# data[].attributes.body
1)author, U. (2002). The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk. In S. M. Lynn J. Frewer, Risk analysis (pp. 701-711). Norwich: online publisher.

2)ANZFA (1998) Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Foods to be Included in Standard A18 − Food produced using Gene Technology. Canberra, Australia and Wellington, New Zealand: Australia/New Zealand Food Authority.

3)Australia (2000) Gene Technology Act. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3428/rtf/169of (2000)rtf.

4)

CDC (2001a) FDA Evaluation of Consumer Complaints Linked to Foods Allegedly Containing StarLink Corn. June 13, 2001. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9CReport.

CDC (2001b) Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn. June 11, 2001. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9Creport/executivesummary.htm.

CDC (2001c) Development and Use of a Method for Detection of IgE Antibodies to Cry9C. June 13, 2001. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9Creport. 5)Coulston, F. & Kolbye, A.C. (1990) Biotechnologies and food: assuring the safety of foods produced by genetic modification. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 12, S1 – S196. 6)Diplock, A.T., Aggett, P.J., Ashwell, M., Bornet, F., Fern, E.B., Roberfroid, M.B. (1999) Scientific concepts of functional foods in Europe: consensus document. Brit. J. Nutr.81, S1 – S27. 7)Ewen, S.W.B. & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effect of diet containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354, 1353 – 1354. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)05860-7

# data[].attributes.body
YASHWANTH REDDY

Genetic Engineering has proved itself to be very successful especially in the field of irrigation.one of its greatest possible application can be the breeding of modified salmon fish.

AQUA ADVANTAGEOUS SALMON:-excessive consumption of fish has caused the population of fish to reduce dramatically.it mainly affected the salmon fish as it is the mostly fished specie .other threat to the fish is the increasing population of sea waters and the plastic wastes.as salmon fish is the main food for many species like whales,it affects the overall aquatic fauna. introducing the modified salmon which are better at breeding and survival can reduce the pressure on the natural species .also,these fish which are better at breeding can be highly profitable.so this method both helps environmental balance and also is profitable

ABHIRAM SATULURI

Genetic engineering has in deed been an interesting field of research.The above mentioned procedure "AQU ADVANTAGEOUS SALMON" is great but also we cant deny the fact it has some flaws.

Fish can learn to feed on new prey after leaving hatchery environments. These adaptations could pose a risk if genetically modified salmon were to be released into the wild.

Aquaculture that uses conventionally bred salmon, mostly Atlantic salmon, cultivates the fish in net pens. In North America, this occurs mostly in coastal waters off Washington State, British Columbia and . However, the application for FDA approval of AquAdvantage salmon specified land-based tank cultivation with no ocean involvement.

Critics raised concerns about potential environmental impacts if these fish reached rivers or oceans. Modeled invasion scenarios in semi-natural environments suggest that genetically modified salmon would outcompete wild type salmon. However, the researcher who developed the "Trojan gene" hypothesis frequently cited by critics of this salmon has discounted this scenario and describes it as an "urban myth".,

Whole foods, Traders Joe's, Aldi, and other grocery stores throughout the country have announced that they would not offer AquAdvantage.

AWARI AKHIL

ABHIRAM SATLURI pointed the flaws in genetic engineering but these flaws can be removed with better equipment and more concern.Genetic engineering has a lot of advantages than disadvantages,if implemented in a proper way it would help in the betterment of mankind.Most of the devoloping countries need the advanced genetic engineering not the outdated methods.

Why i think my team will be sucessful?

Genetic engineering is a wide branch of science which is subdivided into many groups as it is concerned about the devolpment of backward countries in a short span of time i think my teamswork will be sucessful.

# data[].attributes.body
GENOME-complete set of DNA of an organism

AFRICAN BOVINE TRYPANOSOMIASIS-a disease among horned(bovine) cattle spread by tse tse flies mainly in southern Africa.

JUVENILE DIARRHOEA-diarrhoea caused in infants

OOGENESIS-creation of egg cells

ZOONOTIC DISEASE-a disease that usually exixts in animals but can also infect humans

FECUNDITY-fertility or the ability to produce offsprings

MUTAGENESIS-process of altering the genome and thereby causing mutation.

# data[].attributes.body
APPLICATIONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ANIMALS.

.

MOSQUITO VECTOR CONTROL-genetically modified mosquitoes (generally male) which are better in survival than the natural species but are incapable of spreading diseases are introduced into the environment.these modified species compete with the natural species for survival and reproduction and eventually defeat them thus controlling disease spread.

.

BREEDING AQUA-ADVANTAGEOUS SALMON-genetically modified salmon fish which are resistant to diseases and can adopt to any type of water can be used in agricultural irrigation.

.

(genetically modified animals have very limited applications as they are banned allover the world except for research)

# data[].attributes.headline
Applications of genetically modified foods (by Abhiram):

# data[].attributes.subject
Applications of genetically modified foods (by Abhiram):

# data[].attributes.body
Present uses:

In the United Kingdom to date, four genetically modified food materials have gained full approval and are in commercial use: cheese produced with genetically modified chymosin, tomato paste from slow softening tomatoes, and genetically modified soya and maize. Many others have cleared parts of the UK approval system (for example, clearance for food safety but awaiting environmental clearance for agricultural scale production). These include oil from oilseed rape, starch and oil from maize, oil from cotton, chicory, a slow softening tomato intended to be eaten fresh, and riboflavin from a microbe. In addition, other products granted full approval have not been developed to full commercial scale—for example, genetically modified brewers’ yeast and bakers’ yeast.

Most applications are for crop plants, and the genetic modifications are for commercially important agronomic traits—mostly herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. These agronomic traits are determined by single genes and are therefore easiest to manipulate. In contrast, characteristics such as flavour, texture, and processing qualities tend to be determined by multiple genes and are much more difficult to manipulate.

Future uses:

Despite the technical difficulty, substantial progress is now being made with genetically modifying the compositional and processing characteristics of food crops. For example, oilseed rape can now be modified to produce oils with wide ranging characteristics through selective modification of the length and degree of saturation of the fatty acids produced—fatty acids such as laurate, typical of tropical vegetable oils, can now be produced in temperate oilseed crops. Similarly, the balance of sugar and starch in potatoes, which affects the processing quality of potatoes for snack food production (too much sugar produces a dark, poor tasting product), can also now be modified on an experimental scale.

Modern genetic techniques are being used to identify and manipulate the genes for biologically active components of food crops, such as natural toxicants (for example, potato glycoalkaloids and kidney bean lectin), antinutrients (for example, trypsin inhibitors), and allergens (for example, certain nut proteins). Such developments are at early stages but in the longer term are almost certain to lead to the development of foods that lack these undesirable components.

On an industrial scale, deterioration of fruits and vegetables is a huge problem: for example, the tendency of plant tissue to turn brown at a cut or peeled surface often has to be controlled through the use of preservatives such as sulphite. Damaged cells release the enzyme polyphenol oxidase, which catalyses the conversion of monophenols (released from separate subcellular compartments) to quinones, which oxidise to form brown polyphenolic pigments. However, the gene for polyphenol oxidase has been switched off in experimental studies by genetic modification, blocking this discolouration spoilage. Genetic modification and other molecular and biochemical techniques are being used to completely unravel the biochemistry of fruit and vegetable ripening and deterioration, and many new methods of preserving these foods, without the use of chemical preservatives, are likely to be developed.

Another possibility generating much interest is the use of crops to provide renewable sources of valuable materials such as vaccines, drugs, bioplastics, and other industrial materials. In parallel, cattle and sheep are being genetically modified to produce pharmaceutical chemicals in their milk, so that drugs can be produced much more efficiently and cost effectively. Although full discussion of this is beyond the scope of this article, there is hope that food crops such as banana could be used to produce and deliver vaccines in tropical regions.

# data[].attributes.body
sairam

1)dwindle-diminish gradually in size, amount, or strength.

2)spliced-join or connect (a rope or ropes) by interweaving the strands at the ends.

3)phenotypes-the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction

4)Incentivize-motivate or encourage (someone) to do somethin

# data[].attributes.body
1) Franken foods: the foods which are genetically modified

2)DDT: its a colorless,crystalline ,tasteless and almost odorless orgaochloride known for its insecticidal properties.

3)Mutagenesis: its a process by which the genetic information of an organism is changed in a stable manner, resulting in a mutation.

4)Glyphosate: its a herbicide which is used to kill weeds.

