24 Advantages and Disadvantages of GMOs

GMOs are usually used as a reference for food products, but it is an abbreviation that stands for
“genetically modified organism.” A GMO is created when the genes from one species are artificially
forced, in laboratory conditions, into the gene structures of unrelated plants or animals. These genes
can originate from any living being, plant, or creature, including humans, and be forced into the genetic
structure of any other living organism.

Sometimes GMOs are referred to as transgenic products. That is because of the genetic transfer which
occurs during modern GMO research. The process may also be referred to as genetic modification or
genetic engineering, but all these terms lead to the same approach to organism modification.

And the reason why GMOs are usually referenced to food products is because that is where most GMOs
are found.

Since the 1990s, when the first GMOs were introduced into the human food supply chain, the
advantages and disadvantages of this technology and its outcomes have been debated. The US has
somewhat embraced GMOs, while the rest of the world has treated them with great hesitation.

Here are the key advantages and disadvantages of GMOs to think about.

What Are the Advantages of GMOs?

1. GMO crops can be tailored to provide better health benefits.

GMO foods can be modified so that they provide a complete nutritional profile. Multiple vitamins and
minerals can be built into the crops as they grown by adjusting the genetic profile of the plant, making it
possible for people to get what they need with fewer foods and lower costs. That makes it possible to
provide more people who are living in poverty with the food resources they need to maintain their
health.

2. There is the possibility of an increased shelf life.

GMO crops can be engineered to last longer once harvested, which makes it possible to extend the
distribution life of the food product. That makes it possible to use the existing infrastructure for food
distribution to send healthy foods further around the world. That means locations which are
experiencing food deserts or shortages can still receive affordable foods that can benefit the general
population.

3. It takes less land to grow more food.

GMO crops can be engineered to produce higher yields from the same croplands. In some instances, the
crop yields can potentially double when the transition from traditional crops to GMO crops is completed
by local farmers. That makes it possible to meet the food demands that future generations are going to
face. By 2050, upwards of 10 billion people are expected to be living on our planet. Oxfam currently
estimates that global food production is enough to feed about 8 billion people.

4. Genetically modified crops can conserve energy, soil, and water resources.
That allows our food distribution networks to make less of an impact on the environment. Food can be
grown in areas that receive very little rainfall and have zero irrigation with proper genetic modifications.
Crops can be grown on fields with little soil. Because the crops have an increased resistance to disease,
weeds, and pests, there is greater consistency in the yields that can be produced. That makes it easier to
budget food resources for a larger population base.

5. Simple changes to certain crops can have a major impact.

The United Nations, through their Food and Agriculture Organization, suggests that the easiest way to
decrease vitamin A deficiency is to genetically modify rice to have higher levels of this nutrient. Because
half of the world’s population consumes rice on a daily basis, the high rates of this vitamin deficiency
could be resolved with this one simple change. Bananas in Uganda are being looked at for this vitamin
enhancement as well, while soybeans provide higher levels of Omega-3s without trans-fats.

6. Fewer harmful agents need to be applied to crops.

GMO crops are more resistant to pests, weeds, and other threats. That means farmers have less of a
need to apply pesticides or herbicides to their crops, which saves them money and potentially increases
the health benefits of the food being grown. Farmers can also make more money from their existing
croplands because there are greater yields with GMO crops. Even the sustainability benefits, such as
drought-resistance, can maintain yields so that fewer subsidies are required.

7. It can save core crops from extinction.

Many of the foods we eat today are products of a single initial resource. Every naval orange, for
example, is essentially a clone of one original tree that was grafted to created additional trees. That lack
of genetic variation puts the crop at-risk should a virus or bacteria be able to attack the basic genome of
the crop. We’ve already seen that happen with the Hawaiian Rainbow Papaya and genetic engineering
helped to save the industry. Something similar could happen to naval oranges or any other crop.

8. Farmers can use better ground-care methods.

Because GMO crops have a greater overall tolerance, no-till farming methods become a possibility. Even
if tilling is required, less may be necessary to successfully plant a crop. That means less irrigation may be
necessary. Less nutrient runoff may be experienced. Soil erosion can be reduced. At the same time, the
safety and nutritional value of the crops are not placed at-risk.

9. Future GMOs could eliminate food allergies or intolerance issues.

Current genetic engineering research is focused on removing the allergen triggers that are present in
common foods, like peanuts. Intolerance issues that are caused by gluten-containing foods or other
triggers are also being examined. The future of food science in the world of GMOs could make it possible
for people with food allergies or intolerance issues be able to safely eat foods they love in the future.

10. GMO crops use less water.

From 1980 to 2011, the amount of irrigation water required for fields planted with corn decreased by
53%. For cotton fields the amount of irrigation water decreased by 75%. Soybeans, rice, and potatoes all
saw decreases of at least 38%. Even wheat fields saw a 12% decrease in irrigation water consumption
when planted with GMO crops compared to traditional crops.

11. There may be a positive environmental impact with GMO crops.

In general terms, GMO crops require fewer in-field operations and applications to maintain the quality
of the yield. Because of this, fewer passes over the field are required. That reduces the amount of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are created through fossil fuel combustion with
tractors, combines, and other farming equipment. Carbon dioxide is also stored in the soil, so fewer
passes means less of a release occurs there as well.

12. GMO foods must meet the same standards as traditional foods.
For GMO food products to be sold in the United States, they must meet the same quality and safety
standards as any other food product. When compared to organic foods, Stanford University has even
found that there are no additional health risks when eating GMO foods or organic foods. Although there
are food allergy concerns, especially in children, any food at any time has the potential of creating an
allergy. From a pure nutritional standpoint, GMO foods are equal or greater than what is found at the
average grocery store.

13. GMOs can even safe beneficial insects.

When Bt proteins are used in genetic engineering, it targets a specific group of insect pests that are
dangerous to that specific crop. Other beneficial insects that would be killed when spraying a general
pesticide are saved. Those included proteins have a minimal effect on them. Although there are stories
of shepherds letting loose sheep into Bt fields and losing thousands of head of livestock because of it,
there are often more positives than negatives to find here.

