Kai Cui.

Participants

A summary of the participants in the survey is given in Table 2 . They were all Chinese citizens over the age of 15, from 193 cities and, in total, included representation from all 31 provinces in China.

Approach to distribution

The questionnaires were distributed as part of a course on investment and finance. The course was conducted by the sole instructor, Dr. Kai Cui. After the course participants became familiar with the instructor (1–2 days) and understood the purpose of the course, they were administered the questionnaires. While instructing the course, students were asked to fill out a questionnaire to give their opinions on the level of understanding of GM technology in China from a consumer’s perspective. A total of 2200 questionnaires were distributed during this 6-month period with 2063 questionnaires satisfactorily completed.

Statistical analysis

Analysis of the survey results was done using the software program package - Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS)19.0.

Data availability statement

A sample of the questionnaire. translated into English, is available in supplementary information at npj: Science of Food’s website. The completed 2063 questionnaires and the resulting database for the statistical analyses are in mandarin are not publicly available but can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

James, C. Global developing trends in biotechnology/genetically modified crop in 2015. China Biotechnol. 36 , 1–11 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Van Eenennaam, A., & Young, A. E. in Animal Biotechnology 2: eEmerging breeding technologies (eds Niemann, H. & Wrenzycki, C.) Ch. 13 (Springer, in press).

Cui, K. & Shoemaker, S. P. A look at food security in China. npj Sci. Food 2 , 4 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Carter, C. A., Zhong, F. & Zhu, J. Advances in Chinese agriculture and its global implications. Appl. Econ. Pers. Policy 34 , 1–36 (2012).

Wang, Q. China’s scientists must engage the public on GM. Nature 519 , 7 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Roberts, D. & Bjerga, A. China does an about-face on GMOs. Bloom. News . http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/china-does-an-about-face-on-gmos (2015).

Prakash, C. S. GM crops in the media. GM Crops & Food 6 , 63–68 (2015).

Huang, J. Awareness, acceptance and willingness to buy genetically modified food in urban China. China Soft Sci. 2 , 61–67 (2006).

Liu, Z., Wang, C., Li, N., Zhang, J. & Zhang, K. Investigation and analysis for Jinan consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. Rev. China Agric. Sci. Technol. 1 , 52–58 (2007).

Zhou, M. & Liu, Q. Investigation for Changsha consumers’ recognition and attitude to genetically modified food. Consum. Econ. 3 , 51–53 (2009).

Fan, L., Wei, W. & Zhu, Z. Investigation and thinking for consumers’ recognition to GMfood. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 20 , 80–85 (2010).

Shen, J., Yan, M., Tian, Z. & Zhu, X. The survey on consumer perception about GM food in Nanjing City. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 39 , 10909–10912 (2011).

Li, P. Consumer awareness and acceptance of GM foods in Guangzou city. Mark. Mod. 19 , 70–72 (2010).

Feng, L., Qi, Z., Tian, Y. & Zhou, H. Analysis on the impact factors of consumers’ purchase intention of GMfood. J. China Agric. Univ. 3 , 7–14 (2012).

Wu, W. Consumer awareness of genetically modified foods and consumer attitude survey analysis of the situation. J. Southwest Univ. Natl 5 , 771–775 (2011).

Xue, X. Investigation for Hangzhou urban population’s recognition and attitude to GM Food. Mod. Prop. Mgmt. 1 , 84–85 (2012).

Ruan, J., Chen, Chen, L., Guo, S. & La, W. Investigation and analysis of consumer recognition of genetically modified foods and transgenic labeling—a case study of Shenzhen city. Mod. Food Sci. Technol . 4 , 848–852 (2013).

Zheng, K., Wende, Chen & Jiayin., Xu Investigation and analysis for Chengdu consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 33 , 12966–12968 (2013).

Zhang, Y., Zheng, Z. & Gao, Y. Consumer perception and acceptance of GMfood. China Rural Surv. 6 , 49–61 (2015).