5)Phenoytpic trait:it is a trait which can be observed from outside.eg hair color

# data[].attributes.body
AWARI AKHIL

# data[].attributes.body
Sairam
MY GOOGLE FORM LINK:
http://goo.gl/forms/3vZ3SZrzYq

In this form ,i tried to inquire a beginner ,how his way of thinking Is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetic engineering is a threat to food security, especially in a changing climate. The introduction of genetically manipulated organisms by choice or by accident grossly undermines sustainable agriculture and in so doing, severely limits the choice of food we can eat. Once GE plants are released into the environment, they are out of control.

# data[].attributes.body
sairam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Genetics of Disease Resistance & Pest-Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Tree Biosafety and Genomics Research Cooperative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Controversy over Genetic Engineering in Agriculture:  The good, the bad, and the righteous

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's farmers feed more than 7 billion people, and we can trace much of this bounty and efficiency to traditional agricultural technologies, especially plant breeding, fertilizers, and chemical management of soil and weeds - major ingredients of the first Green Revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Genetics of Disease Resistance & Pest-Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Tree Biosafety and Genomics Research Cooperative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Controversy over Genetic Engineering in Agriculture:  The good, the bad, and the righteous

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's farmers feed more than 7 billion people, and we can trace much of this bounty and efficiency to traditional agricultural technologies, especially plant breeding, fertilizers, and chemical management of soil and weeds - major ingredients of the first Green Revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Home " Genetically Modified Crops " Level 1

1. What is agricultural biotechnology?

1.1 Biotechnology refers to any technique that uses living organisms, or parts of these organisms. Such techniques are used to make or modify products for a practical purpose. Modern medicine, agriculture, and industry make use of biotechnology on a large scale. More...

The use of yeast to make bread is an example of traditional biotechnology Source: GreenFacts

1.2 Traditional biotechnologies such as the use of yeast to make bread or wine have been applied for thousands of years. Since the late 19 th century, knowledge of the principles of heredity gave farmers new tools for breeding crops and animals. They selected individual organisms with beneficial characteristics and developed hybrid crops.

New methods have been developed since the discovery of the DNA structure in 1954. For instance, micro-organisms can be used to produce antibiotics, and the hereditary material in plants can be changed to make them resistant to pests or diseases. More...

2. How can biotechnology be applied to agriculture?

Work on wheat at the
Indian Agricultural Research Institute.
Source: FAO

2.1 Genes are the pieces of DNA code which regulate all biological processes in living organisms. The entire set of genetic information of an organism is present in every cell and is called the genome. More...

2.4 Plants can be obtained from small plant samples grown in test tubes. This is a more sophisticated form of the conventional planting of cuttings from existing plants. Another laboratory technique, in vitro selection, involves growing plant cells under adverse conditions to select resistant cells before growing the full plant. More...

2.5 In conventional breeding half of an individual's genes come from each parent, whereas in genetic engineering one or several specially selected genes are added to the genetic material. Moreover, conventional plant breeding can only combine closely related plants.

Genetic engineering permits the transfer of genes between organisms that are not normally able to cross breed. More...

2.6 For example a gene from a bacterium can be inserted into a plant cell to provide resistance to insects. Such a transfer produces organisms referred to as genetically modified (GM) or transgenic. More...

3. Does conventional plant breeding have effects on health and the environment?

In conventional plant breeding, little attention has been paid to the possible impacts of new plant varieties on food safety or the environment. Nonetheless, this kind of breeding has sometimes caused negative effects on human health. For instance, a cultivated crop variety created by conventional cross breeding can contain excessive levels of naturally occurring toxins.

The introduction of genetically modified plants has raised some concerns that gene transfer could occur in the field between cultivated and wild plants and such concerns also apply to conventional crops. Such transfers have occasionally been reported but are generally not considered a problem. More...

4. Are genetically modified plant foods safe to eat?

4.1 Foodstuffs made of genetically modified crops that are currently available (mainly maize, soybean, and oilseed rape) have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the International Council for Science ( ICSU) and are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization ( WHO).

However, the lack of evidence of negative effects does not mean that new genetically modified foods are without risk. The possibility of long-term effects from genetically modified plants cannot be excluded and must be examined on a case-by-case basis. New techniques are being developed to address concerns, such as the possibility of the unintended transfer of antibiotic-resistance genes.

Genetic engineering of plants could also offer some direct and indirect health benefits to consumers, for instance by improving nutritional quality or reducing pesticide use. More...

4.2 Scientists recommend that food safety assessment should take place on a case-by-case basis before genetically modified food is brought to the market. In such assessments, foodstuffs derived from genetically modified plants are compared to their conventional counterparts, which are generally considered safe due to their long history of use. This comparison considers to what extent different foodstuffs can cause harmful effects or allergies and how much nutrients they contain. More...

4.3 Consumers may wish to select foods on the basis of how they are produced, because of religious, environmental, or health concerns. However, merely indicating whether a product is genetically modified or not, without providing any additional information, says nothing about its content nor about possible risks or benefits. International guidelines are being developed for labelling genetically modified foods. More...

5. What effects could genetically modified crops have on the environment?

Farmer in a field of maize in Bolovia Source: FAO

5.1 Agriculture of any type has an impact on the environment. Genetic engineering may accelerate the damaging effects of agriculture, have the same impact as conventional agriculture, or contribute to more sustainable practices.

Growing genetically modified or conventional plants in the field has raised concern for the potential transfer of genes from cultivated species to their wild relatives. However, many food plants are not native to the areas in which they are grown. Locally, they may have no wild relatives to which genes could flow.

Moreover, if gene flow occurs, it is unlikely that the hybrid plants would thrive in the wild, because they would have characteristics that are advantageous in agricultural environments only. In the future, genetically modified plants may be equipped with mechanisms designed to prevent gene flow to other plants.

A controversy has arisen about whether certain genetically modified plants (which are insect resistant because they carry the Bt gene) could harm not only insect pests but also other species such as the monarch butterfly. In the field, no significant adverse effects on non-target species have so far been observed. Nonetheless, continued monitoring for such effects is needed. More...

5.2 Genetically modified crops may have indirect environmental effects as a result of changing agricultural or environmental practices. However, it remains controversial whether the net effect of these changes will be positive or negative for the environment. For example, the use of genetically modified insect-resistant Bt crops is reducing the volume and frequency of insecticide use on maize, cotton and soybean. Yet the extensive use of herbicide and insect resistant crops could result in the emergence of resistant weeds and insects. More...

5.3 The broad consensus is that the environmental effects of genetically modified plants should be evaluated using science-based assessment procedures, considering each crop individually in comparison to its conventional counterparts. More...

6. What are the implications of GM-technologies for animals?

To date no negative effects on animals have been reported. It is extremely unlikely that genes may transfer from plants to disease-causing bacteria through the food chain. Nevertheless, scientists advise that genes which determine resistance to antibiotics that are critical for treating humans should not be used in genetically modified plants. More...

6.2 As of 2004, no genetically modified animals were used in commercial agriculture anywhere in the world, but several livestock and aquatic species were being studied. Genetically modified animals could have positive environmental impacts, for example through greater disease resistance and lower antibiotic usage. However, some genetic modifications could lead to more intensive livestock production and thus increased pollution. More...

7. Are GMOs regulated by international agreements?

7.1 Certain barriers to international agricultural trade have been reduced by the World Trade Organization ( WTO). A WTO agreement adopted in 1994 establishes that countries retain their right to ensure that the food, animal, and plant products they import are safe. At the same time it states that countries should not use unnecessarily stringent measures as disguised barriers to trade. More...

7.2 Several international agreements relate to the environmental aspects of genetically modified crops. The Convention on Biological Diversity is mainly concerned with the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems but also with environmental effects of GMOs. A part of this convention is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates the export and import of genetically modified crops.

The International Plant Protection Convention was adopted to prevent the spread of pests affecting plants and plant products. It identified potential pest risks related to GMOs that may need to be considered, such as the potential development of invasive species or effects on beneficial insects and birds. More...

8. Conclusions

8.1 Agricultural biotechnology can be seen as both:

a scientific complement to conventional agriculture, aiding for instance plant breeding programs, and

a dramatic departure from conventional agriculture, enabling transfer of genetic material between organisms that would not normally mix.

Agricultural biotechnology has international implications and may become increasingly important for developing countries. However, research has tended to focus on crops important to developed countries. More...

However, the lack of observed negative effects does not mean that they cannot occur. Scientists call for a cautious case-by-case assessment of each product or process prior to its release in order to address legitimate safety concerns.

"Science cannot declare any technology completely risk free. Genetically engineered crops can reduce some environmental risks associated with conventional agriculture, but will also introduce new challenges that must be addressed. Society will have to decide when and where genetic engineering is safe enough." ( 2004) More...

Get involved!

