# data[].attributes.headline
“GMO Facts: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked” by Brooke Borel

# data[].attributes.subject
“GMO Facts: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked” by Brooke Borel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Later this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture may approve the Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden, the first genetically modified apples to hit the market. Although it will probably be another two years before the non-browning fruits appears in stores, at least one producer is already scrambling to label its apples GMO-free.

The looming apple campaign is just the latest salvo in the ongoing war over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)-one that's grown increasingly contentious. Over the past decade, the controversy surrounding GMO facts has sparked worldwide riots and the vandalism of crops in Oregon, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Philippines. In May, the governor of Vermont signed a law that will likely make it the first U.S. state to require labels for genetically engineered ingredients; more than 50 nations already mandate them. Vermont State Senator David Zuckerman told Democracy Now!, "As consumers, we are guinea pigs, because we really don't understand the ramifications."

But the truth is, GMOs have been studied intensively, and they look a lot more prosaic than the hype contends. To make Arctic apples, biologists took genes from Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties, modified them to suppress the enzyme that causes browning, and reinserted them in the leaf tissue. It's a lot more accurate than traditional methods, which involve breeders hand-pollinating blossoms in hopes of producing fruit with the desired trait. Biologists also introduce genes to make plants pest- and herbicide-resistant; those traits dominate the more than 430 million acres of GMO crops that have already been planted globally. Scientists are working on varieties that survive disease, drought, and flood.

So what, exactly, do consumers have to fear? To find out, Popular Science chose 10 of the most common claims about GMOs and interviewed nearly a dozen scientists. Their collective answer: not much at all.

1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.

Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding.

Here's how it works: Scientists extract a bit of DNA from an organism, modify or make copies of it, and incorporate it into the genome of the same species or a second one. They do this by either using bacteria to deliver the new genetic material, or by shooting tiny DNA-coated metal pellets into plant cells with a gene gun. While scientists can't control exactly where the foreign DNA will land, they can repeat the experiment until they get a genome with the right information in the right place.

That process allows for greater precision. "With GMOs, we know the genetic information we are using, we know where it goes in the genome, and we can see if it is near an allergen or a toxin or if it is going to turn [another gene] off," says Peggy G. Lemaux, a plant biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "That is not true when you cross widely different varieties in traditional breeding."

2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.

It depends on how you define new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.

4) Claim: We don't need GMOs-there are other ways to feed the world.

GMOs alone probably won't solve the planet's food problems. But with climate change and population growth threatening food supplies, genetically modified crops could significantly boost crop output. "GMOs are just one tool to make sure the world is food-secure when we add two billion more people by 2050," says Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Center at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "It's not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal."

5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.

Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.

One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto's corn GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous.

6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.

This simply isn't true. Over the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviewed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.

7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.

This claim requires a little parsing. Two relevant GMOs dominate the market. The first enables crops to express a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to certain insects. It's also the active ingredient in pesticides used by organic farmers. Bt crops have dramatically reduced reliance on chemical insecticides in some regions, says Bruce Tabashnik, a University of Arizona entomologist.

The second allows crops to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate so that farmers can spray entire fields more liberally yet kill only weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine. Its use has decreased reliance on more toxic alternatives, such as atrazine.

8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.

If farmers rely too heavily on Bt or glyphosate, then pesticide resistance is inevitable, says Tabashnik. That's evolution at work, and it's analogous to antibiotics creating hardier bacteria. It is an increasing problem and could lead to the return of harsher chemicals. The solution, he says, is to practice integrated pest management, which includes rotating crops. The same goes for any type of farming.

9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.

This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.

A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.

10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.

The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA-including any genetically engineered snippets.

According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.

As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.

The Rise of GMO Crops

In the U.S., farmers have been planting increasing amounts GMO crops since the seeds became commercially available in 1996. Corn, cotton, and soy-which together occupy about 40 percent of U.S. cropland-are the three crops with the highest GMO fraction by area, each more than 90 percent in 2013.

The GMO fraction by area of corn, cotton, and soy in the top states that grow those crops. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Graphic by Rebecca Lantner.

Dinner, Dissected

Very few genetically modified crops end up on plates, but the ones that do can be found in roughly two-thirds of processed foods sold in the U.S. Genetically modified bacteria and yeasts are also critical to the production of some foods, including many wines and cheeses.

Cheese

Rennet is key in making firm cheeses-specifically, an enzyme called chymosin in the rennet helps harden cheese. Traditionally, cheesemakers use rennet from the lining of cow stomachs to get their chymosin-but an estimated 80 to 90 percent of hard cheeses in the U.S. are made with bacteria modified with the rennet-producing cow gene.