Li, Q., Wang, Q., Liu, Y., Ma, L. & Ma, M. Analysis of the perception and purchase of GM food in Anhui Province. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 35 , 116–121 (2015).

Zhang, X., Liu, X. & Deng, M. GMfood: a study of Chinese public’s recognition and attitude. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 20 , 6783–6786 (2014).

Guo, L. An investigation on cognition attitudes of the consumers towards GM foods in Zhuzhou. Mod. Food 21 , 12–15 (2015).

Meng, L., Yang, L. & Cheng, J. Survey of consumer recognition of GM food in Shanxi province. Food Saf. Guide 24 , 55–57 (2016).

Evans, E. A., & Ballen, F. H. A synopsis of US consumer perception of genetically modified crops. Univ. Florida IFAS Extension - Document FE934 . http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe934 (2016).

Barrows, G., Sexton, S. & Zilberman, D. Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. J. Econ. Perspect. 1 , 99–120 (2014).

Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11 , 315–324 (2016).

Wang, Y. Investigation and analysis for consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. Environ. Prot. 3 , 46–52 (2005).

Shi, S. Survey of consumer recognition of GM food in Wenzhou City. Mark. Mod. 30 , 9–10 (2015).

Tang, Y., Zuo, C., Zhao, S., Li, X. & Wang, X. Analyses of public GM food acceptance in Xian City. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 34 , 267–270 (2015).

Hallman, W. K, HebdenW. C. & AquinoH. L. Public Perception of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. (Food Policy Institute, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, 2003). Report Number RR-1003-1004.

Ho, P. & Vermeer, E. B. Food safety concerns and biotechnology: consumers’ attitudes to genetically modified products in urban China. AgbioForum 4 , 158–175 (2004).

Zheng, Z. The effects of information on consumer behavior: citing GM rice. J. World Econ. 9 , 146–167 (2015).

Hu, Y. Why Rumors of Food Security have the Market? Beijing Youth Daily . (2016).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospect . (The National Academies Press, 2016) https://doi.org/10.17226/23395 .

Jamieson K. H. and Winneg, K., Annenberg Science Knowledge Survey: Americans support GMO food labels but don’t know much about safety of GM foods. (2016) https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-support-gmo-food-labels-but-dont-know-much-about-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/ .

Dean, M. & Shepherd, R. Effects from sources in conflict and in consensus on perceptions of genetically modified food. Food Qual. Prefer. 18 , 460–469 (2007).

Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition and health. New Biotechnol. 27 , 552–557 (2010).

Wesseler, J., Smart, R. D., Thomson, J. & Ziberman, D. Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 12 , e0181353 (2017).

Jayaranman, K. & Jia, H. GM phobia spreads in South Asia. Natl Biotechnol. 30 , 1017–1019 (2012).

Li, R., Wang, Q. & McHughen, A. Chinese government reaffirms backing for GM products. Natl Biotechnol. 33 , 1029 (2015).

Vazquez–Salat, N. & Houdebine, L. Will GM animals follow the GM planet fate? Transgen. Res. 22 , 5–13 (2013).

ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech GM Crops: 2016 . (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY, 2016).

Carroll, D. Genome editing: past, present and future. Yale J. Biol. Med. 90 , 663–659 (2017).

Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A.T to G.C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551 , 464–471 (2017).

