Introduction Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have been contested over the last couple of years.

However, these, issues have been scarcely mentioned for it sparkled a lot of controversies and protests. Critics have called these products Frankenfoods due to its alteration and modifications just like the monster Frankenstein. But scientific staffs of the biotechnology firms have told us that this technology is harmless and will increase food supply. GMOs have been removed from grocery shelves and produce stands all over the world due to criticisms and questions about its health risks. Yet in the United States, food containing genetically modified ingredients are sold without even being labeled as such. We maybe eating foods with modified ingredients but there have been no such report of bad or dangerous effects. The future structure of the markets for genetically modified crops is uncertain and farmers and processors are faced with making investment and production decisions in a turbulent business environment. While genetically modified crops have become more available in recent years, consumer acceptance remains an unanswered and important question Definition A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. History International Views In the International arena, there are diverse reactions toward genetically-modified organisms. Some argues that GMOs have the potential to lessen some of the world's problems and to restore environmental health while most assail on its health and environmental risks that efforts to regulate genetically modified organisms have taken place at the international level. Thus various laws, bans, and labels were made to regulate the emergence GMOs, from Ireland and the European Union to Brazil and Japan. Genetically modified foods is definitely controversial and such controversy spans the globe. In Ireland,their government's two coalition partners signed an agreement that officially declares that their country is a GM-free Zone. They recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods, and they also made available a GMO-free label that can be placed on animal products like meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, fish, and crustaceans, that are raised with feed free of GMOs. In the last few years, Europe has experienced two major foods scares like the mad cow disease in Great Britain and dioxin-tainted foods which originate from Belgium. Thus

anti-GM food protestors have been active. These food scares have moved consumer confidence about the European food supply, and citizens are afraid to trust government information about GM foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now requires mandatory food labeling of GM foods in stores, and the European Commission has established a 1% threshold for contamination of unmodified foods with GM food products. European nations administer regulatory policies more in line with the precautionary principle, which means GM crops must be shown to be safe for the environment and consumption to be sold. The EU requires that GM products be labeled as such and even the labeling requirements apply to foods or ingredients that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In Egypt, they have banned the import and export of GMOs. Meaning, they cannot import from any countries growing GMO foods they want at the same time they cannot grow any GMOs either. Prior to 2003,Some states in Brazil have banned the production and sale of genetically modified crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops. However, Brazilian farmers have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the country due to a fear of economic harm if they are not able to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exporting countries. Japan as well says no to GMOs.Although they import a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods namely Australia, the U.S., and Canada,they are firmly opposed to consuming GMOs. They even use expensive traceability schemes to modified foods like the soy and corn that enters Japan in order to detect carefully that they are sourced explicitly as "non-GM".The Ministry of Health and Welfare of Japan has announced that health testing of GM foods shall be mandatory. Regulatory Policies concerning GMOs were agreed upon and precautionary principles were widely included in international agreements. They are designed in the possibility of minimizing the negative effects of the genetically modified organisms. GMOs are said to be the perfect candidate for application of the precautionary principles due to their complex and uncertain effects on the environment and humans .GMOs are highly invasive which can easily propagate into the environment and have possible effect to human health when they are consumed. The damage that may be cause by GMOs could be both serious and irreversible. In 2004 Mendocino County, California became the first county in the United States to ban the production of GMOs. The measure passed with a 57% majority. In 2010, after nine years of talks, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) produced a draft policy on GM technology. This proposed policy was sent to all 19 national governments for consultation in September 2010. Under the policy, a member country which wants to grow a new GM crop would inform COMESA who would have sufficient scientific expertise to make the decision as to whether the crop was safe for the environment and for humans. At the moment, few countries have the

resources to make their own decisions. Once COMESA had their decision, permission would be granted for the crop to be grown in all 19 member countries. Member Countries would retain the power not to grow the crop in their own country if they wanted. National Views In the Philippines, 25 GMO crops (including corn, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, potato, and cotton) have been approved by the BPI fro direct use in food, feed, and processing, while four GMO crops are approved for propagation. Uses GMOs are used in biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs, experimental medicine (e.g. gene therapy), and agriculture (e.g. golden rice). To date the most controversial but also the most widely adopted application of GMO technology is patent-protected food crops which are resistant to commercial herbicides or are able to produce pesticidal proteins from within the plant, or stacked trait seeds, which do both. Advantages: Crops Enhanced taste and quality Reduced maturation time Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance Improved resistance top disease, pests, and herbicides New products and growing techniques Animals Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feel efficiency Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk Improved animal health and diagnostic methods Environment Friendly bioherbicides and bioinsecticides Conservation of soil, water, and energy Bioprocessing for forestry products Better natural waste management More efficient processing Society Increased food security for growing populations Disadvantages GMOs may present unforseen dangers The creation of GMOs can lead to negative environmental impacts which might not be foreseeable when the GMO is created. Potentially harmful to humans Reduce the amount of competition between farmers and give the companies that create GMOs great power in the agricultural industry.