What Are the Disadvantages of GMOs?

1. In the US, the FDA does not require GMO labeling.

GMO ingredients can be placed into food products and US shoppers wouldn’t even know it. There are
currently no national-level labeling requirements for foods that have GMO ingredients. Some states
have looked at creating labeling laws to require GMO information, but for the most part, only non-GMO
foods tend to be labelled right now. The Non-GMO Project reports that 64 countries, including the
entirety of the European Union, Japan, and Australia all require labeling.

2. Most core foods have some level of genetic modification.

Commercialized crops include cotton, corn, and soybeans. More than 90% of these crops being grown
today have some level of genetic modification. Even sugar beets, grown at commercial levels, are more
than 90% GMO. Any products that are derived from these core foods, such as corn syrup or soybean oil,
still contain the genetic changes from the core ingredient used to make the item.

3. There may be an increased risk of allergies or food intolerance.

Animal testing may be highly controversial, but it should be noted that GMO foods studied in animals
have found organ impacts in virtually every circumstance. In humans, there may be an increased trend
of food allergies and digestive intolerance because of genetic modification. When plants produce
pesticides inside of the plant to kill insects, by basic definition, that plant is toxic.

4. GMO crops can contaminate other fields.

The crops may be genetically modified, but they still grow the same way as any other crop. That means
pollination is required for the crop to produce the “fruit” that is being grown. Bees do much of the
pollination work, which means they are exposed to the genetic changes of the plant. Seeds are
produced by these GMO crops as well in many instances, which can be spread to other fields and
contaminate them. If cross-pollination occurs, there is no predictable outcome for both fields, though
soybeans are an exception since they don’t cross-pollinate.
5. Animal proteins could be affected by GMO crops.
The vast majority of the core crops in the US that are grown are GMO crops. These crops are then fed to
livestock, aquaculture, and apiculture, which impacts groceries that are based on animal proteins. GMO
ingredients can be found in milk, seafood, eggs, and animal muscle tissues. Even honey can have GMO
ingredients when bees are pollinating genetically modified crops to produce it.

6. Many GMO crops are trademarked, patented, and legally protected.

Farmers that grow GMO crops may be required to sign an agreement to exclusively grow a specific
product. They may be asked to take steps that protect the crops being grown from contamination.
Farmers that don’t take these steps could be taken to court because of breeching that contract. Some
companies have even sued farmers who have patented crops growing in their fields because of natural
pollination or distribution patterns, despite the fact that no seeds were ever planted by them.

7. It encourages the use of additional herbicides.

More than 80% of GMO crops grown around the world are created to be tolerant to herbicides. Farmers
have increased the number of toxic herbicides because of this by more than 1500% since the first GMO
crops were introduced. One of those most common herbicides being used, glyphosate, has been listed
by the World Health Organization since 2015 as being a probable carcinogenic.

8. GMOs create super weeds.

If nature knows how to do one thing well, it is to adapt. As crops have grown more resistant to weeds,
the weeds have grown stronger and more resilient to the chemicals applied to them that try to kill them.
Because of this, some farmers have resorted to using ingredients such as 2, 4-D, which is one of the
primary ingredients found in Agent Orange. The US Veteran’s Administration has a long list of
presumptive diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure, with many of them being cancers.

9. GMOs create super bugs.

As pesticides are applied to insects that provide a threat to crops, a few of them tend to survive the
application. Each subsequent generation becomes more resilient to the pesticide. That means either
more needs to be applied or a stronger agent needs to be applied. When something stronger is placed
on the crops, the cycle of resilience begins again. Although GMO crops reduced pesticide use by over 1
billion pounds from 1996-2010, the threat of resilient super bugs that could destroy entire croplands
without being affected by a pesticide could reduce food supplies instead of increasing them.

10. There are concerns that GMO foods may help to create antibiotic resistance.
One of the ways that crops are modified to be more resilient to disease is to artificially place antibiotic
genes within the DNA of the crops. Because there is evidence to suggest that continuing exposure to an
antibiotic can lead to disease resistance, the GMO efforts to create a safer food supply could be a
contributing factor to the “super bacteria,” such as MRSA, that are increasing in regularity.

11. Genetic engineering doesn’t solve everything.

Atrazine is one of the most common herbicides that is applied to US croplands. According to the
National Institutes of Health, atrazine resistance has been studied since the early 1970s. There are
dozens of weed species that are already resistant to this herbicide, with research studies by Bettini,
Shimabukuro, and Anderson showing over three decades that resistance is growing.
The advantages and disadvantages of GMOs is a necessary conversation we must have. At some point,
we must figure out how to feed our growing population levels. New farming methods can only produce
a limited amount of change. With this technology, we have the potential to maximize our resources. Of
course, maximizing those resources while creating health problems for future generations may not be
the right answer either. We should be working to prevent resistance instead of encouraging it.

How do you feel about GMO crops? Do you feel safe eating them? Why or why not?

The main reasons for genetic manipulation of species used in aquaculture are all directly connected to
improved output/input ratios. They are:

a) to enhance growth and/or efficiency of food conversion,

b) to enhance commercially significant flesh characteristics,
c) to control reproductive activity and/or sexual phenotype,
d) to increase resistance of species to pathogens/parasites,
e) to increase tolerance to/of environmental variables such as temperature,
f) to modify behavior, e.g. aggression, and
g) to control fertility and/or viability.

WHY IS THERE CONCERN ABOUT GMOS?

GMOs are organisms that have been created through the application of transgenic, gene-splicing
techniques that are part of biotechnology. These methods for moving genes are also referred to as
genetic engineering (GE).

This relatively new science allows DNA (genetic material) from one species to be transferred into
another species, creating transgenic organisms with combinations of genes from plants, animals,
bacteria, and even viral gene pools. Mixing genes from different species that have never shared genes in
the past makes GMOs and GE crops unique. It is impossible to create such organisms through traditional
crossbreeding methods.

Because of this uniqueness, there are many unknowns about genetically engineered (GE) crops and
GMOs.