Corn

Trait: Tolerates herbicides; resists insects
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 85% herbicide-tolerant; 76% insect-resistant
Found in: Processed foods, such as crackers and cereals; corn on the cob; livestock feed

Cotton

Trait: Tolerates herbicides; resists insects
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 82% herbicide-tolerant; 75% insect-resistant
Found in: Processed foods, including salad dressings; livestock feed

Papaya

Trait: Resists ringspot virus
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: More than 50%
Found in: Whole fruit and other products

Rapeseed

Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: More than 50%
Found in: Canola oil; processed foods

Soy

Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 93%
Found in: Processed foods, such as cereals and breads; food additives, such as lecithin; livestock feed

Squash

Trait: Resists various viruses
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 12%
Found in: Whole vegetables and other products

Sugar beets*

Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 95%
Found in: Refined sugar

Wine

Certain wine yeasts have been modified to make wine production easier, and prevent the production of harmful fermentation byproducts. One example is yeast strain ML01 in the U.S., which prevents the production of histamines that can trigger headaches. It also improves flavor and color.

*No modified proteins remain in the final product.

The Future Of GMOs: Gene Editing

Today's most common GMO technology, recombinant DNA, inserts genes into a plant's cells via bacteria or specialized delivery tools, but it involves some trial and error. A new method called gene editing uses enzymes to snip out a specific bit of DNA to either delete it or replace it. This allows for more precise changes to a plant's genome. Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley are already working with it to create virus-resistant cassava.

Gene editing may also provide fodder for fresh controversy. Current GMO methods leave a trace behind-for example, a bit of the DNA from bacterium used to insert new genes. The enzymes used in gene editing don't leave such a fingerprint, so future genetically modified plants will be harder to detect with tests.
This article originally appeared in the July 2014 issue of_ Popular Science_. Note (7/17/2014, 6:30pm EDT): Due to an editor's mistake, a previous version of this story misstated several details about genetically modified wines and cheeses. We regret the error.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO Facts: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified organisms have become the world's most controversial food. The science is clear-cut. Read on.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Scientists Finally Figured Out How to Make Tomatoes Taste Good Again” by Mary BethGriggs

# data[].attributes.subject
“Scientists Finally Figured Out How to Make Tomatoes Taste Good Again” by Mary BethGriggs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just as there is nothing better than biting into a raw, ripe tomato picked from the heirloom plant in your backyard, there is nothing worse than the mealy, watery, flavorless slice of tomato that so many people settle for everyday on sandwiches around the world.

In a paper published today in Science, researchers announced that they've figured out which genes control the complexities of tomato flavor, and say that they can re-introduce flavor to the commercially-grown tomatoes of the world. Researchers have known for a while that favoring shape, size, and stability in commercial tomato varieties has led to a loss of taste, but now there might be a way to fix it.

Biologist Harry Klee of the University of Florida has studied tomatoes for 22 years, and worked on this project with colleagues, including Denise Tieman, lead author of the study, since 2005. "This is a culmination of over a decade of asking one very difficult question; what is flavor?" Klee says.

Klee and his colleagues conducted extensive research, performing taste tests on 101 varieties of tomato, and chemical and genetic analysis on 398 different varieties -from tiny, sweet, wild varieties, to multi-colored heirlooms, to the commercially-favored modern tomatoes grown primarily for their yield, size, and ability to be shipped the long distances from field to supermarket.

Unlike other fruits, like bananas, there's no one volatile compound or chemical that screams 'tomato'. "What we found is if you look at what is flavor in a tomato, it's a cumulative thing. I draw the analogy to a symphony; it's a lot of notes and instruments that come together," Klee says. He and his colleagues identified 13 different volatile compounds in heirloom and wild varietals that weren't present in the more modern tomato plants, then identified the genes that controlled those compounds.

The hope is that they can reverse-engineer flavor back into the tomatoes by cross-breeding existing tomato plants. Of course, flavor is complicated, and there's no accounting for taste.

"Culture actually has a huge impact on our taste preferences," Klee says. "I'm extremely worried that we're raising generations of young people who have never experienced a really good tomato."

When an undergraduate working on the project selected a supermarket-bought tomato from the taste-test lineup as her favorite, saying that it was just like the tomatoes her mother bought, Klee was exasperated.

"I just left," Klee says with a laugh. "I thought, my god, what have we done?"

If you're a tomato fan and think that tasting tomatoes all day sounds like the best job in the world, be warned; there is such a thing as tomato fatigue. "In all honesty, I'm kind of sick of eating plain tomatoes," Klee says. He still loves cooked tomatoes, caprese salads, and the flavor of a raw tomato with a sprinkle of salt. But in flavor tests, the researchers must eat the fruits in their purest state. "To me, eating an unadulterated tomato isn't so much fun anymore," Klee says.