Cox, D. B. T. et al. RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science 358 , 1019–1027 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 7157317). The corresponding author would like to express the gratitude to Hui Meng (Professor of Eastern China Normal University), Dr. Xiaojun Lv (Associate Professor of Shanghai Jiaotong University) and Dr. Yan Liu (Associate Professor of Indiana University) for their suggestions in the design of the questionnaire and also acknowledge Beina Zhang and Yongyong Yang (Master students of Shanghai Normal University) for their support in data analysis. The co-author would like to gratefully acknowledge Professors Raymond Rodriguez, Professor Alison Van Eeneenaam and Christine Bruhn from the University of California, Davis, for their editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71573173).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California Davis, Davis, USA

Kai Cui & Sharon P. Shoemaker

Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Shi, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Kai Cui, corresponding author, designed the questionnaire and delivered it to groups he met with in China. He secured the help for the statistical evaluation of the respondents in the survey. Dr. Sharon Shoemaker provided advice and collaboration in the fundamentals and consumer attitudes of GM technology. She was Dr. Cui’s mentor while he was at the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research (CIFAR), UC Davis, and she provided basic understanding on the topic of GM Food and biotechnology, in general. She also contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript in English.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Cui .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cui, K., Shoemaker, S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. npj Sci Food 2 , 10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2017

Revised : 28 January 2018

Accepted : 09 April 2018

Published : 05 June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessing knowledge and willingness to use genetically modified crops in uganda.

• Abubakar Sadik Mustafa
• Jamilu E. Ssenku
• Godwin Anywar

Agriculture & Food Security (2023)

From present to prosperity: assessing the current status and envisioning opportunities in the industrial-scale cultivation of Haematococcus pluvialis for astaxanthin production

• Thilini U. Ariyadasa
• Bavatharny Thevarajah
• Wanni Arachchige Jalitha Wasath

Phytochemistry Reviews (2023)

Information seeking about genetically modified foods: readability of online information

• Lalitha Samuel
• Sawyer I. Basch
• Joseph Fera

Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2023)

Genetic modification strategies for enhancing plant resilience to abiotic stresses in the context of climate change

• Amman KhokharVoytas
• Muhammad Shahbaz
• Manal Abdullah AlShaqhaa

Functional & Integrative Genomics (2023)

A nationwide Chinese consumer study of public interest on agriculture

• Danfeng Liao

npj Science of Food (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Mar 21, 2019

130 likes | 234 Views

GM FOOD. GM FOOD.

Share Presentation

• allowed food
• genetic engineering
• genetically modified organisms
• grown genetically modified

Presentation Transcript

The transgenic or genetically modified organisms are a number of plants or animals that have been handled in laboratories. This manipulation is to add genes to the DNA strand of these plants and animals, in order to change or combine features between them. These characteristics are resistance to diseases, herbicides, insecticides or to improve their nutritional quality. GM FOOD

IT IS NOT BEEN PROVED THAT THESE ALTERATIONS ARE HARMLESS TO HUMANS GENETIC ENGINEERING HAS ALLOWED FOOD TO BE ALTERED TO LAST AND REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR MORE TIME GM FOOD Click

PLANTS WILL BE MORE RESISTANT BOTH TO PLAGUES AND TO INSECTICIDES IT BREAKS THE BIOLOGICAL CYCLE AND BECOMES A DANGER NOT ONLY FOR HUMANS BUT ALSO WILDLIFE . GM FOOD Click

GROWING IN DESERT AND POOR AREAS GM FOOD AFFECTING ECOLOGICAL BALANCE. Click

THESE METHODS WILL HELP TO SAVE SPECIES IN DANGER GM FOOD THE MOST IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF THESE PRODUCTS IS THAT THE PATENTS ARE PRIVATE Click

HUNGER IN THE WORLD. GM FOOD

COUNTRIES WHERE FOOD IS GROWN GENETICALLY MODIFIED GM FOOD

• More by User

343 views • 5 slides

GM ASEP incorporates advanced automotive technical training with a strong academic ... Automotive Youth Educational Systems (AYES), a dynamic partnership between participating ...

520 views • 27 slides

GM Foods. Marcus Chong Jun Jie Kerry Cao Tian Qin. Contents . Introduction Examples Characteristics Benefits Controversies Issues. Introduction. G.M. stands for Genetically Modified Derived from or produced by GM organisms

400 views • 16 slides

Gm foods. By Ilya . Gm food what is that ?.