BACKGROUND
Asserting that food from GE crops was “substantially equivalent” to food from non-GE crops, the United
States government first approved GE crops nearly 20 years ago depending largely on the studies
provided by the companies developing the new technology. The United States went ahead with
approvals although no human trials had ever been conducted to assess the safety and allergenicity of
these novel proteins.

Governments outside the United States have proceeded with more caution, preventing GE crops from
being planted because of outstanding concerns about environmental and/or food safety implications.
Since GE crops were first approved in the United States, food allergies have risen dramatically, in step
with GE crop market penetration . For instance, according to a data brief published October 2008 by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of reported food allergies in the United
States increased 18 percent among children under age 18 years from 1997 to 2007. Although no direct
links have been made to GE crops, a report by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology points out
that existing research focuses on known allergens such as peanuts and milk, and there are almost no
studies examining the allergenicity of novel proteins potentially introduced by foods created through
biotechnology.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
A major area of concern focuses on unintended consequences. For instance, some major problems with
GE crops are already emerging. The spread of resistant weeds has driven herbicide use up sharply,
increasing human health and environmental impacts and raising farmer costs. Also, many GE crops are
more prone to plant diseases, and some suffer micro-nutrient deficiencies because of subtle changes in
soil microbial communities.

There is mounting evidence that GMOs from GE crops are showing up where they were never used.
Contamination is a real threat, particularly in crops that easily cross-pollinate, such as corn and canola.

Meanwhile, more and more studies are confirming that there are genuine concerns about their use. The
following looks at some of the concerns that are being raised.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
• Impact of pesticide use, yields
In November 2009, The Organic Center issued a Critical Issue Report on the impact of the adoption of
GE corn, soybean and cotton crops on U.S. pesticide use. The most striking finding: with the use of GE
crops was the application of an additional 318.4 million pounds of pesticides in the United States over
the first 13 years of their commercial use (1996-2008).

Data from the 1996 through 2008 annual pesticide use surveys done by the USDA’s National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) showed that Bt corn and cotton reduced insecticide use by 64.2 million pounds
over the 13 years. However, herbicide-tolerant crops increased herbicide use by a total of 382.6 million
pounds over the 13 years. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans increased herbicide use by 351 million pounds,
accounting for 92 percent of the total increase in herbicide use across the three herbicide-tolerant
crops.

The 318.4 million pound increase in overall pesticide use represents, on average, an additional 0.25
pound of pesticide active ingredient for every GE trait acre planted over the first 13 years of commercial
use.

Although overall pesticide use decreased in the first three years of commercial introduction of GE crops,
pesticide use increased by 20 percent in 2007 and 27 percent in 2008. There are two major factors for
this: the emergence and rapid spread of weeds resistant to glyphosate due to excessive reliance on the
herbicide, and incremental reductions in the average application rate of herbicides applied on non-GE
crop acres.

• GMOs persist in waterways: A study by University of Notre Dame ecologist Jennifer Tank and
colleagues published in 2010 has found that streams throughout the Midwest receive transgenic
materials from corn crop byproducts even six months after harvest. In a 2007 paper in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) , Tank and other researchers had shown transgenic
materials from corn pollen, leaves and cobs do, in fact, enter streams in the agricultural Midwest and
can be subsequently transported to downstream water bodies. Their later study, published in the Oct.
12, 2010, edition of PNAS, investigated the fate and persistence of the material and its associated
Cry1Ab insecticidal protein in a survey of 217 stream sites in northwestern Indiana six months after crop
harvest. “Our study demonstrates the persistence and dispersal of crop byproducts and associated
transgenic material in streams throughout the Corn Belt landscape even long after crop harvest,” the
researchers concluded.

• GE in the wild: Researchers at the University of Arkansas, North Dakota State University and the
Environmental Protection Agency have found evidence that GE crop plants can survive and thrive in the
wild. Reporting the findings at the 95th annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America , scientists
reported that they had found that more than 80 percent of canola plants sampled from more than 1,000
miles of roadsides around North Dakota were inadvertently genetically engineered to tolerate
herbicides, either glyphosate or glufonisate. In addition, two of the plants analyzed contained two
transgenes, indicating that they had cross-pollinated. “These observations have important implications
for the ecology and management of native and weedy species, as well as for the management of biotech
products in the U.S.,” the researchers concluded.

• Resistance of insect pests: In 2010, Monsanto reported to the Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee in India that pink bollworms, a common insect pest that feeds on cotton, have developed
resistance to its GE cotton variety Bollgard I in Gujarat, India . The company noted it had detected the
resistance during field monitoring in the 2009 cotton season. The GE crop contained the Cry1Ac gene
derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

• Weed resistance: A 2010 report issued by The National Academies’ National Research Council warns
that GE crops could lose their effectiveness and develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their
own resistance to glyphosate, unless farmers use other proven weed and insect management practices.
It reported to date that at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to
glyphosate since GE crops were introduced.

• Round-up resistant weeds: A New York Times article by William Newman and Andrew Pollack (May
4, 2010) reported on the increase of superweeds that are resistant to Round-up.

• Herbicide resistance: A survey by researchers at the Department of Crop Sciences, University of

Illinois in Urbana, has found that Amaranthus tuberculatus (more commonly known as waterhemp), a
major weed in crop fields in the Midwestern United States, has developed multiple herbicide resistance,
including to glyphosate (Roundup). In their research article published in the Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry , they noted, “Herbicide resistance in A. tuberculatus appears to be on the threshold of
becoming an unmanageable problem in soybean.” They added, “On the basis of A. tuberculatus’s
history, there is no reason to expect it will not evolve resistance to glufosinate if this herbicide is widely
used. If this happens, and no new soybean post-emergence herbicides are commercialized, soybean
production may not be practical in many Midwest U.S. fields.” At least 21 weed species have developed
resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) and some weeds are also developing resistance to
alternative herbicides, according to articles published in the May-June 2011 issue of Weed Science . For
example, researchers at the University of Georgia in Tifton found multiple resistances in Palmer
amaranth to glyphosate and the herbicide pyrithiobac. In addition, research confirmed resistance of
Italian ryegrass in hazelnut orchards in Oregon to glufosinate ammonium, a non-selective broad-
spectrum herbicide. Still another study confirmed the first documented glyphosate-resistant Johnson
grass biotype in West Memphis, AR. “The herbicide resistance issue is becoming serious,” wrote William
K. Vencill, journal editor, adding, “It is spreading out beyond where weed scientists have seen it before.”
POSSIBLE HEALTH CONCERNS
• Organ failure (rats): A study analyzing the effects of GE foods on mammalian health linked three GE
corn varieties to organ failure in rats. The researchers led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of CRIIGEN and the
University of Caen in France found new side effects linked with GE corn consumption that were sex- and
often dose-dependent. These effects mostly occurred with the kidney and liver, while other effects were
noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. The researchers concluded that
these data highlight signs of hepato-renal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GE
corn.