Issue: Whether or not it is safe to use GMOs and apply it daily life Arguments: (from news articles from the net) 1.) GMO corn approved in RP shows signs of toxicity A genetically-modified corn strain approved for food, feed and processing in the Philippines show signs of toxicity to mammals. The study, and written by a panel of three independent scientists in France, showed that laboratory rats fed with the GMO corn Monsato (MON) 863 Yiield Gard Rootworm deisplayed kidney and liver toxicity. MON 863 is corn genetically manipulated to produce its own insecticide to kill rootworm insects in the soil, and contains gene coding for antibiotic resistance. 2.) GM foods may cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. They can also produce allergies. When food-crops are genetically modified, (genetically modified food is a misnomer!) one or more genes are incorporated into the crops genome using a vector containing several other genes, including as a minimum, viral promoters, transcription terminators, antibiotic resistance marker genes and reporter genes. Data on the safety of these are scarce even though they can affect the safety of the GM crop. For example: DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract.3,4 Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids5 and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance. Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, since some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crops own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, which we cannot analyze for and seriously limiting the selection criteria. 3.) Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazilnut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released. Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future. Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

4.) The toxin level of GM cotton is unpredictable. GM cotton: Several lines of GM cotton plants have been developed using a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki providing increased protection against major lepidopteran pests. The lines were claimed to be substantially equivalent to parent lines15 in levels of macronutrients and gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids and aflatoxin levels were less than those in conventional seeds. However, because of the use of inappropriate statistics it is questionable whether the GM and non-GM lines were truly equivalent, particularly as environmental stresses could have unpredictable effects on antinutrient/toxin levels.16 5.) There are no reliable ways to test GM foods for allergies. Assessment of the allergenicity of a GM foodcrop, however, is difficult when the gene is transferred from a source not eaten before or with unknown allergenicity or on gene transfer/insertion a new allergen or adjuvant is developed or the expression of a minor allergen is increased. Unfortunately, while there are good animal models for nutritional/toxicological testing, no such models exist for allergenicity testing.

Presently only indirect and rather scientifically unsound methods, such as finding SHORT sequence homologies (at least 8 contiguous amino acids) to any of the about 200 known allergens, are used for the assessment of allergenicity. The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors (such as size and stability) of the transgenically expressed protein33 is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing34 instead ofin vivo(human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins is also misleading because for example Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein.29 However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy.35

Thus, in the absence of reliable methods for allergenicity testing, it is at present impossible to definitely establish whether a new GM crop is allergenic or not before its release into the human/animal food/feed chain. In conclusion We need more and better testing methods before making GM foods available for human consumption. One has to agree with the piece in Science1 that there are many opinions but scarce data on the potential health risks of GM food crops, even though these should have been tested for and eliminated before their introduction. Our present data base is woefully inadequate. Moreover, the scientific quality of what has been published is, in most

instances not up to expected standards. If, as claimed, our future is dependent on the success of the promise of genetic modification delivering wholesome, plentiful, more nutritious and safe GM foods, the inescapable conclusion of this review is that the present crude method of genetic modification has so far not delivered these benefits and the promise of a superior second generation is still in the future. Although it is argued by some that small differences between GM and non-GM crops have little biological meaning, it is clear that most GM and parental line crops fall short of the definition of substantial equivalence. In any case, this crude, poorly defined and unscientific concept outlived its possible previous usefulness and we need novel methods and concepts to probe into the compositional, nutritional/toxicological and metabolic differences between GM and conventional crops and into the safety of the genetic techniques used in developing GM crops if we want to put this technology on a proper scientific foundation and allay the fears of the general public. We need more science, not less.6,7 6.) Potential socio-economic effects Loss of farmers' access to plant material:Biotechnology research is carried out predominantly by the private sector and there are concerns about market dominance in the agricultural sector by a few powerful companies. This could have a negative impact on small-scale farmers all over the world. Farmers fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding patents on specific genetic modification "events". Some argue that the World Trade Organization's agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) encourages this, but there are options to protect farmers' traditional practices within that agreement. Also, the new International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture recognizes the contributions of farmers to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources over time and for future generations. It provides for an international framework to regulate access to plant genetic resources and establishes a mechanism to share the benefits derived from their use. Intellectual property rights could slow research: The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists. Impact of "terminator" technologies:Although these are still under development and have not yet been commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed. This means that farmers could not save seeds for planting the next season. Some believe that this technology, also known as the Technology Protection System, could have the advantage of preventing out-crossing of GM seeds.

