# data[].attributes.body
Genetic editing has been used on farm animals, mice, and non-human organisms. In 2015, a group of scientists restricted the use of CRISPR-Cas9, a tool used for genetic editing, on humans. Tests in China on human embryos brought positive and negative affects, postponing genetically engineered humans, at least for the time being.

# data[].attributes.body
Genetic Editing is the ability to make special changes in the DNA sequence of a living organism. It is performed using enzymes that have been engineered to target a specific DNA sequence, introducing cuts into the DNA strand and removing the existing DNA to replace it with another stand of DNA.

# data[].attributes.body
From the Gale Database, more information more information on genetic editing:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School , a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.

# data[].attributes.headline
What have humans accomplished in the last 40 years in genetic editing?

# data[].attributes.subject
What have humans accomplished in the last 40 years in genetic editing?

# data[].attributes.body
Since 1980, technology has evolved greatly. We have made huge advancements in the power of technology, and now incorporate it into our daily lives.

# data[].attributes.body
Likewise, Genetic editing has also become a huge part of our daily lives, without us noticing.

# data[].attributes.headline
For more information of the history of genetic editing, click here:

# data[].attributes.subject
For more information of the history of genetic editing, click here:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR

# data[].attributes.body
For more information surrounding the conflict of GMOs, visit the site below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Few readers of this journal will have failed to notice the recent uproar, particularly in Great Britain, concerning the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In response to the demands of activists, European governments have restricted the import and release of GMOs, and activists here and abroad have taken to destroying field plots and in one case firebombing a laboratory. Multinational corporations, anxious about preserving the public virtue of their brand names, have declared themselves GMO-free in response to as little provocation as a single letter of inquiry concerning their position on GMOs. Hundreds of Internet sites proclaim the evils of GMOs, and some newspapers and radio commentators, especially in Europe, fan the flames of public fear by uncritically publishing activist propaganda.

Like most scientists in the United States, I have watched quietly as this charade has unfolded. I would greatly prefer to spend my time doing science rather than getting caught up in the public debate of the moment. During my long and happy retreat into the ivory tower I have seen many rancorous public debates come and go without the necessity of my participation on one side or the other and without too much lasting harm to the republic. However, because of my enthusiasm for the environmental benefits that could result from many applications of plant biotechnology, I have recently participated in a number of public discussions concerning the current and future applications of the technology. My general view of the technology is that many useful applications do not have deleterious side effects, but that some of the things that could theoretically be done should not be pursued because the potential for negative consequences outweighs the benefits. My experience with American audiences is that most people are intrigued by both the science and the promise of utility, but apprehensive because of the strident and well-publicized claims by activists that GMOs are dangerous to health and the environment. The opponents of the technology have framed the issue as black and white-GMOs are dangerous and must be stopped. Proponents are faced with the difficult task of trying to educate the public about the many shades of gray.

One of the ironies of the current conflict between the proponents and opponents of GMOs is that the technology is inherently green. I cannot help but think that if the technology had been advocated by any sector except multinational chemical companies with an eye on the world market, the technology would have been embraced by environmentalist groups in much the same way that windmills and solar cells are. Indeed, I remain optimistic that politically neutral groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club will eventually endorse many of the potential applications of plant biotechnology. The greatest threat to biodiversity is expansion of agricultural land and, in the end, any technology that can help stop the expansion of agriculture and minimize chemical inputs will probably be welcomed by environmentalists. However, based on my encounters with opponents, I am of the opinion that not all of the organizations involved in the GMO debate are politically neutral. Indeed, much of the rhetoric concerning GMOs has very little to do with the underlying science and a lot to do with other issues such as industrialization of agriculture and control of the food supply by [American] multinational corporations. My impression is that many people who reject the silence of capitalism on issues of social equity have been attracted by the eco-reactionary groups who, among other things, oppose GMOs. The recent unrest concerning the release of GMOs and the protests at meetings of the World Bank and the World Trade Organization bear witness a new manifestation of a familiar political conflict.