• Glyphosate and birth defects: Research published Aug. 9, 2010 , confirms that glyphosate-based
herbicides cause malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses significantly lower than those
used in agricultural spraying and well below maximum residue levels in products currently approved in
the European Union. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Publishing the research were
researchers led by Professor Andrés Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the
University of Buenos Aires Medical School and member of Argentina’s National Council of Scientific and
Technical Research. “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans
exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” Carrasco reported at a press conference during the 6th
European Conference of GMO Free Regions. He explained that most of the safety data on glyphosate
herbicides and GE soy were provided by industry and are not independent. Carrasco began researching
the embryonic effects of glyphosate after seeing reports of high rates of birth defects in rural areas of
Argentina where GE Roundup Ready soybeans are grown in large monocultures sprayed regularly from
airplanes.

• Impacts on animal health. Researchers from Greece reported that animal toxicology studies of GE
foods indicate they can have toxic hepatic, pancreatic, renal and reproductive effects. Also, the use of
recombinant growth hormones or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been
shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.

• Serious human health risks. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, in a 2009
Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper , called for a moratorium on GE foods and warned that “GM
foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive
health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.” This position paper cites animal studies that
indicate such health risks associated with GM food consumption as infertility, immune dysregulation,
accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell
signaling and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
“Because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for genetically modified foods to cause
adverse health effects in humans,” the report notes, listing citations for numerous peer-reviewed
studies as backup.

• Bt toxin in human blood. Most recently, a study accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive
Toxicology conducted by scientists at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada reports the presence of Bt
toxin, widely used in GE crops, in human blood. Although scientists and multinational corporations
promoting GE crops have maintained that Bt toxin poses no danger to human health as the protein,
Cry1Ab, breaks down in the human gut, the findings from this study show this does not happen. Instead,
it was found circulating in the blood of pregnant and non-pregnant women. The study also detected the
toxin in fetal blood. Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93 percent and 80 percent of maternal and fetal blood
samples, respectively, and in 69 percent of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women.

LACK OF LABELING
Although biotechnology interests often argue that GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to
human health or the environment, there is mounting research showing that GE crops are not harmless,
as evidenced by the research cited above. However, GE foods are not labeled.

As a result, the Organic Trade Association and many consumer groups have long called for labeling GE
foods in the marketplace. But this concern goes beyond consumers and organic interests. In 2010, for
instance, the Indiana State Medical Association (ISMA, representing approximately 8,300 physicians in
every county in Indiana) resolved that it would seek legislation requiring that any foods containing
genetically engineered ingredients be clearly labeled .

ISMA’s resolution, discussed at its 2010 annual meeting, noted that 40 countries require labeling of GE
food, including the European Union, Australia, Japan, Russia, Chia, New Zealand, Brazil and South Africa.
In addition, the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, the British Medical
Association and the Irish Medical Organization all support the labeling of GE food products.

Meanwhile, the challenge for consumers who don’t want to eat foods made with GMOS is to know what
food products to avoid. The crops most often genetically modified in the United States—as well as the
ingredients made from them—are corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets and cotton. Thus, the following
ingredients on labels, if not labeled as non-GMO or organic, are likely genetically modified.
• Corn syrup, starch, oil, meal, gluten
• Soy lecithin, protein, flour, isolate and isoflavone
• Sugar (unless it is made from cane)
• Vegetable oil
• Cottonseed oil

NEED FOR OPENESS IN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW

While genetic events are traceable through the supply chain via contracts and analytical testing, because
GE foods are not labeled, they are not readily identifiable by consumers in the marketplace. Additionally
the contractual information, test results and genetic information are not readily available to researchers
and scientists. This greatly limits the ability to assess environmental and public health safety over time.
As patented products, the primers and gene sequences related to GE crop events are not readily
disclosed—greatly limiting independent scientific scrutiny. Prohibitions on land-grant universities
conducting research on GE crop events without permission from patent holders further exacerbates the
dearth of independent research.

There continues to be emerging evidence of environmental and public health concern from the adoption
of GMOs in agriculture.

Food safety of GMOs

here 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.

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. 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 .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 .

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.

Health risks associated with GM foods are concerned with toxins, allergens, or genetic hazards. The
mechanisms of food hazards fall into three main categories. 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 effects 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 .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
.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.
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
biochemical. Also, the presence of a new enzyme could cause depletion in the enzymatic substrate and
subsequent buildup of the enzymatic product. In addition, newly expressed enzymes may cause
metabolites to diverge from one secondary metabolic pathway to another. 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. 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” .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.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.

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 .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 .

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. 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 (

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 .

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 .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.

Using Patents for Profits

Due to the enormous cost and time investment in developing successful GM products, patents exist to
protect the rights of companies. There are many genetic engineering techniques and GM products that
have been patented. In the biotechnology field, patent infringement is a huge and controversial issue.

Unfortunately, there are economic concerns around the use of patents. Consumer groups worry that by
placing a patent on a new kind of GM plant, the price of the seeds can be raised to such an extent that
small-scale farm operations and farmers in developing countries will not be able to afford these GM
varieties of crops.

In this way, the divide between wealthy and poor nations will be increased quite significantly. Some
people have the hope that costs can be lowered when companies are seeking to sell GM seeds to
developing and third world countries.