This summary is free and ad-free, as is all of our content. You can help us remain free and independant as well as to develop new ways to communicate science by becoming a Patron!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Home " Genetically Modified Crops " Level 1 1.1 Biotechnology refers to any technique that uses living organisms, or parts of these organisms. Such techniques are used to make or modify products for a practical purpose. Modern medicine, agriculture, and industry make use of biotechnology on a large scale. More...

# data[].attributes.body
sairam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns from WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

GM foods are developed - and marketed - because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry generally).

One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Resistance against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

Generally consumers consider that conventional foods (that have an established record of safe consumption over the history) are safe. Whenever novel varieties of organisms for food use are developed using the traditional breeding methods that had existed before the introduction of gene technology, some of the characteristics of organisms may be altered, either in a positive or a negative way. National food authorities may be called upon to examine the safety of such conventional foods obtained from novel varieties of organisms, but this is not always the case.

In contrast, most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary for GM foods. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.

The WHO Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses aims at assisting national authorities in the identification of foods that should be subject to risk assessment and to recommend appropriate approaches to safety assessment. Should national authorities decide to conduct safety assessment of GM organisms, WHO recommends the use of Codex Alimentarius guidelines (See the answer to Question 11 below).

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.
Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.
Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.
Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as "outcrossing"), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO intergovernmental body responsible for developing the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius, meaning the international food code. Codex developed principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods in 2003.

The premise of these principles sets out a premarket assessment, performed on a caseby- case basis and including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new gene) Codex also developed three Guidelines:

Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and WTO Members are encouraged to harmonize national standards with Codex standards. If trading partners have the same or similar mechanisms for the safety assessment of GM foods, the possibility that one product is approved in one country but rejected in another becomes smaller.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties which took effect in 2003, regulates transboundary movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. The cornerstone of the Protocol is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment.

Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved. In the late 1980s - early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species.

Consumers frequently ask, "what is in it for me?". Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. vaccines, medicines with improved treatment potential or increased safety). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not significantly cheaper, no increased shelflife, no better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the risk-benefit equation, often without distinguishing between potential environmental impacts and public health effects of GMOs.

Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term effects. Other topics debated by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing for an informed choice of consumers.

Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. In the FAO/WHO expert consultation in 2003, WHO and FAO have considered potential problems of the technological divide and the unbalanced distribution of benefits and risks between developed and developing countries and the problem often becomes even more acute through the existence of intellectual property rights and patenting that places an advantage on the strongholds of scientific and technological expertise. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.

WHO has been taking an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons:

on the grounds that public health could benefit from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient and/or sustainable food production; and

based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification in order to protect public health. Modern technologies should be thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced.

WHO, together with FAO, has convened several expert consultations on the evaluation of GM foods and provided technical advice for the Codex Alimentarius Commission which was fed into the Codex Guidelines on safety assessment of GM foods. WHO will keep paying due attention to the safety of GM foods from the view of public health protection, in close collaboration with FAO and other international bodies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns from WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

# data[].attributes.body
sairam

# data[].attributes.body
sairam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to meet future food production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the world's population set to increase by 65% (3.7 billion) by ∼2050, the additional food required to feed future generations will put further en...

# data[].attributes.body
YASHWANTH REDDY

1.Which of the following options best describes your age group?

a)17 or younger

b)18-20

c)21-29 d)30-39 e)40-49 f)50-59 g)60 or older

.

2. What is your gender?

a)Male

b)Female

c)Others

.

3. What is your understanding of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's)? a)High Understanding b)Moderate Understanding c)Limited Understanding d)No Knowledge e)Other

.

4. How often do you buy products that are labeled "certified non-GMO"? a)often

b)very often

c)somewhat often

d)infrequently

e)never

.

5. How likely are you to buy a product whose label indicates that it contains GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)? a)likely

b)very likely

c)somewhat likely

d)unlikely

e)very unlikely.

.

6. Do you think GMO food products need to be clearly labelled? a)Strongly Agree

b)Agree

c)Neutral

d)Disagree

e)Strongly Disagree

f)Unsure

.

7. What is your attitude toward GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)? a)very positive

b)positive

c)neutral

d)negative

e)very negative.

.

8. What is your opinion on how GMO's will affect our future?

a)Positive

b)Negative

c)Neutral

d)Unsure

e)Other.

# data[].attributes.headline
General survey on Genetically modified foods ( by Abhiram);

# data[].attributes.subject
General survey on Genetically modified foods ( by Abhiram);

# data[].attributes.body
1. Which category below includes your age? a)17 or younger b)18-20 c)21-29 d)30-39 e)40-49 f)50-59 g)60 or older

2. What is your gender? a)Female b)Male

3. When it comes to politics, would you describe yourself as liberal or conservative? a)Extremely liberal b)Moderately liberal c)Slightly liberal d)Slightly conservative e)Moderately conservative f)Extremely conservative

4. What is your current level of understanding about genetically modified foods? a)Low b)Medium c)High

5. Do you consider genetically modified foods environmentally safe? a)Yes b)No c)Unsure

6. Do you believe genetically modified foods can have a negative impact the consumer's health? a)Yes b)No c)Unsure

7. Do you think there is enough information openly available about genetically modified foods? a)Yes b)No c)Unsure

8. Is it ethical that large corporations control (have patents) on genetically modified foods?

a)It is ethical b)It is not ethical c)Unsure

# data[].attributes.body
2)

# data[].attributes.body
1)

# data[].attributes.body
Abhiram satuluri

1)http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

2)http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/gmfoods/

3)http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/truth-about-gmos?page=2

4)https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm

5) Concepts in biology by Eldon D Enger,Fredrick C Ross, David B Bailey (11.3 pg no 236) 13th edition

# data[].attributes.body
POST PROOF

# data[].attributes.body
sairam

I ,being very interested in my topic searched google.

I came across many websites like ieee.org ,

My sources:

1)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00220-6
2)http://oregonstate.edu/orb/terms/genetic-engineering

3)http://www.melonacres.com/SweetCorn.html
4)http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/the-fda-adds-a-postscript-on-arsenic-and-rice/

5)http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15270.short
6)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128142144.htm

7)http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.mit.edu/docview/212591052?accountid=12492
Books:
1)Jacobsen, S.-E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., & Weiner, J. (2013). Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

1)Barta, A., et al. The expression of a nopaline synthasehuman growth hormone chimaeric gene in transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue. Plant Molecular Biology 6, 347–357 (1986) 2)Beyer, P., et al. Golden rice: Introducing the βcarotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. Journal of Nutrition 132, 506S–510S (2002) 3)Demont, M., et al. GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6, 46–53 (2007)

4)Muir, W., & Howard, R. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, 13853–13856 (1999) 5)Sears, M., et al. Impact of Bt corn on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 11937–11942 (2001)

6)United States Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program. Human Genome Project information: Genetically modified foods and organisms,  (2007)

7)Jesse, H., & Obrycki, J. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: Lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125, 241–248 (2000)

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs ared produced by altering the DNA of the natural species

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

# data[].attributes.body
1)what is need for genetically modified crops?

A:Crops use 75% of globally available fresh water,at this stage ,where water resources decreased,this amount threatens future global water security.

2)When will this modifications become beneficial to mankind?

A:It is emerging technology if it is carefully regulated and tested.

3)Who are the companies commercializing these crops?

A:Monsanto companies etc are commercializing these modified crops by patenting.

4)Where this genetic modifications lead to(in future)?

A:If used in controlled way everyone gets food,but if commercialization continue, farmers face a serious problem.

5)How is this crops useful?

A:This modification helps to increase productivity using less water.

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions on GM foods from the respective article:(by Abhiram Satuluri)

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions on GM foods from the respective article:(by Abhiram Satuluri)

# data[].attributes.body
1)Why are GM foods produced?

A)

GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry generally).

2)How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?

A)

The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.

3)What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?

A)GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. GM crops with higher nutrient content (e.g. soybeans increased oleic acid) have been also studied recently.

4)What further developments can be expected in the area of GM foods?

A)Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved resistance against plant disease or drought, crops with increased nutrient levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics. For non-food use, they may include plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as new vaccines.

# data[].attributes.headline
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS(research case study from MIT)- by sairam

# data[].attributes.subject
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS(research case study from MIT)- by sairam

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY

My article mainly emphasize on need,way,issues and probable solutions(like mission 2017 of Genetic modifications in crops and its relation with water security

To begin with, Maize,wheat and rice being very important and highly produced(by statistics) ,should be the primary focus in the development of biotechnology for drought resistance and water efficiency.

Next,the study explains process of genetic modification,Genetic engineering is the process in which either a desired gene of an organism is isolated, spliced out of the surrounding genetic sequence, cloned using laboratory techniques, and inserted into the host organism which is being modified. In this way scientists modify DNA of certain crops to obtain desirable characteristics which wouldn't occur naturally.

