The Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food written by: Sonal Panse edited by: Paul Arnold

d updated: 11/29/2012 The number of countries growing GM crops has increased in recent years. The benefits and dangers of genetically engineered food are the subject of intense debate. Supporters claim it will feed the world and promote better health and ecological welfare. Detractors have their doubts.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are crops, vegetables and fruit that have been created using genetic engineering methods. The principle aim with GM food is to combine desirable genes from various species to create new genetically-altered crosses with enhanced nutritional, productive and ecological value. This differs from traditional breeding in that genetic transference between unrelated species does not occur biologically in nature. This process of combining inter-species genes, which is called recombinant DNA technology, does not have the checks and balances that are imposed by nature in traditional breeding. Without these, there is a risk of genetic instability. This means that no one can make any accurate predictions about the long term effects of GM foodstuffs on human beings and the environment. Extensive testing in this regard is either very expensive or impractical, and there is still a great deal in genetics that scientists have not properly understood. This is the crux of the matter in the ongoing debate of pros and cons of GM food. Food is an emotional topic. It matters a great deal to all of us. We are what we eat after all. The subject is also of vested interest for the corporations that manufacture GM seeds and agricultural technologies. The arguments are intense and passionate, and what follows is a summary of the views put forward by those that see benefits in genetically engineering foods and those that see only dangers in such genetic modification. genes human genome www.biobase-international.com Unique Annotations for NGS Analysis SNPs, Binding Sites, Disease Genes

Ads by Google

Advantages of genetically engineered foods GM crops are more productive and have a larger yield. Offer more nutritional value and better flavor. A possibility that they could eliminate allergy-causing properties in some foods. Inbuilt resistance to pests, weeds and disease. More capable of thriving in regions with poor soil or adverse climates. More environment friendly as they require less herbicides and pesticides. Foods are more resistant and stay ripe for longer so they can be shipped long distances or kept on shop shelves for longer periods. As more GM crops can be grown on relatively small parcels of land, GM crops are an answer to feeding growing world populations. They further add that

GM foods are safe. Changing a few genes here and there does not make a crop toxic or dangerous. The meddling with nature argument made against GM foods doesn't hold water. There are many things that human beings have transformed to serve their purpose. Why pick on this?

Dangers of genetically engineered foods Scientists can choose which genes to manipulate, but they don't yet know where in the DNA to precisely insert these genes and they have no way of controlling gene expression. Genes don't work in isolation, changing a few could change the whole picture, with unpredictable and different effects under different circumstances. It is not correct to tout genetically modified food without evaluating the risks sufficiently. Or at least proving conclusively that there are no risks. Many GM companies don't label their foods as being GM foods. There is concern about a GM bias affecting business. But not labeling is wrong and unfair to the consumers who should have the right to know what they are buying and indeed to decide whether they want to buy GM food or not. Even if health safety factors are not an issue, some people might have moral or religious objections. They should not have to eat GM food if they don't want to. GM food will end food diversity if everyone starts growing the same standardized crops. Herbicide-resistant and pesticide-resistant crops could give rise to super-weeds and super-pests that would need newer, stronger chemicals to destroy them. GM crops could cross-pollinate with nearby non-GM plants and create ecological problems. If this were to happen with GM foods containing vaccines, antibiotics, contraceptives and so on, it would very well turn into a human health nightmare. The claim of ending world hunger with GM food is a false claim. World hunger is not caused by shortage of food production, but by sheer mismanagement, and lack of access to food brought about by various social, financial and political causes.

The GM technology companies patent their crops and also engineer crops so that harvested grain germs are incapable of developing. This is not empowering to impoverished Third World farmers, who cannot save seeds for replanting and have to buy expensive seeds from the companies every time. The new technology also interferes with their traditional agricultural ways which may be more suited to their conditions. Instead of going for GM food, why not focus more on improving organic agricultural practices?