To the extent that GMOs raise social issues, there should be a vigorous public debate. However, I think it is damaging to science to have the terms of the debate focused on scientific issues in a forum that does not support the traditional values of scientific discourse. The pronouncements of professors are much less interesting to the media than those of protestors dressed as corncobs. The challenge facing scientists is to try to ensure that decisions about scientific and technical issues do not become linked to underlying social conflict. I think it possible that the debate about GMOs is symptomatic of a larger social trend that has profound consequences for scientists. We are entering a new era in which the social value of science and technology will be under attack by political groups that are looking for simplistic solutions to the many changes that are sweeping the planet. Because science is a powerful agent of change, scientists will increasingly be viewed with suspicion or worse. I think that to avert a downward spiral of mistrust, we must become more involved in public discourse. The GMO issue is a tremendous opportunity for plant biologists to engage the public on a topic in which they are interested. The first step is to become informed about the issues. We cannot be effective participants in public discourse if we do not know the facts and the competing arguments. In addition to articles in journals such as Science, Nature, and Nature Biotechnology, I have found the online discussion group and archive organized by C.S. Prakash at Tuskegee University (Tuskegee, AL) to be a valuable source of informed discussion and news ( http://www.agbioworld.org/). Klaus Amman at the University of Bern (Bern, Switzerland) also moderates a very useful newsgroup (klaus.ammann{at}sgi.unibe.ch ). The second step is to become proactive and to use the media to promote discoveries and dispute falsehoods. The American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP) has published a short document that outlines some of the criteria for the design of letters to newspapers and journals. In addition, the ASPP Education Foundation ( http://aspp.org/edfn/edfn.htm) is currently planning the production of some high impact educational materials such as films. Finally, make your views known to politicians and encourage the people you work with to do likewise. The Internet has revolutionized the process of interacting with government agencies and politicians. When you become aware of an opportunity to comment on a federal rule or piece of legislation, take a few minutes to express your opinion. Many politicians are enthusiastic about the benefits of science and technology and are willing to work to support the scientific enterprise ( Bond, 2000).

Footnotes

Chris Somerville, Carnegie Institution, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, California 94305

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Genetically Modified Organism Conflict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few readers of this journal will have failed to notice the recent uproar, particularly in Great Britain, concerning the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In response to the demands of activists, European governments have restricted the import and release of GMOs, and activists here

# data[].attributes.body
GMO stands for "genetically modified organism". These GMOs are made with chemicals that make them bigger, tastier, and easier to market. People around the world, especially in Britain, are advocating for more GMO-free foods, along with the help of the media.

# data[].attributes.body
More information on genetically engineered foods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism).

Look for the number on the product label - PNL (Product Number Lookup) and find out how safe are fruits and vegetables you buy.. There are a few simple tricks to help you identify which foods are genetically modified and which are natural.A Nutricionist who studied at Harvard and Yale, Jayson Calton, co-author of the book "Rich food, poor food" explains the potential dangers of GMOs.

Industrial milk, meat and fish are often derivatd from animals fed with GMO corn, wheat or soy. Calton says there is a trick that can help you identify GMO fruits and vegetables and other foods.

Look for the number on the product label - PNL (Product Number Lookup).If the four-digit PNL number begins with 3 or 4, it means that the product is GMO, or made on a farm that uses chemicals and pesticides which is also toxic and dangerous for the human body.

If the number on the label has five digits and begins with 9 , it means that the product is organic, grown without chemicals, pesticides or genetic modification.
You can buy these foods," says Calton.
The products, marked with a five-digit number and begins with an 8 are also GMO crops.

Due to the fact that GMO products are widespread and common and they are not labeled it's almost impossible to avoid them completely. There are fruits and vegetables that are rarely genetically modified such as:onion, pineapple, avocado, peas, mango, eggplant, kiwi, cantaloupe, cabbage, sweet potatoes, grapefruit, watermelon and mushrooms.

These products have a far greater chance of being genetically modified:apples, celery, peppers, peaches, strawberries, nectarines, grapes, spinach, lettuce, cucumbers, blueberries, potatoes, green beans, kale, oranges, corn, zucchini, cherry and hot peppers .The real vegetables and fruits show different signs than the GMO products.You can press a tomato,if a bruises shows,there is a chance that is a GMO.Try to find fruits and vegetables that are not aesthetically perfect. They will be just as tasty and very healthy.Buy fruits and vegetables from the farmers who grow on their own. Their products are the best solution.If you already have to buy in the store, avoid certain food packaging.Since GMO food brings more profit, producers can afford certain packaging that will attract more customers.
General principles of recognition of GMO food
GMO food is nicer, rounder, brighter, equal size and appearance, bright color, no bruises and they are not damaged, with no rot and scars.