It is highly controversial topic,genetic modification is emerging technology that, if carefully regulated and tested, could have beneficial effects.

Secondly, Maize production is highly affected by global warming ,arid climate etc.It has been estimated that 25 percent of maize crop losses may be resolved by genetically modifying maize to be more drought tolerant.Best techniques to engineer a drought-resistant breed of corn affect the crop’s ability to both attain and retain water.Other idea is to increase sensitivity to abscisic acid.Monsanto,identified a gene for drought-tolerance in the plant species Arabidopsis and is contributing to research, Furthermore The gene Arabidopsis HARDY of RICE has the effect of increasing the water efficiency of rice by increasing the rate of photosynthesis and shown 55% greater photosynthesis rate, In addition wheat plant is being modified on particular parts of the plant, such as the root systems, and processes, such as transpiration.Plants of wheat can also be selected for longer coleoptile growth

Like a coin has two sides ,Genetic modification has disadvantages too

The Next stage,Issues regarding are Mission 2017 recognizes that genetically modified crops can have repercussions for ecosystems and biodiversity and that multinationals do not have the best interests of humankind at the core of their mission ,Other issues are threatening cross-contaminate surrounding farmlands and natural habitats,affects animal life,seed patenting.Indian farmers are being highly affected by this seed patenting.

In conclusion,Solutions to these issues as suggested by Mission 2017 is creation of a set of international regulations and guidelines for the introduction of genetically modified crop production(by UN),Protection laws for farmers etc.

# data[].attributes.body
By SAIRAM GK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Modified Crops | Water for all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified crops have become increasingly popular in the last decade, and although they are a highly controversial topic, we view genetic modification as an emerging technology that, if carefully regulated and tested, could have beneficial effects in terms of water use.

# data[].attributes.body
My article provides the information about a strategy for mosquito vector control.

The three main mosquito genera, Anopheles, Aedes and Culex, transmit respectively malaria, dengue and lymphatic filariasis. Current mosquito control strategies have proved unsuccessful, and there still is a substantial number of morbidity and mortality from these diseases. Genetic control methods have now arisen as promising alternative strategies, based on two approaches: the replacement of a vector population by disease-refractory mosquitoes and the release of mosquitoes carrying a lethal gene to suppress target populations. However, substantial hurdles and limitations need to be overcome if these methods are to be used successfully, the most significant being that a transgenic mosquito strain is required for every target species, making genetically modified mosquito strategies inviable when there are multiple vector mosquitoes in the same area. Genetically modified bacteria capable of colonizing a wide range of mosquito species may be a solution to this problem and another option for the control of these diseases. In the paratransgenic approach, symbiotic bacteria are genetically modified and reintroduced in mosquitoes, where they express effector molecules. For this approach to be used in practice, however, requires a better understanding of mosquito microbiota and that symbiotic bacteria and effector molecules be identified. Paratransgenesis could prove very useful in mosquito species that are inherently difficult to transform or in sibling species complexes. In this approach, a genetic modified bacteria can act by: (a) causing pathogenic effects in the host; (b) interfering with the host’s reproduction; (c) reducing the vector’s competence; and (d) interfering with oogenesis and embryogenesis. It is a much more flexible and adaptable approach than the use of genetically modified mosquitoes because effector molecules and symbiotic bacteria can be replaced if they do not achieve the desired result. Paratransgenesis may therefore become an important integrated pest management tool for mosquito control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Review

Mosquito-borne diseases

Since the late nineteenth century, when mosquitoes were first associated with the transmission of pathogens to humans and other vertebrates, a number of mosquito species have been intensively studied. The three main mosquito genera, Anopheles, Aedes and Culex, transmit the causative agents of malaria, dengue and filariasis, respectively, as well as a variety of mosquito-borne zoonotic arboviruses, such as West Nile Virus (WNV), Saint Louis Encephalitis Virus (SLEV) and Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus (EEE). Because of the inherent difficulty of mosquito control and therefore the implantation of surveillance strategies, there still is a significant morbidity and mortality due to these diseases [ 1- 4], along with an increase in various other diseases caused by insect-vectored pathogens of epidemiological importance [ 2, 3, 5- 8]. The increase in the geographic distribution of mosquitoes is followed by the emergence of viruses and diseases in new areas [ 9].

For example, the number of malaria cases has increased as a result of deteriorating health systems, increased anopheline resistance to insecticides, Plasmodium resistance to antimalarial drugs and the time taken to develop an effective vaccine. Malaria is the world's most epidemiologically important vector-borne disease according to World Health Organization [ 1]. Cases of the disease have been reported in more than 100 countries, and approximately 3 billion people around the world live in endemic areas. There are estimated to be over 200 million cases of malaria and 800 thousand malaria-related deaths every year [ 1, 10, 11].

Dengue, including dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome (DSS), which is transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes, is rapidly becoming a worldwide disease, threatening a third of the world's population. There are estimated to be 50 to 100 million cases every year [ 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12]. Aedes aegypti is the main vector of the dengue virus and is a highly invasive species that has been inadvertently spread around the world by man [ 2, 3]. It is found in tropical and subtropical regions, mainly in urban environments, where it has adapted to artificial breeding sites. Bed nets are ineffective, since Ae.aegypti has its peak activity during the day, making breeding-site management and the use of insecticides the main forms of control [ 13].

Lymphatic filariasis, which is caused by Wuchereria bancrofti, affects more than 120 million people around the world [ 4, 14]. It is transmitted mainly by mosquitoes of the genus Culex and causes irreversible damage to the host [ 11, 15]. A considerable number of arboviruses can also be transmitted by many species in the genus Culex, some of which are of great public health importance, such as WNV [ 16].

Although great efforts have been made, there are currently no effective vaccines against dengue, filariasis or malaria, and specific treatments are only available for malaria and filariasis. Therefore, the most effective way to prevent vector-borne diseases is to control mosquito populations [ 17- 21]. This review, which was motivated by the situation described above, discusses the current state of knowledge about paratransgenesis in mosquitoes, emphasizing the failure of different mosquito control strategies and alternative paratransgenic approaches.

Mosquito-control strategies

Vector-control strategies in the last century were based on chemical agents such as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). Although insecticides have been successfully used to control mosquitoes of the genera Aedes and Anopheles, current ecological and environmental protection standards do not allow such approaches because of the adverse effects of many insecticides on non-target species, including humans, their environmental impact, the contamination of soil and water and the development of selective processes and subsequent mosquito resistance to insecticides [ 5].

New strategies therefore had to be created to replace the use of insecticides. These include Integrated Pest Management (IPM), in which insecticides should be used only as a last resort in epidemics. IPM guidelines are based on environmental planning, public awareness and biological control and seek to control the mosquito population more efficiently while preserving the environment from contamination [ 22].

The great reproductive capacity and high genomic flexibility of mosquitoes make management of these insects very difficult. Their high genomic flexibility is demonstrated by the resistance of mosquito populations to chemical and biological insecticides as well as by their ability to adapt to different environmental conditions and to climate changes [ 7, 18, 23- 25]. Therefore, effective alternative forms of control that can be used on a large scale and are environmentally friendly are urgently needed and should be included in IPM [ 26- 28].

Genetic control methods have proven to be promising strategies for mosquito control. Two such methods have been developed: the use of refractory mosquitoes to replace vector populations and the release of mosquitoes carrying a lethal gene to suppress target populations. The first approach is self-sustaining, and only one or a few releases are needed for the exogenous gene to increase its frequency and be fixed in the target population (inoculative releases). The second strategy is self-limiting, since repeated releases are necessary to keep the lethal gene acting in the target population (inundative releases) [ 29- 31].

Genetic control strategies for population replacement rely on inhibiting the development of pathogens at some point in the vector life cycle. When released into the area of interest, the transgene is introduced in the target population, blocking transmission of the disease caused by that particular pathogen [ 32]. This technique is still under development and has not yet been used on a large scale. Self-sustaining techniques rely basically on two components: a refractoriness mechanism and a gene driver to spread the target gene in the population. Several mosquito species have been genetically modified to be resistant and disrupt parasites transmission cycles [ 33- 35]. The classic study by Ito et al. [ 33] transformed Anopheles stephensi to express a small peptide, known as salivary gland and midgut peptide 1 (SM1), in the midgut under the control of the carboxypeptidase promoter, blocking around 80 % of oocyst development. Since this study, several species of anophelines have been transformed to express anti-malaria molecules [ 36- 39], including Anopheles gambiae, the main malaria vector in Africa [ 38], with a similar blocking effect. However, to effectively control vectored diseases such as malaria, it is crucial to establish a repertoire of effector genes and tissue-specific promoters for their expression to enable these genes to have maximum effect, i.e., make the mosquito 100 % refractory to the parasite with minimum fitness cost. There are still several epidemiological risks and major problems that need to be dealt with before population-replacement approaches can be tested in the field [ 39].

