Why do we genetically modify crops

In the s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the s, 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. 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.

Barta, A. The expression of a nopaline synthase-human growth hormone chimaeric gene in transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue.

Plant Molecular Biology 6 , — Beyer, P. Journal of Nutrition , S—S Demont, M. GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6 , 46—53 Devlin, R. Extraordinary salmon growth. Nature , — link to article. Devos, Y. Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A re quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 , 29—61 doi Guerrero-Andrade, O.

Expression of the Newcastle disease virus fusion protein in transgenic maize and immunological studies. Transgenic Research 15 , — doi Hiatt, A. Production of antibodies in transgenic plants. Nature , 76—79 link to article.

Hoban, T. Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology. ESA working papers nos. Jesse, H. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: Lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia , — Losey, J. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature , doi Ma, J. The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants. Nature Reviews Genetics 4 , — doi The genome contains genes, regions of DNA that usually carry the instructions for making proteins.

It is these proteins that give the plant its characteristics. For example, the colour of flowers is determined by genes that carry the instructions for making proteins involved in producing the pigments that colour petals. This could include changing the way the plant grows, or making it resistant to a particular disease. One of the methods used to transfer DNA is to coat the surface of small metal particles with the relevant DNA fragment, and bombard the particles into the plant cells.

Another method is to use a bacterium or virus. There are many viruses and bacteria that transfer their DNA into a host cell as a normal part of their life cycle. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. The U. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats.

Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view. Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct.

Similar stories abound. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings.

Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture.

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them. And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced.

And as U. True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today.

Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it.

These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing.

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers.

Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed.

Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field.

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. There is evidence to support that charge. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn.

Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct. There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops.

Today, those who directly see the most benefits from GMOs are farmers and agricultural companies. GMOs are also used to produce many medicines and vaccines that help treat or prevent diseases. Before GMOs, many common medicines had to be extracted from blood donors, animal parts, or even cadavers. These medicines had a number of problems including the risk of transmission of diseases, inconsistent quality and unreliable supply. Trouble with this page? Disability-related accessibility issue?