Nonetheless, the research will continue. Klee and colleagues are already working on the breeding program that will eventually create a more flavorful tomato. "If we choose our genes wisely, which I think we have, I think we can deliver a product that tastes substantially better in about two years," Klee says. It might take an additional year or so for growers to start adopting the plant, but Klee hopes that it could get out to the public in three years.

Klee points out that it could be done even faster with genetic engineering, simply snipping out the desired genes and putting them in a modern tomato plant. "To some extent the anti-GMO movement-even though I am strongly opposed to it-they have kind of won the battle in the sense they've priced out people like me. It's too expensive," Klee says. He estimates that it would cost millions of dollars and the legwork of overcoming multiple regulatory hurdles to bring a genetically modified tomato to the public, even if the end product is the same as the one he would get by breeding tomato plants. Instead, he's slogging through a traditional breeding process similar to the ones that Gregor Mendel used in the 1800s. Klee does have some technology that Mendel didn't. Once the new plants are bred, Klee and colleagues can quickly do genetic tests on the resulting plants and figure out if the plant has inherited the desired flavor traits, no taste-test required.

Klee applauds tomato breeders for doing an excellent job in selecting out the traits that the market demands, and hopes to ultimately make their lives easier. "The ultimate goal here is we want everyone to use this technology," Klee says. He hopes that this research will serve as a toolkit for any breeder who wants to improve flavor while keeping the size, sturdiness, and yield prized by growers.

But making the more flavorful tomato is only the first step. Consumers, known to gravitate towards the least expensive option, will have to vote with their wallets to keep flavorful tomato options on market shelves.

"The next time you're in the store, you might consider paying a little more for a more flavorful tomato," Klee says. If you do, you might find that the tomatoes of the future taste a little sweeter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists finally figured out how to make tomatoes taste good again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just as there is nothing better than biting into a raw, ripe tomato picked from the heirloom tomato plant in your backyard, there is nothing worse than the mealy, watery, flavorless slice of tomato that so many people settle for everyday on sandwiches around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Breeding a Grape that Tastes Just Like Cotton Candy to Capture consumers”

# data[].attributes.subject
“Breeding a Grape that Tastes Just Like Cotton Candy to Capture consumers”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
“GMOs Are Safe, But Don’t Always Deliver On Promises, Top Scientists Say” by DanCharles

# data[].attributes.subject
“GMOs Are Safe, But Don’t Always Deliver On Promises, Top Scientists Say” by DanCharles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs Are Safe, But Don’t Always Deliver On Promises, Top Scientists Say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report from the National Academy of Sciences knocked down some pro-GMO claims, such as that they’ve boosted crop yields, and urged federal agencies to change the way these foods are regulated.

# data[].attributes.headline
“How to Make a Tastier Tomato” by Seth Borenstein

# data[].attributes.subject
“How to Make a Tastier Tomato” by Seth Borenstein

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As of Monday, October 24, content that was on TweenTribune.com will now be available here on our new educational resources page and on our learning pages. While much of the content that you enjoyed will still exist, educators will unfortunately no longer be able to assign content to students. Tween Tribune has been a valued educational brand of Smithsonian magazine, and we appreciate your continued support.

Though the Girl Scouts of the USA initially declared itself a space for all girls, the reality was different for girls of color

Erin Blakemore

Get Smithsonian Educational Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As of Monday, October 24, content that was on TweenTribune.com will now be available here on our new educational resources page and on our learning pages. While much of the content that you enjoyed will still exist, educators will unfortunately no longer be able to assign content to students.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Chinese Company Edits Pig DNA, Develops Piglets that will Stay Pet-sized” by LosAngeles Times

# data[].attributes.subject
“Chinese Company Edits Pig DNA, Develops Piglets that will Stay Pet-sized” by LosAngeles Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Genetically Modified Salmon: Food or ‘Frankenfish’?” by Monique Conrod

# data[].attributes.subject
“Genetically Modified Salmon: Food or ‘Frankenfish’?” by Monique Conrod

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Modified Salmon: Food or 'Frankenfish'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is this new super-sized salmon real food? (kid-friendly news)

# data[].attributes.headline
“GMO Crops Don’t Harm Human Health, Report Says” by Justin Worland

# data[].attributes.subject
“GMO Crops Don’t Harm Human Health, Report Says” by Justin Worland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO Crops Don't Harm Human Health, Report Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically engineered crops pose no additional risks to humans and the environment compared to conventional crops, according to a report.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Food Labels May Get More Complicated” by Los Angeles Times