The Release of Insects with Dominant Lethality (RIDL) system was proposed simultaneously by Heinrich & Scott [ 40] and Thomas et al. [ 41] and is based on the integration of a dominant lethal gene associated with a female-specific promoter. When released into the wild, genetically modified males will mate with wild females, resulting in viable male offspring but inviable female offspring because of the gene's sex-specific lethality, which is expressed only in the absence of a chemical repressor used to silence the effector gene [ 42]. A variety of genes are available for this purpose, the only requirement being that they cause death when expressed [ 43]. When a female-specific promoter is used, males carry the gene but do not express it and are able to survive with or without the chemical repressor, while females die in the absence of the repressor [ 44].

As suppression strategies based on genetic modification have begun to be used in the field, the lack of regulations governing the use of GMM has become a significant challenge. This lack of regulations is not restricted to developing countries and strategies based on the use of recombinant DNA. Laws and regulations need to be created, risk analyses carried out and public opinion assessed, a process made all the more arduous by the regulatory agencies' lack of experience. Furthermore, the best strategy for implementing control programs based on genetic modification is neither simple nor obvious [ 11]. The self-limiting nature of reproductively sterile insects (whether sterilized by radiation, cytoplasmic incompatibility or RIDL) tends to simplify the use of this technique in the field, since the transgene is not fixed in the wild population [ 11].

From the perspective of transgenic insect-release programs, such as RIDL, it is extremely important to detect any resistance in the target population that could adversely affect the effectiveness of the program soon enough to take measures to remedy the problem. Monitoring strategies must provide suitable warning about these problems in time to allow them to be remedied [ 11].

Transgenic mosquitoes or paratransgenesis in mosquitoes?

Considerable effort has been devoted to the genetic transformation of mosquitoes, and although refractory mosquitoes and mosquitoes carrying a lethal gene have been produced [ 33, 44], there are still significant issues to be dealt with before the use of these techniques in the field can be considered, such as drive mechanisms, transposon stability issues, sibling species complexes and multiple subspecies of mosquitoes [ 33, 45]. All of these factors need to be taken into account before the introduction of transformed mosquitoes into wild populations can be considered [ 46]. Although these obstacles can be overcome with time, the issue of new, much-needed control measures remains. In this regard, paratransgenesis (the genetic modification of symbiotic organisms, such as bacteria and fungi) would appear to be the most suitable solution [ 31, 46- 48].

The paratransgenesis alternative

Paratransgenesis is based on the use of symbiotic bacteria to express effector molecules inside the target vector [ 47- 51]. The symbiotic bacteria are genetically modified to express effector molecules and then reintroduced into the mosquito, where they produce the desired effect [ 49, 52- 55]. Although studies of the microbiota of wild mosquitoes have been carried out, identifying its full spectrum and potential is yet to be done [ 14, 44, 52, 56- 61]. Knowledge of mosquito microbiota is essential for a paratransgenic system to work, and is particularly important to identify bacteria that are well established in mosquitoes and can be transmitted to the next generation [ 14].

For a bacteria to be used in paratransgenesis three key components are required: an effector molecule that achieves the desired effect; a mechanism to display or excrete the effector molecule on the surface of the bacteria; and bacteria that can survive in the mosquito long enough to produce the expected amount of effector molecules and thereby achieve the desired effect in the mosquito [ 45, 46].

Identification of suitable commensal bacteria that are non-pathogenic to humans or animals among the many organisms that insects harbor, particularly in their digestive systems, is paramount for the success of a paratransgenic system [ 62]. In mosquitoes these bacteria are involved in various biological functions associated with digestion, primarily in the midgut. There is a close association between blood-dependent insects and symbiotic microorganisms that help the anabolic processes of vitellogenesis and ovogenesis [ 63]. Eradication of these bacteria leads to a decline in fecundity and a slower growth rate. Interference with the digestion of proteins in mosquito blood meals can reduce fecundity and may represent a new approach for controlling mosquito populations and preventing the transmission of pathogens [ 63].

The chosen bacteria should be capable of colonizing a wide variety of mosquito species so that they can be deployed in different species and isolated strains. Producing recombinant bacteria in sufficient numbers is much simpler than creating transgenic mosquitoes [ 46, 64].

Furthermore, the number of bacteria increases dramatically (100 to 1000 of times) after ingestion of blood [ 65], resulting in a proportional increase in the amount of effector molecules expressed and secreted by GM bacteria [ 66], leading to various possible outcomes: obstructing pathogen transmission, reducing the mosquito's vector capacity, preventing fertilization of eggs, interfering with embryogenesis and causing the death of the mosquito [ 49, 52, 54, 55].

Symbiotic bacteria and fungi for use in paratransgenesis

Symbiotic bacteria can be found in several insects, such as in Ae. aegypti where they probably play a critical role in metabolic processes and may be important for these insects as they colonize their internal organs and other tissues. The elimination of obligatory symbionts would result in fitness loss. Wide-ranging studies of these symbiotic microorganisms might provide important data for the development of new control strategies [ 63].

Pidiyar et al. [ 14] found a wide range of symbiotic bacteria in various mosquito species: Bacillus spp., Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Aeromonas culicicola in Culex quinquefasciatus; Serratia marcescens and Klebsiella ozonae; Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter agglomerans in Culex pipiens; and two strains of A. culicicola in Ae. aegypti. Dinparast et al. [ 67] reported thirteen species of bacteria in An. Maculipennis and An. Stephensi.

In studies with malaria vectors, a wide variety of bacteria species were isolated from the midguts of wild mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles in East and West Africa [ 53]. In southern Mexico, Gonzalez-Ceron et al. [ 57] found Enterobacter amnigenus, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter sp., S. marcescens, and Serratia sp. in Anopheles albimanus.

Bacteria of the genus Asaia have a stable association and are capable of quickly colonizing tissues in several mosquito species, such as An. gambiae, An. stephensi, Aedes albopictus, Ae. aegypti and mosquitoes from the Cx. pipiens complex. These bacteria can be cultured and genetically manipulated for subsequent reinsertion into the insect host and after blood feeding increase its population size exponentially. In addition, transmission from males to females during mating can be exploited to colonize mosquitoes in nature [ 51, 52, 68].

Straif et al. [ 69] investigated the prevalence of bacteria in the midguts of malaria vectors and identified bacterial candidates for paratransgenesis in cultured and uncultured midgut bacteria from wild-caught An. gambiae and An. funestus mosquitoes. Twenty different genera of bacteria were identified in both mosquito samples, the most common bacteria being Pantoea agglomerans. Dong et al. [ 70] showed that when Chryseobacterium meningosepticum was introduced into An. gambiae, it became the dominant bacteria in the mosquito's midgut, indicating that this species has a competitive advantage in the gut environment.

Although a variety of symbiotic bacteria have been identified in mosquito microflora, existing conventional culture techniques do not allow all the components of the microbiota inhabiting any niche or environmental sample to be isolated and identified because it is not possible to simulate the conditions required for their growth in a laboratory [ 16]. However, this drawback can be overcome by ribosomal RNA (rRNA)-based sequence studies [ 14].

Paratransgenic approaches can also work with fungal species, which have the advantage of surviving in the environment for months as spores and, unlike bacteria which need to be ingested to infect mosquitoes, can infect mosquitoes directly through the cuticle [ 71]. Fang et al. [ 72] genetically transformed Metarhizium anisopliae to express the effector molecule SM1 and the antimicrobial toxin scorpine, which interfere with Plasmodium falciparum development, reducing mosquito infectivity. There were also shown the presence of fungi in Cx. quinquefasciatus by Pidiyar et al. [ 14], who found Aspergillus and Streptomyces spp. in this mosquito. GM bacteria or fungi could potentially be used in paratransgenesis to produce an environment-friendly, highly effective specific biopesticide Thomas & Read [ 71].

Wolbachia

Rickettsiales, such as Wolbachia, an obligate intracellular gram-negative bacteria, can be found in the cytoplasmic vacuoles of insects, isopods, mites and nematodes [ 73, 74]. Maternally inherited, they can infect mosquito gonads and are therefore potential targets for delivering effector molecules in paratransgenic systems [ 53].

While many mosquito species can be infected by Wolbachia, epidemiologically important mosquitoes such as Ae. albopictus and Cx.pipiens are naturally infected, and the prevalence of Wolbachia in wild populations is high. There are several different phylogenetic groups of Wolbachia, and depending on the strain with which the mosquito is infected, crosses can be cytoplasmically compatible, incompatible or compatible in only one direction [ 75]. Wolbachia inflicts a severe selective pressure that quickly drives transovarial transmission of the bacteria through mosquito populations [ 76, 77].