7.) GMO canola contaminates majority of land on organic farm Friday, December 10, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Just as many in the natural health community have been saying for years, a recent report out of Australia explains that genetically-modified organisms (GMO) are fully capable of spreading to and contaminating nearby non-GMO and organic crop fields. In the first case of its kind in Australia, an organic farmer may sue the creator of a variety of GMO canola that has invaded his fields and contaminated at least two-thirds of them. According to reports, Steve Marsh's organic fields were contaminated by a nearby GMO canola field whose seeds somehow traveled nearly a mile into his own land and took hold on over 540 acres of it. He believes that when his neighbor swathed the modified crops prior to harvest, the seeds caught air and traveled in the wind to the organic land. "Our livelihood is at stake as we are a certified organic farm and rely on the premium that comes with selling guaranteed GM-free organic food, in Australia and in overseas markets," Marsh told reporters. "Governments that allow GM canola to be grown must ensure whatever a farmer does within their boundary does not impact on neighboring farms. But clearly, the technology can't be contained." Marsh's certifier, the National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA), is currently conducting an official investigation into the matter to see what can be done about it. But Jessica Harrison, a technician at Gene Ethics Cropwatch, says that the Australian government has basically decided to give preferential treatment to the GMO industry and its growers, choosing to look the other way in spite of obvious contamination problems. GMO canola had been previously banned in Australia, but was recently unbanned back in March. The government had declared that the "Frankencrop" could be safely segregated from natural crops, but that has proven not to be the case. Now, say the concerned groups, citizens cannot be sure whether or not the "organic" products they buy and eat are truly organic anymore. "The government mislead us and now our farmers and consumers are paying the price," explained Harrison. "Laws need to be enacted to protect the majority of farmers [sic] want to stay GM-free. Farmers must be compensated for any loss of premiums and certification that result from GM contamination."

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/030686_GMOs_canola.html#ixzz1TTwPWZY3 8.) GM soy linked to birth defects, cancer: new study 06 October 2010 Monsantos herbicide Roundup used on genetically manipulated (GM) Roundup Ready crops is linked to human cell death, birth defects, cancer and miscarriages, says a report released at the European Parliament by an international group of scientists. The report comes at a crucial time for Australia, where a popular infant soy formula has tested positive to unlabelled GM soy and corn, and Roundup Ready canola and cotton are grown. The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?, highlights new research by Argentine government scientist Professor Andrs Carrasco and an international coalition of scientists. They found serious health impacts from Roundups active ingredient, glyphosate, other chemicals in the formulated herbicide and its breakdown products. The report also provides a global overview of scientific papers and other documents on the impacts of GM soy production. GM Roundup Ready (RR) soy is now more than 90% of soy grown in North American and Argentina, and is also widely spread in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia. Monsantos own data shows Roundup herbicide sales have skyrocketed since GM RR crops were first planted in the USA in 1996. The amount of toxic herbicide now used on soy has public health implications. At the European Parliament in Brussels where the report was presented, Prof Carrasco said childhood cancer had increased by 300% and babies with birth defects by 400% during the past decade in parts of Argentina. GM RR soy is grown there to supply European and Australian farmers with cheap GM animal feed. The report also refers to studies that found: the uterus and ovaries of female rats fed GM RR soy showed changes; rabbits kidney and heart enzyme functions were disturbed. An intergenerational study of hamsters fed GM soy found slower growth rates and higher mortality among pups, and widespread infertility in the third generation. This study is just the latest example of the dangers of GM, and the Australian response to GM ingredients in baby formula is grossly inadequate. Every test for GM contamination of S-26 formula has been positive for GM contamination. Yet our food regulator FSANZ refuses to mandate a recall, while Coles and Woolworths refuse to remove S-26 from their shelves. This routine contamination requires GM labelling under the law. If FSANZ wont act on this false and misleading failure to label GM ingredients, then the ACCC should intervene.

The Gillard Government must support independent Senator Nick Xenophon and Greens Senator Rachel Siewert who both want to fix up our food labelling laws. Labels must enable parents to choose baby formulas that that are not GM polluted. The Government should ensure the assessment criteria of all novel foods, including GM, are amended and to remove the loopholes in Standard 1.5 that exempt most GM and other novel food products from any requirement to be labelled as such. http://www.geneethics.org/enews/display/32 Position of the Philippines regarding GMOs There was a law enacted in the Philippines which denounces genetically modified organisms namely Republic Act No. 10068 or the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010. Section 2 Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote, propagate, develop further and implement the practice of organic agriculture in the Philippines that will cumulatively condition and enrich the fertility of the soil, increase farm productivity, reduce pollution and destruction of the environment, prevent the depletion of natural resources, further protect the health of farmers, consumers, and the general public, and save on imported farm inputs. Towards this end, a comprehensive program for the promotion of community-based organic agriculture systems which include, among others, farmer-produced purely organic fertilizers such as compost, pesticides and other farm inputs, together with a nationwide educational and promotional campaign for their use and processing as well as adoption of organic agriculture system as a viable alternative shall be undertaken. Section 3 Definition of Terms (b) Organic agriculture includes all agricultural systems that promote the ecologically sound, socially acceptable, economically viable and technically feasible production of food and fibers. Organic agricultural dramatically reduces external inputs by refraining from the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. It also covers areas such as, but not limited to, soil fertility management, varietal breeding and selection under chemical and pesticide-free conditions, the use of biotechnology and other cultural practices that are consistent with the principles and policies of this Act, and enhance productivity without destroying the soil and harming farmers, consumers and the environment as defined by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM): Provided, That the biotechnology herein to shall not include genetically modified organisms of GMOs.