298 views • 5 slides

GM Foods. By: Maira Hafiz &amp; 7BB. What is GM Foods?. GM Food : Genetic Modified Food. GM foods are basically food that have been genetically modified. For example, fish protein inserted to a fruit. The genes of something have been inserted to another kind of organism.

354 views • 7 slides

GM FOODS. By:Mohamed Al Marzouqi. About GM foods.

202 views • 7 slides

Introduction of GM food

Introduction of GM food.

243 views • 19 slides

GM Shipping

GM Shipping. Pick / Pack Process Improvement Developed, Implemented, &amp; Presented by Reginald Fuller. Defining the Six-Sigma Project. Listen to the Voices. Voice of the Customer (VOC) On-Time Delivery Product Availability Product Selection ( IP &amp; IQ) Quality of Shipment (Damages)

311 views • 20 slides

Is GM Food Safe to Eat?

Dr Judy Carman BSc (Hons) PhD MPH MPHAA Director Institute of Health and Environmental Research. Is GM Food Safe to Eat?. How GM Food is Made. Biolistics Inserted randomly Affect function of plant? New substances produced? Plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, viruses

452 views • 32 slides

Product of biotechnology. GM food. Wan Hing Lung(26). What are GM foods?. The food produced by genetically modified organisms,which were produced by the transfer of genes from one organism to another ,was called GM food(Genetically Modified food). Examples of GM food. Chymosin.

727 views • 27 slides

Mobile @ GM

Mobile @ GM. Mike Barkume Manager, Dealer and Consumer Mobile Solutions. The Mission. Mission Create strategic flexibility to execute multiple options Business process innovation by creating mobile options Drive change through entrepreneurial culture. The Team.

213 views • 7 slides

First GM Food

Genetically Engineered Food “ over 70% of food products in retail stores contain genetically modified ingredients”. First GM Food. 1992 –GE Flavr SavrTM tomatoes on the market after approval by FDA. Objective: make tomato with longer shelf life

302 views • 15 slides

GM?. Never heard of it?. Uh-oh… you’d better watch out!. GM foods, or GMO, is a term which has been discussed for several years. It’s an invention related to biotechnology. GM is a contraction of “ Genetically Modified. ” ( 基因改造 ) And GMO means

377 views • 18 slides

GM EDI. Gary Swisher &amp; Jere Warner. EDI Basics. Documents Exchanged Purchase Order (850) Purchase Order Acknowledgement (855) Advanced Shipment Notice (856/857) Invoice (810/857) Catalog (832) Sales &amp; Inventory Data (852). EDI Basics. Phase I Vendors

507 views • 23 slides

GM food – is it food? Maleny September 2013

GM food – is it food? Maleny September 2013. What is Genetically Modified (GM) food?. GM food comes from plants that have been changed in two main ways so they can: Survive being sprayed with weedkiller (herbicide tolerant). This greatly increases the use of weedkillers.

536 views • 40 slides

GM Food -Plants

GM Food -Plants. A first look. What is GM Food?. GM food stands for Genetically Modified Food GM food is food with genes modified. Genes can be transplanted by taking out useful pieces of DNA from one organism and merging them with the DNA in another organism.

352 views • 22 slides

Genetically Modified food (GM foods)

Genetically Modified food (GM foods). By: Jude Ramsaywak. What are GM foods?. GM foods are foods that are produced by changing the DNA of organisms, including plants and animals. As of 2013, there are no GM animals used for food, but animals used for food are fed GM crops. GM foods timeline.

526 views • 7 slides

GM food. Principle, PROs &amp; CONs. Introduction. What is GM food?

187 views • 11 slides

Font size 60. GM FOODS. GM FOODS.

87 views • 2 slides

Thursday File – 星期四檔案 Food Poisoning + GM Food ≠ Food Safety

Thursday File – 星期四檔案 Food Poisoning + GM Food ≠ Food Safety. By 3B Group 3. Congee. Hijack. According to the survey by Centre for Food Safety , we know that the trend of outbreak of food poisoning is increasing.