You should buy bumpy, irregular form fruits and vegetables, almost with ugly look.Search for fruits and vegetables with different colors, sizes and shapes.

Ignore the nice package

The profitability from GMO plants, fruits and vegetables allow manufacturers to spend money on nice packaging. Get information on the Internet about the countries that grow GMOs.

Countries that prohibit the manufacture and importation of GMOs are France, Switzerland and Hungary.here you can be safe that the product is not GMO.

The biggest producers of GMO foods are the US, Argentina, Brazil, China and India, which produces GMO cotton.

We really hope you find this article helpful and don't forget to share it with your friends and family. Thank You.
GTM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HOW TO IDENTIFY A GMO FOOD - Green Tree Medic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism). Look for the number on the product label - PNL (Product Number Lookup) and find out how safe are fruits and vegetables you buy..

# data[].attributes.body
Food is one way genetic engineering has been woven into our lives. Many foods at big chain grocery stores are genetically engineered. These genetically engineered foods are bigger, contain modifications like no seeds, and are more appealing to customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent genetic engineering developments are raising an urgent question: Should we as a society condone the genetic modification of future human beings?

Here we take on some common questions about the prospect of using gene editing, along with assisted reproductive technologies, to produce genetically altered children.

For key developments and position statements in 2015, visit our About Human Germline Gene Editing resource page and see Genetically Modified Humans? 7 Reasons to Say No.

1. "But can't germline gene editing cure devastating genetic diseases?"

CGS: By definition, germline gene editing does not treat or cure anyone.
It would change the genes of embryos produced with in vitro fertilization, but not of patients with a diagnosed disease. Gene editing that aims to treat or cure patients, by contrast, would target the somatic (body) cells of an existing person with a genetic condition.

2. "What about parents who want to prevent children from being born with serious genetic conditions?"

CGS: Parents can have healthy children who are genetically related to them without the risks of germline intervention.

Some people at risk of transmitting a genetic disease decide to adopt or to have children using third-party eggs or sperm. Couples for whom a full genetic connection is important can use embryo screening techniques like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which tests embryos produced with in vitro fertilization; only those unaffected by the genetic variant of concern are used to start a pregnancy. Using PGD to select children who have - or who lack - specific traits raises its own ethical concerns, but PGD is far safer and less socially consequential than manipulating the genes of future children.

3. "We already 'design' our children by choosing reproductive partners, sending them to private schools, and giving them music lessons. What's the big deal about germline genetic modification?"

CGS: Parents rightly have a great deal of control over various aspects of their children's lives, but pre-selecting their traits is qualitatively different.
Germline gene editing would give parents (and fertility clinics, researchers, and others) a far different kind of control over children than anyone has ever had. It's one thing to offer kids opportunities like piano lessons or extra coaching; it's quite another to force them into a pre-determined biological mold.

4. "Why not let scientists and other technological experts assess the technical safety risks and decide what to do?"

CGS: Scientists are themselves divided. And this decision is not primarily a scientific one.
Many of the scientists who developed the new gene editing tools are themselves skeptical about or opposed to using them to create genetically modified people. Others support only a temporary moratorium on using germline gene editing for reproduction, and research aimed at proceeding to clinical trials. The Center for Genetics and Society and many others support research aimed at making gene editing safe in order to medically treat existing people, but urge a prohibition on its use to create genetically modified humans.

5. "I'm not a scientist. Why should I care about editing human genes?"

CGS: Some new technologies can dramatically alter our lives and societies. We should choose and shape them democratically.
New biotechnologies are changing the "facts on the ground" of our lives and societies, and raising crucial questions about how we relate to one another and govern ourselves, and even the essential biology of a human. Yet these powerful tools are often shaped solely by scientists and the companies or institutions where they work, with little public participation or oversight. While scientists can help us understand the technical benefits and risks of their work, we need broad democratic discussion about technological innovations, and about how they can improve well-being and assist us in closing gaps in health and welfare, instead of widening and exacerbating existing inequality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Gene Editing Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Genetics and Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent genetic engineering developments are raising an urgent question: Should we as a society condone the genetic modification of future human beings? Here we take on some common questions about the prospect of using gene editing, along with assisted reproductive technologies, to produce genetically altered children.