# data[].attributes.subject
“Food Labels May Get More Complicated” by Los Angeles Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Improve your students' reading comprehension with ReadWorks. Access thousands of high-quality, free K-12 articles, and create online assignments with them for your students.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Potato Company Engineers Spuds that are Resistant to Late Blight Disease” by AssociatedPress

# data[].attributes.subject
“Potato Company Engineers Spuds that are Resistant to Late Blight Disease” by AssociatedPress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
“‘Super Sniffer’ Mice Engineered For Ultra-Powerful Sense of Smell” by Kate Baggaley

# data[].attributes.subject
“‘Super Sniffer’ Mice Engineered For Ultra-Powerful Sense of Smell” by Kate Baggaley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rats already help us find hidden explosives. Genetically engineering rodents to have an extra-strong sense of smell may upgrade this skill. APOPO via Wikimedia Commons

Scientists have just given rodents' already formidable noses a boost. A team in New York City has genetically engineered mice that can pick up scents way below the concentrations normal rodents can detect. These "super sniffer" mice have extra sensors for certain smells, and could one day sniff out explosives, smuggled cargo, or illness.

"We have these millions-of-years-old receptors that are highly tuned to detect chemicals," coauthor Paul Feinstein, of Hunter College, said in a statement. "We think we can develop them into tools and use them to detect disease."

Mammalian noses are packed with these tiny receptors, which are specialized to pick up different scents. Mice have about 1,200 genes that code for odor receptors (humans only have 350). Each of the millions of sensory neurons in the nose hosts a single receptor.

Super sniffer mice are designed to have more receptors focused on a particular smell. Scientists slipped these "MouSensor" mice extra copies of a string of DNA they'd designed to tweak the animals' developing neurons. The upshot: more neurons would end up with a given type of receptor. In one group of mice, about 1 to 2 percent of receptors were the type that detects acetophenone, a chemical that smells like jasmine. Another group dedicated 13 percent of their neurons to hosting receptors that pick up the minty scent of carvone.

The team used fluorescent imaging to confirm that the extra receptors were in working order. The mice were then tested to see whether these bonus sensors actually enhance their sense of smell. The rodents learned to associate whichever smell they had extra receptors for with an injection and stomachache. The mice could choose to sip from water that was either pure or doctored with chemicals bearing that same smell.

The mice with extra receptors for acetophenone were about twice as adept as normal mice at detecting (and spurning) trace amounts of the chemical. The carvone group was fully 100 times more sensitive to carvone than regular mice.

The scientists think they can drive the mice's threshold for picking up different smells even lower. "We're not sure where the break point is, the point of diminishing returns," Feinstein told Science.

Rodents and dogs have been lending us their noses for years to detect mines and disease. The scientists think that their new technique might make these animals even better at their jobs. "Training of these MouSensors, or for that matter, Rat or DogSensors, in odor-detection tasks will be significantly shorter and more efficient," wrote the authors, who published the findings July 7 in Cell Reports.

The team also hopes that the MouSensors will help shed light on how our sense of smell works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Super Sniffer' Mice Engineered For Ultra-Powerful Sense of Smell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Super sniffer" mice have extra sensors for certain smells, and could one day sniff out explosives, smuggled cargo, or illness.

# data[].attributes.headline
GMOs: Facts About Genetically Modified Food

# data[].attributes.subject
GMOs: Facts About Genetically Modified Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is an organism that has had its DNA altered or modified in some way through genetic engineering.

# data[].attributes.headline
What’s Wrong With Our Food System - Birke Baehr

# data[].attributes.subject
What’s Wrong With Our Food System - Birke Baehr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's Begin...

11-year-old Birke Baehr presents his take on a major source of our food -- far-away and less-than-picturesque industrial farms. Keeping farms out of sight promotes a rosy, unreal picture of big-box agriculture, he argues, as he outlines the case to green and localize food production. (Filmed atTEDxNextGenerationAshevillen.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's wrong with our food system - Birke Baehr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
11-year-old Birke Baehr presents his take on a major source of our food -- far-away and less-than-picturesque industrial farms. Keeping farms out of sight promotes a rosy, unreal picture of big-box agriculture, he argues, as he outlines the case to green and localize food production. (Filmed atTEDxNextGenerationAshevillen.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can you think of some possible risks of growing plants that contain genes from other organisms? Let's examine our earlier examples: the beetle-resistant tomato, the vaccination banana, and the saltwater rice plant. We've already covered the potential advantages of these plants, but what are the concerns?