Enforcing Patents and the Economic Challenges

Trying to enforce a patent can be very challenging because some of the farmers who have grown GM
products from companies such as Monsanto have cited that they did not do so by choice. Instead, they
claim that their GM crops are the result of cross-pollination. To handle this kind of issue, biotechnology
companies can insert a 'suicide gene' into the modified plant. Then, the plant can only be sustained for
one growing season and there would be the production of seeds that are unable to germinate.

The end result is that farmers would be forced to purchase new seeds each year. Yet, if you consider the
economic challenges of third world countries and developing nations, this would be an economic
disaster. They would be unable to afford the seeds every year. In contrast, most farmers would usually
put a portion of their harvest aside each year to plant in the following year.

Consumer Costs

The pricing of GM foods at the consumer level can vary a great deal. In some instances, prices are higher
while other times they can be lower, which reflect the complex array of factors influencing GM food
pricing as well as the impact of various production levels. For consumers against GM foods, they can
expect to spend more if they choose organic products.

This increased cost tends to relate to the smaller scale of many organic operations – particularly local
ones. In fact, the organics industry has experienced rapid growth, which some partially attribute to the
public mistrust of GM products in Britain. While the full economic impact of GM foods is difficult to
determine, it is clear that there is little consistency from one GM crop or market to another.
At the present time, more focus needs to be placed on resolving the issues relating to the economic
impact of GM foods. In turn, this can help countries to successfully grow GM crops and allow for
economic prosperity at every level of the production process.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be hot button topic on both sides of the Atlantic and
beyond. What rules govern international trade in GM food?

Which WTO rules govern international trade in agricultural and food products containing genetically
modified (GM) materials? This question is of growing interest to a number of countries facing decisions
as to whether to allow GM ingredients in food supplies and to permit the cultivation of GM crops within
their territory.

This article attempts to clarify the issue by discussing the variety of international trade rules that may be
relevant in the case of an importing country concerned about GM foods. It is not, however, intended to
provide a legal interpretation of the WTO obligations themselves.

The negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could defuse some of the
regulatory tensions between the EU and the US although the topic currently remains inflammatory
among some consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Several WTO Agreements apply to GM products

The widespread commercialisation of GM products dates back only to 1996, two years after the
establishment of the WTO. Accordingly the trade rules agreed in the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) did
not specifically refer to such products. Nevertheless, the question of government action restricting
imports of products that could harm the health of humans, animals, and plants – and by extension the
environment – played a major role in the Uruguay Round negotiations.

The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement was seen as a significant step forward in this area as it
defined more closely the conditions under which governments can restrict imports for health reasons,
while and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement dealt with technical regulations, standards,
including labelling requirements, and conformity assessment. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) could also be relevant in cases where the issue of the patentability
of GM products comes into question. And the basic articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT), incorporated into the WTO as the GATT-1994, that apply to all trade in goods can have
fundamental implications for national GM policies.

The “like” products dilemma

The general GATT obligations provide a useful starting point for considering GM issues. A distinction
needs to be made between the cultivation of GM crops in a country and the importation for sale on the
domestic market of products based on those crops. Nothing in the GATT would oblige a WTO member to
allow GM crops to be grown in that country.

Such cultivation bans have been in the news recently as the EU has adopted new regulations to allow
individual members states to ban GM crop cultivation within their territory even when EU authorities
have satisfied themselves about the safety of the crop in question. If farmers in these countries wanted
to be able to grow GM crops the most they could do would be to lobby their own government. Such
bans are unlikely ever to result in trade disputes; competing producers in other countries would scarcely
object to such restraints even were there to be legal grounds under the WTO to do so.

The WTO rules become more directly relevant when there is trade in GM products or ingredients
between countries. In the EU legislation, mentioned above, the responsibility for allowing a GM product
to enter the marketing chain is with the EU institutions and not the member states. However, the EU is
now reportedly reviewing its biotechnology approval process, and considering giving member states the
option to ban the import of GM food within their territory.

Most trade rules are by their nature constraints on importing governments while exporting countries by
contrast have fewer restrictions on their policies. So the basic rules of the GATT would apply to imports
of GM products. These rules are, inter alia, that the importing country cannot give to a product of a
particular supplier, if from a WTO member country, less favourable treatment than it affords to the
“like” product from other suppliers. The imported product should also not be treated, once on the
market, in a way that is more onerous than a domestic “like” product. Discrimination against products,
say, soybeans, of some overseas suppliers could be a violation of the “most-favoured nation” clause and
any extra testing or labelling of imported foods could contravene the principle of “national treatment.”
Both of the fundamental tenets of the WTO present hurdles for countries banning imports of GM
products or applying special conditions on the marketing of such products.

However, though the principles are clear, the practice may be more complex. Suppose that two soybean
exporting countries are competing for the same market, and that one of these sells biotech soybeans.
The issue here is whether the importing country can ban those imports but still import from the non-GM
supplier. Are the two types of soybeans “like products”?

The WTO, and the GATT before it, have had difficulty defining a “like product” though the phrase is
found several times in GATT articles. Should the focus be on the physical nature of the product; on the
extent to which products are capable of performing the same, or similar, functions in the market
concerned (end-uses); on the extent to which consumers are willing to use the products to perform
these functions (consumers’ tastes and habits); or of differences in tariff classification of the products? If
the similarity of the nature of the product is the key then soybean oil from GM crops, for instance, may
indeed be “like” – and indistinguishable from – the same product from non-GMO beans. But if the test
was whether the consumers in the importing country consider the two products sufficiently different
then it may be more difficult to conclude that they were indeed “like products” even if they fall under
the same tariff line. A situation could also arise where the treatment of imported GM crops was
materially more restrictive than of domestic non-GM competing products. In that case there remains a
possibility that a panel might consider the action as a violation of the principle of national treatment.