There are three basic strategies for using Wolbachia to control vector populations: inserting the transgene directly into the Wolbachia genome and using cytoplasmic incompatibility mechanisms to suppress the target population and achieve the desired frequency in the target population; fixing the transgene in other cytoplasmic elements that are co-inherited with Wolbachia bacteria in the mosquito; and transforming the genome of the target mosquitoes and using cytoplasmic incompatibility as a gene insertion mechanism in the target population [ 74].

Transovarian transmission of Wolbachia has provoked considerable interest in paratransgenic systems, in which it is highly desirable to use bacteria that can spread through a population and are readily available [ 78, 79]. It is possible to infect several mosquito species with Wolbachia and produce different outcomes [ 80]. As wPip Wolbachia strains are found in the Cx. pipiens complex, exogenous bacteria do not need to be used, and control strategies can be based on Wolbachia. The transmission capacity and cytoplasmic incompatibility of this bacteria confirm its great potential for use in paratransgenesis. However, before it can be used, certain issues must be addressed. Firstly, intracellular bacteria require a cell culture to be maintained in the laboratory and, secondly, as effector molecules are excreted directly into the cytoplasm of host cells by Wolbachia, there must be a mechanism for these molecules to reach the hemolymph if they are to have the desired effect [ 45, 79, 81, 82].

Infection of Ae. aegypti by different Wolbachia strains leads to three outcomes: shortened lifespan, reducing their potential to transmit pathogens that have to infect adult mosquitoes to complete their development cycle [ 79]; limited susceptibility to infection with the dengue or chikungunya virus or the Plasmodium parasite [ 83]; and, depending on the strain of Wolbachia, induction of cytoplasmic incompatibility, with apparently no significant fitness cost and high horizontal transmission [ 79].

An. gambiae mosquitoes were found naturally infected with Wolbachia in wild population captured in Burkina Faso, Africa [ 84]. Hughes et al. [ 85] demonstrate that An. gambiae and An.stephensi microbiota prevent Wolbachia infection, but when the mosquito microbiota was removed with the use of antibiotics, Wolbachia was capable of infecting the mosquito and reaching maternal transmission to the progeny.

Wolbachia maternal transmission and further cytoplasmic incompatibility was successfully obtained by Bian et al. [ 86] in An. stephensi laboratory populations indicating that this bacteria has the potential to be used in a paratransgenic system for this species.

Although Wolbachia would appear to be an excellent candidate for a paratransgenesis system, caution should be exercised when using it, as Dodson et al. [ 87] showed that WNV infection was enhanced in Wolbachia-infected Culex tarsalis, a feature of Wolbachia that can jeopardize a control strategy based on this bacteria.

Effector molecules

Richins et al. [ 88] developed a system that can be used to transport large molecules produced inside a bacterium and display them on its surface. The system has been successfully used to display enzymes and antibodies [ 45] and represents a major step forward in the search for a successful paratransgenic system.

Testing for effector molecules for use in paratransgenesis systems, Riehle et al. [ 46] showed that the formation of Plasmodium berghei oocysts in An. stephensi mosquitoes can be reduced by expression of SM1 and mPLA2 by commensal recombinant Escherichia coli.

Yoshida et al. [ 53] were able to completely block the development of P. berghei in the midgut of An. stephensi mosquitoes using a single-chain antibody fragment (scFv) excreted by recombinant E. coli. However, these bacteria cannot survive in mosquitoes and disappears quickly from their midguts, making it unsuitable for use in the field [ 46]. For bacteria to be used in paratransgenesis programs in the field they must not only be adapted to the digestive tract of mosquitoes, but also be able to compete with other bacteria in the digestive tract as well as have a lifetime compatible with the adult mosquito vector so they can readily colonize the midgut [ 46].

There are several bacteria and fungi that can be transformed to express effector molecules for use in a paratransgenic system. These include M. anisopliae, a fungus which can colonize Ae. aegypti mosquitoes [ 89, 90], and be genetically modified to express scorpine, a molecule that can be used to interfere with dengue [ 72, 91]. Monoclonal antibodies can be used as effector molecules both with Pantoea agglomerans or Sodalis glossinidius, to form an antipathogenic system [ 92- 94]. Different combinations of anti- Plasmodium effector molecules (cecropin A, SM1, Scorpine, EPIP, scFvs and mPLA2) secreted by transgenic Pa. agglomerans inhibited the development of the human malaria parasite P. falciparum and the rodent malaria parasite P. berghei in An. gambiae and An. stephensi mosquitoes [ 66, 95].

Risk assessment

As with any GM organism, a number of key points must be addressed before a paratransgenesis system can be utilized in the field. Indeed, one of the most challenging aspects of risk assessment for the use of GM organism is the identification of potential problems. However, most of the harmful effects are known and include adverse effects on biological diversity, adverse consequences for gene flow and environmental changes [ 11].

Cost-benefit analyses are required to provide justification for new types of intervention. However, the lack of reliable data on the monetary impact of neglected tropical diseases such as dengue means that it is unclear whether the costs of developing and implementing these forms of intervention are justifiable or not. Ideally, it should be possible not only to analyze the cost-effectiveness of new strategies, but also to compare them with available alternatives and model their incorporation into integrated-vector management programs that include drugs and vaccines when these are available [ 11].

Although safety guidelines for field use of paratransgenic mosquitoes are strict, most of the problems associated with releasing GMM are not present in the paratransgenic approach, which is compatible with traditional control strategies and IPM programs.

The risk associated with the possibility that the modified bacteria could also infect "non-target" insect species is drastically reduced due to the fact that males will seek females from the same species. When a paratransgenesis system is designed as a population suppression strategy (Self-Limiting) there will be a selective pressure that inevitably drives the lethal gene to extinction and even if the chosen strategy is to create an etiological agent refractory mosquito (Self-sustaining), without a gene driver the transgene is bound to fade and disappear [ 11]. Another aspect to be considered is that there is no selective pressure interacting with the midgut bacteria as the mosquito is a dead end host [ 45].

Nonetheless, any GM organism release project shall undergo an environmental risk assessment to evaluate potential adverse effects on human and animal health. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is a regulatory agency that regulates, identifies and appraises environmental risks as well as potential adverse effects of the GM organisms released on the environment. The regulatory process guidelines are as follows: (a) identify and characterize potential adverse effects caused by the GM organism; (b) assess potential consequences of each adverse effect; (c) evaluate the likelihood of each potential adverse effect; (d) each GM organisms characteristics should be analyzed for risk estimation; (e) plan for risk management strategies for release and marketing of GM organisms; (f) define the overall risk of the releasing of GM organisms [ 96].

The risk assessment should preferably result in quantitative data, however qualitative data is acceptable in specific scenarios. Assumptions made must be clarified and all circumstances discussed regarding its uncertainties associated with the identified risks. The acceptable evaluation outcome of releasing GM organisms should mandatorily imply risk levels far lower than its benefits [ 96].

Conclusions

Previous studies have found multiple paratransgenesis candidates in various mosquito species. Each type of bacteria has certain advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of which to use is governed by the particular vector-control approach being used. The advantage of using GM symbionts rather than transgenic mosquitoes is that the former is a relatively simple approach and, unlike the genetic transformation of mosquitoes, does not have the disadvantage of potentially affecting mosquito fitness. In addition, the close association between symbionts and their hosts provides a method for the transgene to spread quickly through the target population [ 97].

One of the most problematic issues of strategies based on GMM is that a transgenic mosquito strain is required for every sibling species. Even if an effective drive mechanism is found, the number of sibling species must be considered. For example, An. gambiae, the most important vector of malaria in Africa, has many reproductively isolated strains, greatly limiting the effectiveness of GMM [ 14, 98, 99]. A paratransgenic system can use the same GM bacteria for different mosquito species and even different genera, the only requirement being that the bacteria used be able to survive and colonize the mosquito host in sufficient numbers so that effector molecule expression reaches the desired level, thus overcoming the problem highlighted above and increasing the range of mosquitoes that can be controlled [ 14, 45, 46, 64].

Genetic transformation of mosquitoes is far more difficult and complex than paratransgenesis, in which effector molecules can be expressed and excreted by simple bacterial systems [ 53]. The successful transformation of P. agglomerans has substantially improved the expression of effector molecules and proteins in the mosquito midgut because of its capacity to rapidly replicate after a blood meal [ 66]. If the GM bacteria successfully express the effector molecule but fail to excrete it or display it on their surface, an apoptotic mechanism must be used, leading to extra fitness costs. However, if the effector molecules are excreted by the bacteria they can be produced continually, significantly increasing the effectiveness of the paratransgenic system. Fortunately, there are mechanisms such as the outer membrane protein A (OmpA) that allow bacteria to export molecules to the environment [ 45, 88].