374 views • 37 slides

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Genetically Modified Foods (GMO)

Published by Miranda Dean Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Genetically Modified Foods (GMO)"— Presentation transcript:

Pure Genius.

Genetically Modified Foods

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

THE DEBATE ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD. WHAT IS GM FOOD? GM food is made with ingredients such as soya or maize, with genes from other plants or animals.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Biotechnology Review.

Twisting the DNA Helix Maria Helen de Hitta-Catalan.

Genetically Modified Foods Student Created. What are Genetically Modified Foods? Genetically modified foods are plants that have been modified in a laboratory.

Genetically Modified Organisms. 1.Go to my wikipage : oconnorbiology.greenwich.wikispaces.net 2.Click on the Google Forms link 3.Answer the questions.

GMOs CGW4U.

A Study of Genetically Modified Crops: Their Advantages and Disadvantages Prepared by: Matthew MacMullin, Biological Engineering Jordan Smith, Food Science.

Genetically Modified Organisms Chapter 15 (ibook).

Genetically Modified Foods. What is a Genetically Modified (GM) Food? Foods that contain an added gene sequence Foods that contain an added gene sequence.

Aim: What are some other applications of genetically engineered organisms?

Genetically Modified Foods Ms. Gaynor Honors Genetics.

G E N E T I C A L L Y M O D I F I E D F O O D S BY:LADONNA AYRES ERIC DOHERTY, TIFFANY ROBERTS, SHAINA CARDONA.

Gwendolyn Walker and Sarah Tabor. Genetically Modified Foods:  Scientists have been and are currently introducing genetic material into organisms to.

HOW CAN WE MAKE DRUGS IN THE FUTURE?. Three main methods Microorganisms Plants Animals.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

United Natural Foods, Inc. 2024 Q3 - Results - Earnings Call Presentation

The following slide deck was published by United Natural Foods, Inc. in conjunction with their 2024 Q3 earnings call.

This article was written by

Recommended For You

About unfi stock.

More on UNFI

Trending analysis, trending news.

Recommended

Breaking news, greenpeace’s war on kids, terrorism for tots and other commentary.

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Health beat: Greenpeace’s War on Kids

“A Philippines court made the decision to block the growing of Golden Rice,” grumbles Zion Lights at Spiked , “following campaigns led by Greenpeace” to discredit the genetically modified grain. “Widespread” vitamin A deficiency in Africa and south-east Asia is “the leading preventable cause of childhood blindness”; Golden Rice has “groundbreaking” potential to combat childhood blindness and its associated risks (including death). But “Greenpeace and other green activists” argue “that the rice would contaminate other crops and that GMOs” are harmful in general. A “third of living Nobel laureates signed an open letter calling Greenpeace’s scare campaigns a ‘crime against humanity’,” yet the greens persist. Now “these so-called environmentalists will have an entirely avoidable tragedy on their conscience.”

Woke watch: Terrorism for Tots

“The irruption of Hamas terrorism in Israel has provided Portland’s public school revolutionaries with another cause du jour,” snarks City Journal’s Christopher F. Rufo . “They’ve ditched the raised fist of Black Lives Matter and traded it in for the black-and-white keffiyeh of Palestinian militants,” with lesson plans demonizing Israel while “teaching the principles of ‘decolonization’ to students as young as four and five.” Teachers are “encouraged to share ‘keffiyehs, flags, and protest signs’ with the children, and have them create their own agitprop.” There’s also open endorsement of terror like “We salute all our martyrs!” And, reports Rufo, the teachers union “has assembled a legal guide for how teachers can keep promoting the lessons under the guise of meeting state curriculum standards.”