Cross-breeding with wild populations. For all of these examples, a primary concern is preventing genetically modified versions from mixing with the naturally existing populations of plants from which they're derived. Plants rely on the transfer of pollen, via insects or the air, to breed and produce offspring, and it's difficult to control how they cross-breed in the wild.

In most cases, it's not yet clear how introduction of the non-native gene would affect wild populations. Critics of genetically modified plant technology cite the need to learn more about the potential long-term impacts of genetically modified plants on the environment before mass-producing them.

Toxicity or allergic reactions. Many people suffer from allergies to various food items, including nuts, wheat, eggs, or dairy products. There is concern that the protein products of introduced genes may be toxic or allergenic to certain individuals.

When farmers start growing genetically modified crops, they stop growing the old varieties. These old varieties are important sources of diverse genes that give plants other desirable characteristics. For example, a new pest or disease could come along and destroy the genetically modified rice. If one of the old rice varieties has a gene that makes it resistant, it could be cross-bred to make the saltwater rice resistant as well. If we lose the old varieties, we also lose their useful genes.

It has been estimated that 70% of all processed foods in the United States contain at least one genetically modified ingredient-usually a product of soy plants. There are initiatives afoot to require food manufacturers to provide clear labeling on processed food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. This would make it easier for people with allergies to avoid foods that might pose a danger to them, and it would allow those who oppose genetically modified foods to opt out of buying them.

Unlike countries such as Australia and Japan, the United States currently has no laws requiring companies to label products containing genetically modified ingredients.

Despite the controversy surrounding them, genetically modified plants have taken root in our world. As with any new technology, members of society have the responsibility to become informed about genetically modified plants, in order to make decisions about their responsible use and regulation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can you think of some possible risks of growing plants that contain genes from other organisms? Let's examine our earlier examples: the beetle-resistant tomato, the vaccination banana, and the saltwater rice plant. We've already covered the potential advantages of these plants, but what are the concerns? Cross-breeding with wild populations.

# data[].attributes.headline
“From Farm to Lab to Table, a Tale of Tomatoes and a Top Banana” by Washington Post

# data[].attributes.subject
“From Farm to Lab to Table, a Tale of Tomatoes and a Top Banana” by Washington Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overview of the Process of Plant Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.subject
Overview of the Process of Plant Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The improvement of crops with the use of genetics has been occurring for years. Traditionally, crop improvement was accomplished by selecting the best looking plants/seeds and saving them to plant for the next years crop.

Once the science of genetics became better understood, plant breeders used what they knew about the genes of a plant to select for specific desirable traits. This type of genetic modification, called traditional plant breeding, modifies the genetic composition of plants by making crosses and selecting new superior genotype combinations. Traditional plant breeding has been going on for hundreds of years and is still commonly used today.

Plant breeding is an important tool, but has limitations. First, breeding can only be done between two plants that can sexually mate with each other. This limits the new traits that can be added to those that already exist in that species. Second, when plants are mated, (crossed), many traits are transferred along with the trait of interest including traits with undesirable effects on yield potential.

Genetic engineering is a new type of genetic modification. It is the purposeful addition of a foreign gene or genes to the genome of an organism. A gene holds information that will give the organism a trait. Genetic engineering is not bound by the limitations of traditional plant breeding. Genetic engineering physically removes the DNA from one organism and transfers the gene(s) for one or a few traits into another. Since crossing is not necessary, the 'sexual' barrier between species is overcome. Therefore, traits from any living organism can be transferred into a plant. This method is also more specific in that a single trait can be added to a plant.

The process of genetic engineering requires the successful completion of a series of five steps. Step 1: DNA Extraction

Step 2 : Gene Cloning
The second step of the genetic engineering process is gene cloning. During DNA extraction, all of the DNA from the organism is extracted at once. Scientists use gene cloning to separate the single gene of interest from the rest of the genes extracted and make thousands of copies of it.

Step 3 : Gene Design
Once a gene has been cloned, genetic engineers begin the third step, designing the gene to work once inside a different organism. This is done in a test tube by cutting the gene apart with enzymes and replacing gene regions that have been seperated./span>

The modified gene is now ready for the fourth step in the process, transformation or gene insertion. Step 4 : Transformation

The new gene is inserted into some of the cells using various techniques. Some of the more common methods include the gene gun, agrobacterium, microfibers, and electroporation. The main goal of each of these methods is to transport the new gene(s) and deliver them into the nucleus of a cell without killing it. Transformed plant cells are then regenerated into transgenic plants. The transgenic plants are grown to maturity in greenhouses and the seed they produce, which has inherited the transgene, is collected. The genetic engineer's job is now complete. He/she will hand the transgenic seeds over to a plant breeder who is responsible for the final step.