SPS Agreement

If one gets over the hurdles of non-discrimination and national treatment the WTO also addresses the
national regulations governing health and safety consequences of the importation and internal
distribution of GM products. These regulations are subject to the disciplines of the WTO SPS Agreement.
The agreement specifically applies to regulations designed “to protect human or animal life and health …
from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in imports of food,
beverages and feed stuffs” as well as “to prevent or limit other damage … from the entry, establishment
or spread of pests,” (SPS Agreement, Annex A, paragraph 1). A regulation banning or limiting imports of
GM corn or soybeans, for example, could be covered by this agreement if it were enacted to protect
human health or limit damage from the establishment of pests. [1]

This would, however, still then have to comply with the other conditions of the SPS Agreement. The
most important of these is the requirement that the measure be “based on scientific principles and is
not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence” (SPS Agreement, Article 2). There is also provision
in Article 5, paragraph 7 that allows provisional restrictions in cases where scientific evidence is
“insufficient.” In these cases the country issuing the regulation has an obligation to “seek to obtain the
additional information” necessary to apply the objective assessment of risk.

One way that such a condition can be satisfied is to base import regulations on multilateral standards.
The SPS Agreement specifically encourages the use of standards set by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission (CODEX), a body jointly managed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
the World Health Organization (WHO), geared towards setting international food standards, guidelines,
and codes of practice related to the safety of international food trade. CODEX has established a task
force to consider the problems associated with risk assessment in the case of GM foods. [2]

The CODEX task force, however, has yet to come up with a set of standards for GM products that is
acceptable to the major governments involved. And even if it were to do so it is not clear how many
countries would choose to follow proposed CODEX standards. Therefore, in the absence of an
international GM risk assessment standard, restrictions on imports of GM products or material if not
based on risk assessment and backed up by scientific evidence would be vulnerable to challenge at the
global trade arbiter.

Labelling GMO products

Once a product is imported into a country its distribution will be subject to local regulations. In
particular, sellers of GM products may be required to attach a label to inform consumers. The WTO
oversight of labelling regulations largely falls within the scope of the TBT Agreement. [3] Each country
can decide whether to require voluntary or mandatory labelling of GM food but the labels must then
comply with the provisions of the TBT Agreement. In particular, a measure requiring mandatory labelling
should have a legitimate objective, and not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil that
objective.

The labelling of GM products in the EU has caused some consternation in the US and Canada, who see
this as a way of giving credibility to those who are opponents of biotechnology, but no WTO case has yet
focused on this issue. And the situation is made more complicated by movements in several US states
that have considered their own GM labelling requirements.

CODEX has also been grappling with the question of whether to adopt international standards for the
labelling of GM foods through its Committee on Food Labelling. To date there has been a fundamental
disagreement within CODEX as to whether voluntary or mandatory labelling is the appropriate response
by governments in this area.

WTO dispute on biotech products

There has been one trade dispute within the WTO where several of these issues were adjudicated. The
US complained in 2003 that the EU system of approval of biotech products was so slow that it amounted
to a moratorium. In addition the US complained about “safeguard measures” taken by several member
states to prohibit the importation and marketing of these products. It was joined in the case against the
EU by Argentina and Canada.

At that time some member states had introduced national GM cultivation bans on grounds of assessed
risks to human health or the environment. These temporary bans, which had to be periodically
extended, nevertheless ran against the views of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). Moreover,
although these national bans targeted cultivation rather than importation, bitter divisions between
member states on the subject allegedly contributed to the slow approval process for biotech products to
be placed on the EU’s single market.

The complaint listed several provisions of the SPS Agreement that were seen to be relevant. A WTO
panel found that the EU had indeed imposed a de facto moratorium on most of the biotech product
applications pending at the time of the complaint. The panel found that the moratorium was not
covered under the SPS as an action taken on the basis of a risk assessment and that the approval
process itself had not been completed without “undue delay” as required.

In addition, the member state safeguards were not justified as a temporary restriction necessitated by
the lack of sufficient evidence, and had not been implemented on the basis of a risk assessment as
required by Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. [4] The panel report was adopted in November 2006. The
EU subsequently moved several products through the approval process but the US still considers the
backlog unacceptable.

However, although the panel clarified the obligation of governments to move applications at a
reasonable pace through approval processes, it did not settle some of the more fundamental GM-
related issues. The panel report does not address the question as to whether GM and non-GM products
are considered “like” in WTO rules. Nor did the panel report clarify whether existing EU GMO
regulations themselves were consistent with the obligations under the SPS Agreement. And the panel
avoided any statements that might indicate whether GM products were safe. Moreover, other trade-
related biotech issues that have now emerged since the ruling have to do with the requirements for
segregation of GM and non-GM crops, the tolerance levels for “adventitious presence” of GM materials,
and the costs of testing for traces of GM products, all may be an open question where WTO judges are
concerned.

Choice of two paths?

In practical terms, importers of GM ingredients are left with a choice between two competing paths.
One path is predicated on the fact that scientific evidence has yet to show any deleterious effect on
human health from consumption of GM foods. The accidental release of GM material may pose some
problems for the environment or for
other types of farming, such as organic production, but a ban on imports may not be deemed the least
trade-disruptive response. Labelling on a voluntary basis allows consumers to be aware of the method
of production if they are indeed interested.

The other path is that of “precaution” based on the notion that scientific evidence is as yet inadequate
to be certain of the long run impacts of GM products. This view considers that strict regulation of
imports and mandatory labelling is needed and that restrictions on domestic production are warranted
until the safety and environmental issues become clear. This latter strategy could survive WTO
challenges if carefully designed but the regulations themselves would need to be consistent with the SPS
and TBT Agreements.

Hopefully some rapprochement between these two different approaches will become possible in the
near future. The negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could defuse
some of the regulatory tensions between the EU and the US although the topic currently remains
inflammatory among some consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. Any such regulatory progress,
however, would be to the significant benefit of countries still in the process of developing their own
regulatory framework in this area.

Tim Josling, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford
University. Josling is also a member of the E15Initiative Expert Group on Agriculture and Food Security,
as well as the Task Force on Subsidies.