Conservative: Joe’s Slip-Sliding Away

“You don’t need” that Wall Street Journal expose “to tell you that Biden is diminished,” snipes Matthew Continetti at the Washington Free Beacon . “You need only to open your eyes.” Just “watch Biden try to sit at a D-Day commemoration in France on Thursday.” Or consider the Time interview, “where Biden says — twice — that Russia invaded Russia,” and “says that the 19 percent increase in prices since he became president is due to ‘shrinkflation’ and that he could ‘take’ the Time reporter who asks about his advanced age.” Asked about his second-term agenda, he babbles with no mention “of inflation, home prices, nor interest rates. Neither the border nor achieving positive outcomes in Ukraine and Gaza makes his second-term list.”

Science desk: Fauci Killed Science’s Authority

Anthony Fauci, thunders Steve Krakauer at The Hill , has “remained defiant and indignant” despite being proved “outright wrong.” Like on social distancing, which he admitted was based on nothing but blamed the CDC for, and which was a “a key factor in why so many schools remained closed for so long — unnecessarily and irreparably harming young kids.” He and other experts “embarrassed themselves over masking, like when the CDC massively changed the guidance on how vaccinated people could mask in just two weeks after public pressure.” Our scientific elite “had a choice at the height of the pandemic”: Be honest that “many of the mitigation methods they were suggesting were just their best guesses.” But “they chose a different route” using “lies, obfuscation, condescension and gaslighting.”

From the right: UC’s Absurd Grad-Student Strike

Graduate students and teaching assistants in the University of California system are on a “wildcat strike,” but the state just “got what it deserves,” sniff The Wall Street Journal’s editors . Yes, “48,000 or so academic worker members are refusing to teach undergraduate classes” and intentionally fomenting chaos in a “show of ideological loyalty to students demonstrating” against the war in Gaza. But “this is what the university gets for admitting grad students who care more about leftwing activism than learning.” UC can expect no help from pro-labor Gov. Gavin Newsom. In fact, it already “asked the state Public Employment Relations Board — run by Mr. Newsom’s appointees” to help end the strike. Predictably, “the board refused. Californians can thank the progressive leaders they elect.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Share this article:

Press Releases

News Details

Us foods hosts 2024 investor day and introduces 2025 to 2027 financial targets.

ROSEMONT, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- US Foods Holding Corp. (NYSE: USFD), one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States, will host its 2024 Investor Day at its Rosemont, Ill. headquarters today beginning at 9:00 a.m. Central Time. The event will include formal presentations and two Q&A panel sessions with the executive team and is expected to conclude at 12:30 p.m. Central Time.

“We are excited to highlight our business drivers and introduce our new long-term financial targets,” said Dave Flitman, CEO. “With the support and dedication of our 30,000 associates, I am confident in our ability to deliver shareholder value in both the near- and long-term, as we continue to leverage our customer-centric model and differentiation, advance our operational excellence and remain disciplined on our capital allocation priorities. Further highlighting the confidence we have in our future and our acceleration in operating cash flow, our Board has authorized a $1 billion share repurchase program, which we see as highly accretive to shareholder value creation.”

Members of the executive team will provide an overview of the Company’s long-term strategic vision, growth drivers and long runway of value creation ahead. A leader in a highly fragmented and resilient industry with large national scale, targeted customer growth and a leading position in digital innovation, the Company is executing its transformation, customer-first digital solutions, sales, supply chain and merchandising excellence. Additionally, the Company is fully committed to growing its core Broadline business, and therefore has begun exploring strategic alternatives for its CHEF’STORE cash and carry retail business.

Based on the Company’s execution to date, strong momentum and future potential for profitable growth, US Foods is introducing its long-range plan expectations for financial results in fiscal 2027 1 , including:

• Net sales of $43.0 billion to $45.0 billion
• Adjusted EBITDA of $2.2 billion to $2.3 billion
• Adjusted Diluted EPS of $5.20 to $5.70

Outlook for Fiscal Year 2024 1

The Company is reaffirming its Fiscal Year 2024 guidance provided on May 9, 2024.