Step 5 : Backcross Breeding
The fifth and final part of producing a genetically engineered crop is backcross breeding. Transgenic plants are crossed with elite breeding lines using traditional plant breeding methods to combine the desired traits of elite parents and the transgene into a single line. The offspring are repeatedly crossed back to the elite line to obtain a high yielding transgenic line. The result will be a plant with a yield potential close to current hybrids that expresses the trait encoded by the new transgene.

Want to learn more about the process of genetic engineering?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AgBiosafety at UNL - Biotech Basic The Preocess of Plant Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The improvement of crops with the use of genetics has been occurring for years. Traditionally, crop improvement was accomplished by selecting the best looking plants/seeds and saving them to plant for the next years crop. Once the science of genetics became better understood, plant breeders used what they knew about the genes of a plant to select for specific desirable traits.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Scientists Make a Better Potato” by Keith Ridler

# data[].attributes.subject
“Scientists Make a Better Potato” by Keith Ridler

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As of Monday, October 24, content that was on TweenTribune.com will now be available here on our new educational resources page and on our learning pages. While much of the content that you enjoyed will still exist, educators will unfortunately no longer be able to assign content to students. Tween Tribune has been a valued educational brand of Smithsonian magazine, and we appreciate your continued support.

Though the Girl Scouts of the USA initially declared itself a space for all girls, the reality was different for girls of color

Erin Blakemore

Get Smithsonian Educational Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As of Monday, October 24, content that was on TweenTribune.com will now be available here on our new educational resources page and on our learning pages. While much of the content that you enjoyed will still exist, educators will unfortunately no longer be able to assign content to students.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea” by The Editors

# data[].attributes.subject
“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea” by The Editors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea

By The Editors

This past June, Connecticut and Maine became the first states to pass bills requiring labels on all foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In November 2012 California voters rejected the similar Proposition 37 by a narrow majority of 51.4 percent. "All we want is a simple label/For the food that's on our table," chanted marchers before the elections. The issue, however, is in no way simple.

We have been tinkering with our food's DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms' genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health [see " The Truth about Genetically Modified Food "]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques-which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another-genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not. (The GMO-fearing can seek out "100 Percent Organic" products, indicating that a food contains no genetically modified ingredients, among other requirements.)

Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Americans who oppose genetically modified foods would celebrate a similar exclusion. Everyone else would pay a price. Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods-and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the "naturalness" of their products.

Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more. Recently published data from a seven-year study of Indian farmers show that those growing a genetically modified crop increased their yield per acre by 24 percent and boosted profits by 50 percent. These farmers were able to buy more food-and food of greater nutritional value-for their families.

To curb vitamin A deficiency-which blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half of them-researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Approximately three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice provides the recommended daily amount of vitamin A; several tests have concluded that the product is safe. Yet Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations have used misinformation and hysteria to delay the introduction of Golden Rice to the Philippines, India and China.

More such products are in the works, but only with public support and funding will they make their way to people's plates. An international team of researchers has engineered a variety of cassava-a staple food for 600 million people-with 30 times the usual amount of beta-carotene and four times as much iron, as well as higher levels of protein and zinc. Another group of scientists has created corn with 169-fold the typical amount of beta-carotene, six times as much vitamin C and double the folate.

At press time, GMO-label legislation is pending in at least 20 states. Such debates are about so much more than slapping ostensibly simple labels on our food to satisfy a segment of American consumers. Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.

This article was originally published with the title "Fight the GM Food Scare" in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 309 No. 3 (), p. 10
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0913-10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic engineering - Variation - AQA - GCSE Biology (Single Science) Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revise how variation in species can be generated by genetics and environmental influences for GCSE Biology, AQA.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Florida mom sues food maker over ‘natural’ label on Goldfish snacks” by Sun Sentinel

# data[].attributes.subject
“Florida mom sues food maker over ‘natural’ label on Goldfish snacks” by Sun Sentinel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
“There’s No Getting Around It: The New Chipotle Ad Is Amazing” by Neetzan Zimmerman

# data[].attributes.subject
“There’s No Getting Around It: The New Chipotle Ad Is Amazing” by Neetzan Zimmerman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There's No Getting Around It: The New Chipotle Ad Is Amazing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's being called "the most beautiful, haunting infomercial you'll ever see."

# data[].attributes.headline
Ancient DNA Could Return Passenger Pigeons to the Sky

# data[].attributes.subject
Ancient DNA Could Return Passenger Pigeons to the Sky

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertisement

The last lonely bird of a species that once numbered three billion or more died on September 1, 1914. Martha, as she was known, had been the last passenger pigeon since her mate George died in 1910. The last of a social species, she lived out her days in solitary confinement in a cage in the Cincinnati Zoo. Her corpse-stuffed and primped-can now be seen at the Smithsonian Institution.