Paratransgenic strategies may prove very useful for controlling mosquito species such as Culex that are, for as yet unknown reasons, inherently difficult to transform and have been genetically modified only once by the embryo microinjection technique [ 100, 101]. In contrast, many other mosquito species have been successfully transformed more than once ( Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, Aedes fluviatilis, An. gambiae and An. stephensi) [ 102- 105].

Microorganisms associated with vectors can exert pathogenic effects on the host, interfere with its reproduction and reduce its vector competence [ 24, 52]. Paratransgenesis may prove to be a highly valuable tool for use in IPM and is potentially of particular value in areas where there are species complexes or more than one species whose population needs to be reduced or made refractory to a given pathogen, as well as in the control of mosquito species that are not easily transformed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paratransgenesis: a promising new strategy for mosquito vector control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the late nineteenth century, when mosquitoes were first associated with the transmission of pathogens to humans and other vertebrates, a number of mosquito species have been intensively studied.

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you could save lives by producing vaccines in genetically engineered bananas, would you? What if that meant exposing other organisms to foreign proteins and potentially upsetting the ecosystem? People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals through traditional breeding techniques for many years, but genetic engineering means we can now have more control over what changes are made, and we can also produce a wider range of variations.

# data[].attributes.body
Yashwanth Reddy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., University of California, Davis

The prospect of genetically modified food animals has been looming on the horizon for over 30 years, ever since the first genetically modified, or more correctly, "genetically engineered", mice were produced in the 1980s. Animal breeders have been "genetically modifying" animals using traditional breeding techniques for centuries, for example, developing the Chihuahua from its wolf progenitor. Genetic engineering (GE), however, refers to the use of recombinant DNA techniques or biotechnology to intentionally modify the genome of an animal to produce a desired outcome or trait. In the case of animals, this outcome might be an agriculturally related trait like improved disease resistance or a faster rate of growth, or something related to product composition such as pork with elevated levels of omega-3 fatty acids. There are currently no GE animals approved for food purposes.

Conversely, GE plants, which were first produced in 1983, were approved for food purposes in the 1990s and have been rapidly adopted by farmers globally. Approximately 420 million acres of GE crops (12% of total arable land) were cultivated worldwide by 17.3 million farmers in 2012. This is a 100-fold increase from the 4.2 million acres that were planted in 1996, making GE the most rapidly adopted crop technology in recent history. During the period from 1996 to 2011, the cumulative economic benefits from cost savings and added income derived from planting GE crops is estimated to have been $49.6 billion in developing countries and $48.6 billion in industrial countries[1]. A high proportion of the global soybean (81%), cotton (81%), corn (35%), and canola (30%) supplies are currently derived from GE crop varieties. Approximately 70% of processed foods available in US grocery stores contain an ingredient from a GE crop.

Animal agriculture is also highly dependent on GE crops; over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food-producing animals throughout the world. Even in the European Union (EU), where there is little cultivation of GE crops, it has been estimated that 80% of all animal feed is imported and that more than half of this is from GE crops imported from Brazil, the USA, and Argentina. The EU imports approximately 70% of the soybean meal used in animal feed and of this 80% is GE. It has been projected that if the EU were not able to import soybean protein from outside the EU it would only be able to replace 10-20% of imports by high protein feed substitutes, and that this would result in a substantial reduction in animal protein production, exports and consumption, and a very significant increase of animal protein imports into the EU.

Despite the widespread adoption of GE crops, no GE animal has been approved for food consumption in any country. Pharmaceutical drugs produced by GE animals have received regulatory approval; however, the commercial approval of a GE food animal has yet to be accomplished. The first and currently only GE food animal up for approval, the fast-growing AquAdvantage salmon, has been undergoing regulatory review in the USA for over a decade. All regulatory studies, including food safety evaluations, were completed in 2009 at a cost of over $60 million. In 2010 the FDA determined that the " AquAdvantage Salmon is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon" and that " no significant food safety hazards or risks have been identified with respect to the phenotype of the AquAdvantage Salmon ". Despite these findings and the proposed production of infertile triploid, all-female fish in contained inland tank systems to prevent escapement, no statement has yet been issued by the FDA regarding approval or otherwise of this first GE food animal.

Part of the reason for this protracted regulatory evaluation of the AquAdvantage salmon has been pressure from special interest groups and a handful of elected officials to prevent the product coming to market. Some activist groups have even begun actively targeting supermarket chains to boycott the GE salmon by threatening to cease purchasing at those chains unless they cede to their demands. The on-going regulatory uncertainty has had a pervasive chilling effect upon the development and commercial adoption of GE animals. Regulatory inaction has the consequence of threatening not only the AquAdvantage salmon, but animal biotechnology in general. Although some might argue that this is a desirable outcome, it is not in society's interest to give up on a promising set of technologies when science has consistently shown that there is nothing uniquely or inherently risky about food produced from GE animals or crops.

The risks associated with GE animals may even be less than those associated with existing production systems. For example, Atlantic salmon are commonly produced in floating ocean net-pens. Hazards presented by conventional production include: (1) local eutrophication due to nutrient enrichment from decomposition of uneaten feed and animal wastes, (2) transmission of parasites and pathogens among cultured and wild fish populations, and (3) escapement of selectively-bred, fast-growing fertile salmon and interbreeding of cultured and wild Atlantic salmon populations. A shift to greater aquacultural production in on-shore facilities presents an option to reduce these environmental impacts and concomitantly decrease pressure on wild-caught fisheries.

Demand for livestock products is expected to continue growing strongly through the middle of this century, and by 2050 nearly twice as much meat will be produced as today. Some of the promising applications of this technology involve the development of GE animals that are disease resistant. For example, a consortium of scientists from New York University, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Nairobi, Kenya, the Roslin Institute and The University of Liverpool have been awarded a grant by The National Science Foundation of the USA and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop GE cattle that are resistant to African Bovine Trypanosomiasis.

Trypanosomiasis is a disease caused by blood parasites of the genus Trypanosoma that are transmitted in Africa by tsetse flies ( Glossina spp). Tsetse and trypanosomiasis threatens approximately 45-50 million head of cattle and are the major factors preventing the establishment of sustainable agricultural systems in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Direct losses in meat production and milk yield and the costs of programs that attempt to control trypanosomiasis are estimated to amount to up to $1.2 billion each year. If the disease did not exist, many more families could use draught animals to plough their fields rather than manual labor. All told, trypanosomiasis is estimated to cost sub-Saharan Africa $4 billion or more each year.

There are many other examples of potentially beneficial applications of GE animals including applications that improve the healthfulness of animal products, and the health and welfare of the animals themselves. These include GE animals with altered milk (e.g. decreased lactose) and meat (e.g. increase omega-3 fatty acids) composition for food purposes. Researchers at UC Davis are working on goats that produce milk which is protective against juvenile diarrhea, a major killer of infants in developing countries. Other researchers are working to develop GE animals that produce single-sex offspring in species where only one gender produces the food product, such as eggs or milk. Yet another group is working to edit the DNA sequence of a single gene in the bovine genome of horned cattle breeds to render them naturally hornless or polled, thereby negating the need for dehorning, an unpleasant process that is routinely carried out for both farmer and animal safety.

Relative to GE crops, the commercialization of GE food animals is at a nascent stage. Subjecting the GE animal approval process to prolonged political interference and unaccountable regulatory delay is having an inhibitory effect on the commercialization of this potentially beneficial technology. Focusing solely on the potential risks associated with GE animals while ignoring both the known risks associated with current production practices, and as importantly the potential benefits, results in an uneven evaluation of the potential of this technology. World-wide GE regulations have disproportionately focused only on the potential, and largely unrealized, risks associated with GE technology. While regulation to ensure the safety of new technologies is necessary, in a world facing burgeoning demands on agriculture from population growth, economic growth, and climate change; creating an impassable regulatory hurdle for promising technologies is a roadblock that global food security can ill afford.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GM animals: Why do we need them, what is in the pipeline, and what are the risks?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., University of California, Davis The prospect of genetically modified food animals has been looming on the horizon for over 30 years, ever since the first genetically modified, or more correctly, "genetically engineered", mice were produced in the 1980s.

# data[].attributes.body
AWARI AKHIL

# data[].attributes.body
Abhiram satuluri

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically modified foods, often described as GM foods for short, are organisms that have had their DNA altered in a way that wouldn't have happened if left to nature. Plants or animals can have specific genes added to them, ensuring that new kinds of organisms are created with properties that the originals did not possess.