[1] One might have to establish that the potential risks associated with the GM product came under the
heading of “additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms.” Presumably the exporting
country would have to make the case that the SPS Agreement was the relevant yardstick in this case.
Thus the issue of whether GM import regulations come under the purview of the SPS or the TBT
Agreement is still a matter of contention in the WTO.

[2] The other two international standard-setting bodies, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) have both established working groups on GM
issues, but have not emerged with specific standards.

[3] A health label regulation, however, would be covered by the SPS Agreement.

[4] The EU argument that scientific evidence was unavailable was somewhat undermined by the fact
that the European Food Safety Authority had found that GM products did not pose a significant risk to
human or plant health.

Why traceability is needed

The traceability of GMOs is founded on two needs. First, consumers in many countries are reluctant to
buy genetically modified foods, and are skeptical of the use of GM crops for animal feed. Consequently,
the concept of co-existence has been developed to separate GM and non-GM supply chains, and is only
possible if all purchasers along the production chain know what they are buying. Secondly, although
every GMO that is approved for commercialisation must have passed a safety assessment, it may be
necessary to withdraw a certain GMO from the market - for example, if new scientific evidence raises
doubts about its safety.

Unique identifiers for GMOs

For these purposes, after three years of debate, the OECD countries came up with an identity code for
GMOs in 2002. Initially, some member countries (for example, the USA, but also Canada and Australia)
were opposed to the concept. The final decision requires the assignment of a "unique identifier" to each
GMO event which is authorised in one or more OECD countries. The unique identifier is a code
consisting of nine letters and/or numbers. The first two or three characters indicate the company
submitting the application, while the following six or five characters specify the respective
transformation event. The last digit serves as a verifier. All the crop varieties derived from one
transformation event will share the same unique identifier.

The unique identifier has been integrated in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and in the European
Union legislation on the labelling and traceability of genetically modified organisms (Regulation (EC) No
1830/2003). Detailing the unique identifier, the regulation demands the forwarding of written
documentation of the identity of a GMO at every stage of the production process. This allows a GMO to
be traced even if, for example, due to intensive processing, it can no longer be detected. Using this
unique identifier, information on all approved transgenic GMOs is accessible through the Biosafety
Clearing-House, the information exchange platform of the Cartagena Protocol.

Detection methods supplement documentation

Traceability does not rely solely on documentation. By biochemical means (polymerase chain reaction)
even tiny traces of GMOs can be detected and identified—provided that suitable testing tools exist for
the GMO assumed to be present. In the EU, such a tool must be part of the application documents for
the approval for commercialisation. For most products and production stages, testing methods are
available to monitor and enforce the compliance with traceability regulations.

Biodiversity caused by GMOS

One of the main controversies around GM foods is the potential of these products to affect biodiversity.
This is somewhat of a confusing area in the sense that it is a difficult one to assess and the effects tend
to be long-term ones, rather than consequences that can be observed and measured in the short-term.

As such, it is challenging because a GM crop may be approved but problems relating to biodiversity will
not be evident for some time afterwards. By that time, restoring biodiversity is a difficult if not
impossible task.

What is Biodiversity?

The concept of biodiversity refers to a wide variety of life forms. A geographic area that is said to have
high biodiversity will have many different species that call the land their abode. The variety that exists
within even a single species is also an important contributor to biodiversity. In an ecosystem that has a
high level of biodiversity, there will be numerous interactions between the different species.

These interactions tend to keep the biodiversity high and the range of species similarly broad. When the
environment changes or it is disturbed to some extent, if there is a high level of biodiversity, the
geographic area can usually withstand some degree of change.

In this sense, an area of high biodiversity is generally a resilient one. Many experts will look to the
biodiversity of an area to get a sense of the health of that particular ecosystem.

GM Crops and Biodiversity

The act of growing crops typically means that wild plants in that farm will be removed. If weeds grow
around the crops, it means that the crops will be competing for important and scarce resources such as
light, water and the necessary nutrition from the soil. In turn, the farm will be less productive if weeds
are left to grow.
However, some level of wild plants can be helpful to the farm. If certain wild plants are left to grow,
animals may consume them. These animals can then deter other pests on the farm. If a farm is carefully
planned out and good growing practices are used, wild plants can exist alongside crops that grow well.

With GM crops, however, they may have 'built-in' pest control or they may negatively affect the health
of an animal that consumes the crop.

A concern is whether or not agriculture using GM crops can respect and maintain this important balance
that supports a high level of biodiversity. There are a number of ways in which the biodiversity of an
ecosystem could be compromised by GM crops. In the first, outcrossing can occur.

This refers to a GM crop that passes on new traits to relatives in the wild. However, those relatives
might be altered in such a way that they now have a completely new ecological role, causing them to
'out-compete' other species in the ecosystem.

Another way in which GM crops might harm biodiversity relates to the use of only a small number of
crop varieties. New characteristics that occur from genetic modification could be so advantageous that
only a few crop varieties are used. In turn, there could be a greater number of outbreaks of disease or
pests.

Also, any crop that is engineered to be resistant to pests or herbicides can influence biodiversity because
it may not only affect the target insect. Instead, it could be harmful to insects that are not targets but
still consume the crop.

Not only that, but indirectly the GM crop could harm biodiversity through a reduction in the insects that
serve as a source of food for another kind of wildlife such as birds.

The Risks of GM Crops Affecting Biodiversity

Thus far, there is some evidence to suggest that GM crops can harm biodiversity. When Monarch
butterflies feed on leaves that are covered in pollen from GM corn, their growth was slower and they
were more likely to die. Another study that investigated pink bollworm fed on GM cotton found similar
results.

However, follow-up experiments on Monarch butterflies found that biodiversity was not harmed,
indicating that more research needs to be performed. Another study involved aphids that consumed GM
potatoes; the food was found to have a detrimental effect on ladybirds that fed on aphids.

Respecting Biodiversity and the Environment

It is no easy task to encourage biotechnological development and progress while still respecting
biodiversity and the environment. It is, however, a necessary task that must be done if GM foods are to
have any long-term support in Britain and elsewhere in the world.

One important step is to obtain a better understanding of the ecology of a specific area prior to planting
a GM crop. It is also difficult to create experiments that examine the impact of GM crops on biodiversity
but this is a challenge that must be met if biodiversity is to be respected.

Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy

One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn.
Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Prior to construction of the
recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects,
including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly
insecticide for several years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in
the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes
for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-
target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.

The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al. (1999) in which the
mortality of monarch larvae was reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply)
covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered with pollen from regular corn.
The report by Losey et al. was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that
natural levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs.

Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high
concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory
patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen. For the
next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the
issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al., 2001), providing
the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years.

Unintended Economic Consequences

Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms
they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is
argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because
monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will
dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a
recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation
genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream
(Demont et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries.
Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by
evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops.

GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns

In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council
(IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but
23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market. In addition, only 5% of
those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns
associated with using biotech products.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in
Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey
(Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ
depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean.
Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are
mentioned.

Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist
consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The
ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction
of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that
tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals,
or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the
development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make
informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed
risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-
genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a
definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be
labeled.

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

GMOs Defined – The Knowns and Unknowns

November 8, 2014 – At a dinner party a few weeks ago one of the guests stated categorically
that “GMOs are the cause of all these dietary allergies that kids are getting.” I quickly asked, what
scientific basis did she have for that statement. Her response was she had heard or read it somewhere.
In truth I suspect she was more than convinced by her own conviction rather than any legitimate
science.

Misinformation on GMO crops is doing a disservice to the science behind genetically improving what we
grow. The term GMO has become associated with the Monsanto, Dow, and BASF-led cabal of
biotechnology and chemical companies that were first to market genetically modified staple crops.
These companies through their controlling behaviours propagated mistrust in a large section of the
public and even in the farming community. The stop Monsanto movement is more about the company’s
corporate behaviour with numerous lawsuits against independent farmers who challenge the restrictive
rules around growing Monsanto-modified seeds.

At the dinner party I asked the guest what is the difference between genetically altering a plant through
gene insertion or deletion, versus selectively breeding a plant over many generations to inhibit an
unwanted trait?

Her response was that gene insertion could mean putting something from a tomato into corn. She is
absolutely right. This form of genetic modification, practiced by agro-scientists has produced herbicide
resistant corn and soybeans. It has introduced insecticidal toxins from a bacteria into food staple crops
to helped them fight off crop-eating pests. It is helping to create new varieties of plants that, with
features borrowed from bacteria, are better at fixing nitrogen, critical to plant health and growth. That
means farm field with fewer applications of fossil-fuel based nitrogen fertilizers. And that means less
nitrogen-laced water from runoff and fewer algae blooms in neighboring downstream lakes and rivers.

This form of bio-engineering gene traits from one species to another is also having an impact in
biomedicine where new medications are being developed using genetically modified sheep and goats
milk containing clotting factors.

Before GMO science came on the scene plant genetics was a random process. Agro-scientists cross bred
varieties of plants. That meant they were combining lots of genes hoping that over several generations
and a lot of patience they would yield new desirable character traits in a species. Today scientists bypass
the multi-generation hit and miss approach by selecting known desirable traits represented by specific
genes and splicing them into plant DNA. It works. It saves time. And it can save lives.

But just how far is society willing to accept the full implications of genetic modification? Those opposed
have coined the term “frankenfoods.” As a term it invokes an unholy pursuit that is unleashing monsters
and demons in the foods we eat. But “frankenfood” may be one answer to a growing global population,
and not the source of ills as stated by the dinner guest I spoke of earlier.

For example in China today GMO is big business with the government spending billions of dollars and
engaging thousands of research scientists in its study. The immediate response of course is, sure China
with its centrally planned economy can get away with this.

Well in recent years graft and corruption have yielded a number of food scandals in China and although
the acronym GMO has come up, none of these have involved anything genetically modified. Remember
the melamine-tainted milk formula, some of which arrived in North America, or the tainted cooking oil
sold to consumers resulting in many deaths? No GMO in either.

But there is one scandal involving a GMO crop, golden rice, developed in 1999, which was served to
hundreds of unsuspecting families not told what they were eating was genetically altered. And although
no child suffered, and probably many were protected from Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) a cause of
blindness in up to a half million children annually, when the news came out a number of senior Chinese
officials lost their jobs.The genes inserted in golden rice were not manufactured but came from plants
like squash, carrots and melons, all great food sources for Vitamin A. But in South Asia that’s not what
people eat. They eat rice and the lack of Vitamin A in the diet has proven to be a great danger to
children in the first few years of life.

In China today there is less arable land than in the past. Urbanization and industrialization is destroying
farms. So the country has to produce more on less acreage. That’s why China is the world’s top spending
nation when it comes to genomics and GMO research. Chinese leaders see GMO as insurance, helping
them feed a population of 1.3 billion, expected to peak at 1.4 billion in 2030. GMO is a way to fight
climate change, developing crops resistant to heat and drought, using fewer pesticides and herbicides,
reducing nitrogen-based fertilizers manufactured from fossil fuels. And although the country today is
self-sufficient in food production the fear of climate change impacting future yield levels has the
government focused on creating crops that will be even more successful.
Today outside of China the war against GMO is fought in skirmishes from Hawaii to the European Union.
In Africa governments are in a quandary to allow GMO plantings or restrict their use. The
misinformation in social media and the blogosphere is abundant. Just look at the links to articles across
the web provided below. Lots of people see Frankenstein’s monster in those three letters – GMO.

A solution may be to get rid of them, that is the acronym GMO, altogether. In her book, Tomorrow’s
Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food, Pamela Ronald, a professor in the
Department of Plant Pathology at University of California, Davis, argues that “the term GMO is
scientifically meaningless.” In her book she argues for the blending of genetic engineering and organic
farming practices to help meet the needs of a growing world population in both a sustainable and
environmentally balanced way.

Ronald is calling it genetic engineering. We’ve been doing it since we gathered the first wild wheat
stocks on Mesopotamian hillsides and harvested the seeds to plant over 12,000 years ago. At every
harvest we selected the best seeds to repropagate the next year’s crop, genetically engineering one
growing season at a time.