• Net Sales of $37.5 to $38.5 billion
• Adjusted EBITDA of $1.69 to $1.74 billion
• Adjusted Diluted EPS of $3.00 to $3.20

_______________________________

1 The Company is not providing a reconciliation of certain forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures, including Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Diluted EPS, because the Company is unable to predict with reasonable certainty the financial impact of certain significant items, including restructuring costs and asset impairment charges, share-based compensation expenses, non-cash impacts of LIFO reserve adjustments, losses on extinguishments of debt, business transformation costs, other gains and losses, business acquisition and integration related costs and diluted earnings per share. These items are uncertain, depend on various factors, and could have a material impact on GAAP reported results for the guidance periods. For the same reasons, the Company is unable to address the significance of the unavailable information, which could be material to future results.

Webcast Information

The live webcast will be available at https://ir.usfoods.com . A replay of the webcast and slides will be available shortly after the event concludes.

About US Foods

With a promise to help its customers Make It , US Foods is one of America’s great food companies and a leading foodservice distributor, partnering with approximately 250,000 restaurants and foodservice operators to help their businesses succeed. With more than 70 broadline locations and approximately 90 cash and carry stores, US Foods and its 30,000 associates provides its customers with a broad and innovative food offering and a comprehensive suite of e-commerce, technology and business solutions. US Foods is headquartered in Rosemont, Ill. Visit www.usfoods.com to learn more.

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in this press release which are not historical in nature, including those under the heading “Outlook for Fiscal Year 2024,” are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements often include words such as “believe,” “expect,” “project,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “outlook,” “estimate,” “target,” “seek,” “will,” “may,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “forecast,” “mission,” “strive,” “more,” “goal,” or similar expressions (although not all forward-looking statements may contain such words) and are based upon various assumptions and our experience in the industry, as well as historical trends, current conditions, and expected future developments. However, you should understand that these statements are not guarantees of performance or results and there are a number of risks, uncertainties and other important factors, many of which are beyond our control, that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements, including, among others: economic factors affecting consumer confidence and discretionary spending and reducing the consumption of food prepared away from home; cost inflation/deflation and commodity volatility; competition; reliance on third party suppliers and interruption of product supply or increases in product costs; changes in our relationships with customers and group purchasing organizations; our ability to increase or maintain the highest margin portions of our business; achievement of expected benefits from cost savings initiatives; increases in fuel costs; changes in consumer eating habits; cost and pricing structures; the impact of climate change or related legal, regulatory or market measures; impairment charges for goodwill, indefinite-lived intangible assets or other long-lived assets; the impact of governmental regulations; product recalls and product liability claims; our reputation in the industry; labor relations and increased labor costs and continued access to qualified and diverse labor; indebtedness and restrictions under agreements governing our indebtedness; interest rate increases; disruption of existing technologies and implementation of new technologies; cybersecurity incidents and other technology disruptions; risks associated with intellectual property, including potential infringement; effective consummation of pending acquisitions and effective integration of acquired businesses; potential costs associated with shareholder activism; changes in tax laws and regulations and resolution of tax disputes; certain provisions in our governing documents; health and safety risks to our associates and related losses; adverse judgments or settlements resulting from litigation; extreme weather conditions, natural disasters and other catastrophic events; and management of retirement benefits and pension obligations. For a detailed discussion of these risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those anticipated or expressed in any forward-looking statements, see the section entitled “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Additional risks and uncertainties are discussed from time to time in current, quarterly and annual reports filed by the Company with the SEC, which are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov . Additionally, we operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing environment; new risks and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible to predict all risks nor identify all uncertainties. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date of this press release and are based on information and estimates available to us at this time. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, except as may be required by law.

INVESTOR CONTACT: Mike Neese (847) 232-5894 [email protected]

MEDIA CONTACT: Sara Matheu (773) 580-3775 [email protected]