Why would you want to genetically modify foods?

There are all kinds of reasons you'd want to modify a species of organism - some economic, some philanthropic and others commercial.

Taking those in order, the first is that a genetically modified crop can be cheaper - in the long run - to produce. This could be because it requires less attention, and therefore less man-hours, or simply because it's hardier and less likely to die.

The second is related to that. Nobody denies we have enough food for everyone, but there are all kinds of political and technical reasons why it isn't evenly distributed - and that's a big humanitarian problem. While it would be nice to imagine a fairer society where we're better at distribution, that seems like something of a pipe dream. GM crops potentially allow for a far greater yield, and thus more to go around. The United Nations estimates we'll need to grow 70% more food by 2050 to feed our growing population, so that's a seriously strong selling point.

That's not where the good causes end, incidentally: indeed, scientists have recently been working on a kind of rice that produces 90% less greenhouse gas, while producing 50% more rice. This would be a huge help in the fight against climate change. And Golden Rice - a kind of rice with the Vitamin A-producing gene from carrots - was designed to tackle vitamin deficiency that causes millions of people in the developing world to go blind.

Finally there's commercial concerns. This could be modifying a plant to taste better, but it could also be inserting a gene to make a vegetable resistant against diseases or insect blight, ensuring that less crops go to waste, and there's more to sell.

A number of reasons, again. These can be loosely divided into scepticism of vested interests in scientific research, political worries, concern for long-term side effects, and good old-fashioned media scare stories.

If you're of a certain age, you'll probably remember the discourse on GM from the 1990s where there were fears of playing God and creating "Frankenfoods". As time has gone on, more research has been done and GM foods have been consumed in large quantities, so concerns over the short-term consequences have diminished somewhat.

"Can a specific gene of a crop be copyrighted, thus causing legal headaches for farm?"

Which brings me onto the second point: the fear of long-term effects. Critics argue that no matter how many trials have been carried out, by their very nature these can only look at the short-term impacts. They point to the likes of the pesticide DDT that was once declared safe, only to be found as carcinogenic years later. We're in a different age now, but the point stands: scientists aren't always infallible, and sceptics make a fair point when they say that tampering with the food supply is a big-stakes game.

Then there's the concern of vested-interests involvement. Studies funded by those who want to sell more of their products could incentivise scientists to play down side effects and potentially negative findings. More on this later.

I'll come back to political worries at a later date, but in short - can a specific gene of a crop be copyrighted, thus causing legal headaches for farmers?

This is true. Selective breeding of crops has been occurring for millennia, and mutagenics - scrambling DNA with chemicals and radiation - has been used since the 1930s. We enjoy the benefits in plenty of the food we eat, including wheat, rice and peanuts, with next to no public outcry.

As , the difference here - other than media interest - could be that GM methods involve the transfer of a single gene, rather than entire selections, but scientists broadly agree that this is a positive thing. "We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it," plant molecular biologist Dr Robert Goldberg told Scientific American . "We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't."

What foods have been genetically modified?

"If you're in the UK, then you probably haven't directly consumed as many GM foods as someone in America."

Quite a few foods have been genetically modified in one way or another, by far the most widespread being corn and soy. As of 2010, about 90% of the corn produced in the US was genetically modified , chiefly in order to express a protein that kills certain insects. GM soy is even more widespread, with 94% of soybean coverage in the US modified to be glyphosate-tolerant as of 2015 . In the US, domestic sugar and vegetable oil are generally genetically modified in some way or other too. Worldwide, a number of fruit and vegetables - including papayas, pineapples and potatoes - have been created.

However, to date, just one food has been approved for growth within the EU - MON 810, a maize that fights off pests - so if you're in the UK, then you probably haven't directly consumed as many GM foods as someone in America.

That is about to change. In January 2015, the EU passed a law allowing member states to grow any crops approved by the European Food Safety Authority. Member states can opt out of the legislation if they wish, as Scotland has chosen to do , but they have to inform the EU of their decision by October 2015. So far, it looks like 16, including Germany, Italy, Denmark, Bulgaria and Cyprus, will do so.

However, animal feed is often imported, and farmers are finding it harder and harder to know which feed is GM and which is not.

Scientific American describes this as "theoretically possible, but hugely improbable," as genetic material has not been found to survive the tough environment of the human gut to make its way into cells.

Even if it were possible, the genes planted into GM foods are already often consumed by humans as part of natural pesticides in organic farming, so this really isn't worth worrying about.

What do scientists have to say about genetically modified foods?

Part of the problem with scientific research is that you can't really ever prove something is safe - you can only fail to find problems. For some reason, people are less concerned with this truth in medicine than they are with GM foods.

Despite this, the research largely points in one direction. Skeptical Raptor has compiled a list of 114 peer-reviewed articles , none of which were sponsored by corporations with vested interests, and each one followed the consensus that GM foods are safe.

"Analysing the data from before 1996 (when no animals were fed GM) to modern times, they found no trends to indicate any difference in animal health."

Elsewhere, a metareview has analysed ten years' worth of GM crop-safety research papers and discovered much the same thing: " The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops."

This backs up the conclusions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's, which aren't the slightest bit ambiguous:

"The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe ... The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the US National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organisation that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."

Additionally, while there are a handful of anecdotal stories online about livestock becoming sick after being fed on GM-only diets, a 2014 study assessed over 100 billion animals calls this into question. Analysing the data from before 1996 (when no animals were fed GM) to modern times, they found no trends to indicate any difference in animal health.

By contrast, there are relatively few studies suggesting any side effects from GM foods, and the high-profile ones have tended to be thrown out reasonably quickly. A 1998 study from Árpád Pusztai found that rats fed a genetically modified potato experienced stunted growth and changes to their immune systems. However, it later emerged that the potato was designed to be harmful in order to be used in studies .

"These are often latched upon by anti-GM campaigners as being more legitimate precisely because they break with the scientific consensus."

Likewise, Gilles-Éric Séralini from the University of Caen found that rats eating a type of GM corn developed high rates of cancer, but his study was widely dismissed over a number of concerns including the breed of rat (which has a propensity for tumours), the number of rats and a lack of proper control groups. The European Food Safety Authority ended up dismissing the studies.

Relative to the body of pro or neutral GM research, these studies are few and far between, but are often latched upon by anti-GM campaigners as being more legitimate precisely because they break with the scientific consensus, which is often accused of being tainted by big business.

Many of the complaints regarding the pro-GM research is that much of it is funded by clearly vested interests - agricultural firm Monsanto in particular. The suspicion is that the scientific research can't be legitimate if the funding is coming from companies that rely on positive spin for their products.

However, even if you discount research that has been funded by outside interests and look purely at independent studies, the recommendations point one way: there are no known dangers to consuming GM foods.

The "known" bit there may sound like a worrying caveat, but as I mentioned above, proving anything isn't dangerous is virtually unheard of in science. The European Commission has funded over 100 research projects carried out by more than 500 independent teams, and found no reason for concern.

As mentioned above, the US is one of the largest producers of GM crops, although a handful of Californian counties (Mendocino, Trinity and Marin) have their own bans in place. It's mainly corn, canola and soy. Canada is similar, as is the majority of South America.

In Asia, China is another massive producer of GM crops, as is India - although that has proved controversial due to reports of widespread suicides of farmers unable to meet the costs of GM seed growth. Japan is staunchly against the growth of GM crops, but imports significant amounts of genetically modified canola.

"The EU has allowed the cultivation of a number of crops, but it's down to specific member states to decide whether they opt out."

The European Union is slightly tougher to summarise. The EU has allowed the cultivation of a number of crops, but it's down to specific member states to decide whether they opt out. England is in favour, while Scotland has opted out. Spain has grown GM maize for many years, while France has an outright ban on all things GM.

Member states are required to opt out of GM crops by October 2015 and, to date, 14 of the 28 have done so. They are: Latvia, Greece, France, Croatia, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Denmark and Germany. A further two countries have requested partial opt-outs: the UK (for the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and Belgium (for the French-speaking Wallonia region).

Australia used to have widespread bans on GM crops across their states, but they have been gradually lifting them over time, leaving only South Australia with an outright ban in place.
Images: Uwe Potthoff, William Murphy, Department of Agriculture, Right2Know March, GMO free conference, Jan Smith and George Groutas used under Creative Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are genetically modified foods and why are they controversial?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are genetically modified foods? Genetically modified foods, often described as GM foods for short, are organisms that have had their DNA altered in a way that wouldn't have happened if left to nature. Plants or animals can have specific genes added to them, ensuring that new kinds of organisms are created with properties that the originals did not possess.