But what if the passenger pigeon could be brought back?

That's the idea behind de-extinction. Take DNA harvested from specimens stuffed in museum drawers, like Martha. Figure out which genes matter and then use the fast growing field of genetic engineering to edit the DNA of a closely related species into some version of the extinct species. If all goes well, a chimera of the long-lost Martha could be born and, one day, flocks of passenger pigeons could be restored to the regrown eastern North American woodlands.

Would-be de-extinction pioneer Ben Novak is working at the University of California, Santa Cruz, to make this exact scenario come true. A joint venture between the Revive and Restore effort of The Long Now Foundation (an organization dedicated to long-term thinking) and the ancient DNA lab at U.C. Santa Cruz, Novak's effort is focused on acquiring genetic information from stuffed passenger pigeons and sequencing the genome of the closely related band-tailed pigeon. So far, 32 samples have had the genetic code in their mitochondria sequenced. All of the samples come from birds killed between 1860 and 1898, according to Novak. "That's right in the range when the bird was going extinct," he notes.

Outside efforts have helped as well, including nearly complete sequencing of three individuals that showed passenger pigeons have been through booms and busts before. "If passenger pigeons survived through several population bottlenecks during their evolutionary history, perhaps we don't need to create billions of them in order for their populations to be sustainable," notes paleogenomicist Beth Shapiro of U.C. Santa Cruz, whose lab hosts Novak and this effort.

"All of our birds are all very, very similar to each other-like everybody being cousins, essentially-which is the effect of this recent rapid population expansion," Novak adds. "What we're really interested in is figuring out when that population expansion happened."

If the population explosion happened more than 400 years ago, then it is unlikely that the European arrival in North America precipitated the boom that produced billions of birds, as some have suggested. To figure out when the last boom occurred will require finding DNA from fossil samples thousands of years old-a few of which Novak has begun to examine. With ancient samples and those from the 19th century, Novak and his peers could begin to piece together the actual ecology of the bird in the wild. And understanding how the passenger pigeon existed makes it more likely people could bring the bird back and have the species thrive in the woods that are available today as well as in the future as the climate changes. "Nothing in the data so far to shout at us to turn back now and not bring back the passenger pigeon," Novak says.

The team has not yet completed the band-tailed pigeon sequencing required to begin resurrecting the passenger pigeon, but experiments in cell cultures from the band-tailed pigeon may begin as soon as next year, Novak says. This work would be similar to experiments being done at Harvard Medical School to see if the woolly mammoth might be resurrected through its still living relative, the Asian elephant. And the passenger pigeon work may be helped along by similar germ cell efforts in the chicken and houbara bustard-a rare bird prized by oil sheikhs with the funds to attempt a genetic rescue.

If cell cultures thrive and genetic engineering works, the only remaining challenge would then be to teach the resulting hybrid band-tailed and passenger pigeons how to be passenger pigeons. This will likely even more challenging than the genetic work, given experience from rearing California condors with puppets or teaching cranes to migrate with ultralight airplanes. That's why Revive and Restore, for one, is not putting all its de-extinction eggs in the passenger pigeon basket (as it were). The foundation-funded outfit might undertake a similar effort to revive the heath hen in Martha's Vineyard, if they can get funding from outside donors. But, assuming breeding, sequencing and cell-culture experiments go well, birds that carry the now extinct genes of the passenger pigeon could be flapping around a California facility by the end of the decade, according to Novak.

These de-extinction projects may prove too ambitious, however. Similar efforts that stretch back 30 years have so far failed to produce a quagga, an extinct species of zebra, although acquiring quagga genetics from museum specimens did kick off the entire ancient DNA field in 1984. And the 2003 experiment that resurrected a bucardo for seven minutes has yet to be repeated. Nevertheless, even the International Union for Conservation of Nature has set up a committee to examine how the genetics used for de-extinction might be used to preserve endangered animals and plants or bring them back if they die out.

De-extinction is not just for extinct species, after all. It could also be used to save a plant or animal that is on the verge of extinction. The black-footed ferret has been bred back from just seven viable individuals in the 1980s to thousands today, but the species may need a genetic transfusion to protect the new animals from the perils of inbreeding, which include reproductive problems, susceptibility to disease and genetic drift. So Revive and Restore has sequenced four ferret genomes, including two that had been stored in cell cultures from deep freeze at the Zoological Society of San Diego for the Frozen Ark Consortium, a global project to save the DNA and viable cells of endangered species. If genetic information from such frozen samples could be used to infuse robust genetics into a living population, it would be a first in the annals of conservation. "The northern white rhino has only four living individuals left. They are not viable," says Ryan Phelan of Long Now, who has petted the last individuals of this functionally extinct species. "Do we use genomic techniques and advanced genetic technology to keep that species alive or let it march over to the right on the continuum of extinction and become extinct?"