There are many more questions about genetically modified food that can only be answered through time, research and experience. http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/23358.aspx

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology By: Theresa Phillips, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) 2008 Nature Education Citation: Phillips, T. (2008) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education 1(1)

Figure 1 Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in If you could save lives by producing vaccines in transgenic bananas, would you? In the debate over large-scale commercialization and use of GMOs, where should we draw the line? People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering. Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

agriculture are increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's growing population. Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish (Table 1; Takeda & Matsuoka, 2008). Other applications include the production of nonprotein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant) products. A number of animals have also been genetically engineered to increase yield and decrease susceptibility to disease. For example, salmon have been engineered to grow larger (Figure 1) and mature faster (Table 1), and cattle have been enhanced to exhibit resistance to mad cow disease (United States Department of Energy, 2007). Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology Genetically Conferred Trait Example Organism Genetic Change

APPROVED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

Herbicide tolerance

Soybean

Glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) tolerance conferred by expression of a glyphosate-tolerant form of the plant enzyme 5enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) isolated from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, strainCP4

Insect resistance

Corn

Resistance to insect pests, specifically the European corn

borer, through expression of the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis

Altered fatty acid composition

Canola

High laurate levels achieved by inserting the genefor ACP thioesterase from the California bay treeUmbellularia californica

Virus resistance

Plum

Resistance to plum pox virus conferred byinsertion of a coat protein (CP) gene from thevirus

PRODUCTS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT

Vitamin enrichment

Rice

Three genes for the manufacture of beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, in the endosperm of the rice prevent its removal (from husks) during milling

Vaccines

Tobacco

Hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) produced in transgenic tobacco induces immune response when injected into mice

Oral vaccines

Maize

Fusion protein (F) from Newcastle disease virus(NDV) expressed in corn seeds induces an immune response when fed to chickens

Faster maturation

Coho salmon

A type 1 growth hormone gene injected into fertilized fish eggs results in 6.2% retention of the vector at one year of age, as well as significantly increased growth rates

The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone was the first protein pharmaceutical made in plants (Barta et al., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody was produced (Hiatt et al., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which has since dominated the industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes (Ma et al., 2003). As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials. The use of genetically modified animals has also been indispensible in medical research.Transgenic animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases. Potential GMO Applications Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of microorganisms are being considered as future clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition, genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible solution to the spread ofdisease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Work is currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B virus (HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli(ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al., 2003). Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about potential risks. Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of anorganism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which

that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora. Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003). In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modifiedfish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms. 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 bacteriumBacillus 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 reasonablecost 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 thedevelopment 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. History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli, was infected with DNAfrom a tumorinducing virus (Devos et al., 2007). Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in 1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues. In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S. had very few regulations in place. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al., 2007). Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by forecasting the societal impacts of GMOs. Then, in 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations," became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a product-based approach to assessment, whereas the European approach is more process based (Devos et al., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops. Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding

superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived markers (Ma et al., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate growing seasons. GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleanerenvironment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmostransgenic-crops-and-732

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Genetic engineering is a process whereby genes from one organism are moved into the genome of another organism. In the case of genetically engineered foods, genes from bacteria or other plants or organisms are moved into foods such as soybeans, corn, potatoes, and rice to provide herbicide-tolerance and/or insect resistance to the plants. Environmental Commons believes that genetic modication and engineering:

Constrict farmer seed and variety privileges. Confer private ownership of otherwise commonly held life forms. Create unanticipated environmental effects. Threaten human health. Suppress the development and integrity of less intensive, more sustainable farming systems. Damage local farming economies.

GMOs & Food Democracy

Due to a dearth of adequate regulations regarding GMOs, local communities are democratically reaching decisions regarding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and transgenic organisms. Threats to Food Democracy In response, state legislators supported by the agribusiness industry began introducinglegislation removing local communities ability to shape their food systems in lieu of adequate oversight. Environmental Commons believes a community's food policies should be determined by public support and local policymakers, not by agribusiness lobbyists in backrooms of the state or federal legislatures.

GMO News News feed from Environmental Health News

04-Feb-13 Improved labeling is food for thought at Ledyard forum. State farmers, political and religious leaders on Sunday called for "food sovereignty" as they push for the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - plants and animals that have been modified with genetic engineering. 03-Feb-13 After 30 years, is a GM food breakthrough finally here? In a few months, golden rice normal rice that has been genetically modified to provide vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in the developing world will be given to farmers in the Philippines for planting in paddy fields. 03-Feb-13 The quest for GMO labeling. Three months ago, Prop 37, a California ballot measure to mandate the labeling of GMO foods was defeated, partly due to fierce lobbying from the food industry. But similar initiatives are underway in other states, including Vermont, New Mexico, and Washington, and the food industry may be less opposed. 03-Feb-13 Homes in 2050 will be greener, smarter and cleaned by flying robots (maybe). The skyscraper of the future will have walls that repair themselves, windows that respond to the weather and, naturally, flying robots to keep everything clean. It will make more energy than it consumes and will eventually tailor its environment to your individual DNA.

03-Feb-13 It is hard to trust GM when it is in the grip of a few global giants. Don't believe the hype: GM is in the grip of a few firms that profit from selling the chemicals they engineer their seeds to resist. Only a handful of GM food crops such as maize, soy and oilseed rape are grown widely and mostly in only a few countries. http://environmentalcommons.org/gmo.html Advantages of GMOs The mapping of genetic material for GMO crops increased knowledge of genetic alterations and introduced the ability to enhance genes in crops to make them more advantageous for human consumption and production (Whitman, 2000). For example, plants can be engineered to be temperature resistant or produce higher yields. This provides greater genetic diversity in different regions where climate limits productivity.

High Yield Crops Another good reason to have GMO crops planted is to add nutritional value to crops that lack necessary vitamins and nutrients. There are areas around the world that rely on rice or corn crops, and other plant genes may be added to the crop to increase the nutritional value of that food. This will help malnourished populations receive more nutrients from their diet (Bouis, 2007). We have already made pesticide resistant plants so that farmers can use the right kinds of pesticides to rid insects and not inhibit plant growth. This will increase crop yield in two ways; there will be fewer insects and pests to eat the crops, and they will grow without being bothered by pesticides.

Farmers spraying pesticides to GMO crops Disadvantages of GMO's The GMO process includes adding new genetic material into an organism's genome (Cohen, et al. 1973).In agricultural ecology, similar to bacterial genetic engineering, this means

introducing new genes in the genome of crops like corn. Experimental plantings of GMO crops began in Canada and the U.S. in the 1980s. The first time it became large scale (commercial) cultivation was in the mid 1990s. Research on the effects of large scale cultivation of GM crops sparked various concerns. These ideas are brought up in different research studies conducted on ecosystems with GMO strains. GMO strains have the potential to change our agriculture. A plant with unwanted or residual effects that might remain in the soil for extended periods of time (Morrissey, 2002). European Union agricultural regulators were alerted by Morrisseys research that GM strains from GM crops remained in the soil for years after the crop was removed. Data reported that despite the absence of the GM plant, the strain persisted for up to six years.

Soil samples showed GM strains persisted in soil for years. Engineered plants can act as mediators to transfer genes to wild plants and then create weeds (Carstens, 2010). To keep these new weeds under control scientists invented new GMO weed herbicides that were not necessary for non GMO weeds. These chemicals are toxic to various amphibians and mammals, such as cows feeding on GMO crops. In vivo tests shows that the uptake of herbicides has toxic consequences on certain organisms (Carsten, 2011). The consequences of chemicals in aquatic ecosystems is outlined in detail in the Ecological Effects Page.

New genetically engineered plant (weed) due to cross pollination between

GM plant and non GM plant. There is opposition in the introduction of GM genes on genetic diversity. The GM genes from crops can spread to organic farm crops and threaten crop diversity in agriculture. If crop diversity decreases, this affects the entire ecosystem and impact the population dynamics of other organisms (Williamson ,1992). The chance that one genetically modified crop strain could pollinate an already existant non-GM crop is unlikely and unpredictable. There are many conditions that must be met for cross pollination to occur. However, when a large scale plantation releases a GM strain during pollination, this risk increases. The cross pollination to non-GM plants could create a hybrid strain, which means there is a greater possibility of ecological novelty, or new artificial strains being introduced into the environment that could potentially reduce biodiversity through competition.

Cows can eat GM crops and suffer side effects. How Can We Test for GMO Safety? ~Using Bioluminescent Signals~ Whole-cell bioreporters can be used to determine toxicity or other damaging conditions in the environment. They give off fluorescent or bioluminescent signals, but are poorly tested in the environment. If found effective outside of the lab, these bioreporters would be an excellent way to test aquatic environments for adverse effects of genetically modified organisms (Tingting, et. al., 2012). ~Looking at Genes and their Function in the Environment~ When looking at risk assessment and testing, it is important to focus on the functionality of a transgene with regard to physiological as well as ecological relations (Breckling, 2011). Risks that are assessed for include: Horizontal gene transferVertical gene transferPersistanceHybridizatoinEffects of food chains in ecosystems and alterations in biodiversityIndirect effects (agricultural risks) Used two ways to test

Bottom-up perspective (necessary to understand the small-scale interactions and work their way to the large-scale interactions) Top-down perspective (analyze the extent the relevant factors driving the model varied in the wider context)

Fig. 1. The up-scaling approach as it combines large-scale and small-scaleinformation. Bottom-up data input was used to model local dynamics. General knowledge on the specific crop and information from field testing was incorporated on this level. In a top-down approach, the regional variation in driving forces was analysed and used to specify scenario sets to run the model under different input conditions. The up-scaling was then achieved by selecting the model output matching the specific sites that make up the regional context. Since the model contained processes like small-scale dispersal, seed bank development and crosscontamination of fields, regional statements on the relevance of these processes on larger scale could be derived (Breckling, 2011). http://gmoeffects.wikispaces.com/Advantages+and+Disadvantages+of+GMOs

Process of Genetically Modifying Crops As the scope of this article is not to describe the detailed process of how GMOs are modified, I will just very briefly describe it. First and foremost the genetic material of the two or more crops whose genetic property or properties will be mixed has to be fully mapped. The phrase "genetic mapping" means to have a full and exhaustive recorded knowledge of the genes, and the sequence of genes of the genetically mapped organism(s). When each of the genes (and their functions) of the particular crops have been identified, they are then separated in a science lab. These genes are then cloned and injected into the sequence of genes embryonic form (sometimes to stem cells) of the recipient crop. Finally the seed of the modified crop is planted and grown in greenhouses through traditional methods. Disadvantages of GMOs

Harm to other organisms. For example genes and their effect included in a crop may turn out to be poisonous to insects (monarch butterfly poisoned by GMO corns).

Advantages of GMOs

More informed customers, because they need to make more informed decisions in regard to nutrition, agriculture and science.

Taste of GMOs are not as good or "natural". Less pesticide is needed to be used due to insect pest resistant plants.

Cross-pollination with traditional, organic plants. Cross pollination can occur at quite large distances. New genes may also be included in the offspring of the traditional, organic crops miles away. This makes it difficult to distinguish which crop field is organic, and which is not, posing a problem to the proper labeling of non-GMO food products. More economically friendly as pesticides do not go into the air, soil, and water (especially freshwater supplies). Their production hazards to the environment also decreases. Decrease in costs of growing and farming, due to the reduced use of pesticides.

Spread of new, more resistant "super weeds Higher crop yields. Spread of new, more resistant "super pests". Farmers have more income, which they could spend on such things as, for example, the education of their children.

Major trading countries that obtain most of the benefit from the production and trade of genetically modified crops. This might cause more geopolitical conflicts. Less deforestation needed to feed the worlds growing population (UN projections say that the world population will reach 8.15 billion compared to 6.18 billion in year 2000). This decreases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which in turn slows global warming.

New trade, tariff and quota issues may arise between countries, regions. Decrease in food prices due to lower costs and higher yield. As people in poor countries spend over half of their income on food alone, lower food prices mean an automatic reduction of poverty.

Critics say GMOs may cause health problems. Less starvation in the world due to decreased food prices. More nutritious. This has been proven and tested many times.

As the USA is the biggest producer of GMO crops, their exports may rouse more anti-American feeling, due to Americanization worldwide. Possible damages to the environment. Rigorous testing of ALL GMO crops and products. This makes GMOs much safer than organic (the traditional) crops.

Possible greed of GMO manufacturing firms. Unharmonized test-, and safety standards around the world. ALL GMOs that are sold in the market, due to the strict tests. If the slightest chance of health hazard, a GMO is NOT allowed to enter the markets.

GMOs are made because it is possible to make them, not because consumers feel their need. Strict and very complex standards that GMOs have to fully meet. More thoroughly understood crops due to the rigorous testing.

Possible creation of new kinds of weapons; genetic food and beverage weapons. Scientific development of agriculture, health and related sciences due to the better understanding of the products. For example, the development of new medicines.

Additional costs of labeling whether products are GMOs or not. This might increase costs of foods. Creation of super foods due to better knowledge. Super foods are types of food that are cheap to produce, grow fast in large quantities, highly nutritious.

Widening corporate size gaps between food producing giants and smaller ones. This might cause a consolidation in the market: fewer competitors increase the risk of oligopolies, which might increase food prices. Larger companies might have more political power. They might be able to influence safety and health standards (example: less stringent regulations, standards and requirements). New products. For examples, scientist identified the gene responsible for caffeine in coffee beans; by excluding this gene, decaffeinated coffee beans can be grown naturally. Reduction of sicknesses and illnesses, as GMO crops are more nutritious. Vitamins and minerals can be provided to children and to people, where they were inaccessible before (i.e.: the worlds poorest and/or most secluded areas).

Activists increased ability to boycott and influence food market, food retailing, and food prices. Unforeseen risks and dangers due to the complexity of nature. Allergies may become more intense, and also, new allergy types may develop. Developments of new kinds of crops that can be grown at extreme climates, for example, dry or freezing environments (like deserts). For example, scientist developed a type of tomato that grows in salty soil. Reduction of world starvation due to increased production.

Discrepancies in information flow. GMO producers stress the benefits, but are reluctant to talk about risks and dangers.

What are Genetically Modified Foods? Identifying Organic Foods Fertilizers in Conventional vs. Organic Foods

As more crops (plants) can be grown and at more places, this decreases global warming through the increase of oxygen in the environment, decreasing the proportion of carbon dioxide. Two British economists note in a study that GM crops have also made significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 10 million tonnes. This is equivalent to removing five million cars from the road every year. In effect this means that people would have to choose between growing GMOs and giving up their vehicles. Many Nobel Prize winners and prominent scientists support genetically modified crop research and production. Enhancement of the taste of food. Enhancement of the quality of food. Beside humans, livestock and animals are also beneficiaries to the higher nutritious value of GMO crops. They have an increased resistance, productivity, and hardiness. Enhancement of the smell of food. Decrease of maturation time of the plants, so they can be harvested sooner and more often during the year. With time, possible customization of food to meet personal preferences. Enhancement of the size of food.

Growth Hormones in Conventional vs. Organic Foods

Higher resistance to diseases. Less processing needed in factories. Less factory additives needed. GMO crops last longer. This decreases the amount of wasted crops and foods. Reduced energy needs to produce GMO crops.

Antibiotics in Conventional vs. Organic Foods

Less machinery requirements. Due to reduced costs of production, prices can be further reduced. Production of friendly bioherbicides and bioinsecticides through genetic engineering. Less labor requirements. Experts estimate more than 1 trillion meals containing ingredients from biotech crops have been consumed over the last decade with no reliable documentation of any food safety issues for people or animals. Genetically modified foods and crops are recognized by experts and regulatory authorities worldwide as being as safe as crops and foods. People who are opposed to GMOs are not the farmers themselves, but people who can afford to buy food. The needs of some consumers for GMO-free products lead to non-GMO labeling issues.

http://csanad.hubpages.com/hub/GMO-advantages-and-disadvantages