But there are advantages to work with an animal that is already extinct, not least of which is the absence of urgency. After all, Martha died 100 years ago. "If we succeed, the world gets a new organism," Novak says. "If we fail, we learn things that are valuable and the world isn't left with another extinct species."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

David Biello is a contributing editor at Scientific American. Follow David Biello on Twitter

Recent Articles by David Biello

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ancient DNA Could Return Passenger Pigeons to the Sky

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetic engineering could restore the once profuse North American bird after a century or more of extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A herbicide is a pesticide used to kill unwanted plants. Selective herbicides kill certain targets while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed. Some of these act by interfering with the growth of the weed and are often based on plant hormones. Herbicides used to clear waste ground are nonselective and kill every plant with which they come into contact.

History

The first widely used herbicide was 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, often abbreviated 2,4D. It first saw widespread production and use in the late 1940s. It is easy and inexpensive to manufacture, and kills many broadleaf plants while leaving grasses unaffected. Its low cost has led to continued usage today. Like other acid herbicides, current formulations utilize either an amine salt (usually triethyl amine) or ester of the base compound. These are easier to handle than the acid.

There are earlier examples of cultural controls, such as altering soil pH, salinity, or fertility levels to control weeds.

2,4D exhibits relatively poor selectivity, meaning that it causes stress to non-target plants. It is also less effective against some broadleaf weeds, including sedges and many vinous plants. Many other herbicides have been developed to address these limitations.

The 1970s saw the introduction of atrazine[?], which has the dubious distinction of being the herbicide of greatest concern for groundwater contamination.

Glyphosate[?], which is nonselective, was introduced in the late 1980s but did not become popular until the development of crop plants that were resistant to it. The pairing of the herbicide with the resistant seed led to the consolidation of the seed and chemistry industry in the late 1990s.

Uses

Herbicides are widely used in management of landscape turf and in agriculture. They are used in total vegetation control [tvc] programs for maintenance of way for highways and railroads. Relatively smaller quantities are used in forestry, pasture systems, and management of set-aside areas for wildlife habitat.

Classification of herbicides

Herbicides can be grouped by chemical family, mode of action, and type of vegetation controlled.

They are also classified by their activity:

Contact herbicides destroy only that plant tissue in contact with the chemical spray. Generally, these are the fastest acting herbicides. They are ineffective on perennial plants that are able to re-grow from roots or tubers.

Systemic herbicides are foliar-applied and are translocated through the plant and destroy a greater amount of the plant tissue.

Soil-borne herbicides are applied to the soil and are taken up by the roots of the target plant.

Pre-emergent herbicides are applied to the soil and prevent germination or early growth of weed seeds.

Application

Most herbicides are applied as water-based sprays using ground equipment. Ground equipment varies in design, but the greatest number of acres is sprayed with self-propelled sprayers equipped with a long boom (typically 60-80 feet) with flat fan nozzles spaced about every 20". Towed, handheld, and even horse-drawn sprayers are also used.

Herbicides can also be applied aerially using helicopters or airplanes, and can be applied through irrigation systems ( chemigation[?]).

Terminology

Control is the destruction of unwanted weeds, or the damage of them to the point where they are no longer competitive with the crop

Suppression is incomplete control still providing some economic benefit, such as reduced competition with the crop

Crop Safety, for selective herbicides, is the relative absence of damage or stress to the crop. Most selective herbicides cause some visible stress to crop plants.

Some major herbicides in use today

Glyphosate[?], a systemic nonselective herbicide used in no-till burndown and for weed control in crops that are genetically modified to resist its effects

Paraquat[?], a nonselective contact herbicide used for no-till burndown and in aerial destruction of marijuana and coca plantings. More acutely toxic to people than any other herbicide in widespread commercial use.

2,4 D[?], a broadleaf herbicide in the phenoxy group used in turf and in no-till field crop production. Now mainly used in a blend with other herbicides that act as synergists.

clopyralid[?], another phenoxy herbicide used mainly in turf, rangeland, and for control of noxious thistles. Notorious for its ability to persist in compost.

metoalachlor[?], a pre-emergent herbicide widely used for control of annual grasses in corn and sorghum; has largely replaced atrazine[?] for these uses

dicamba[?], a persistent broadleaf herbicide active in the soil, used in turf and field corn

picloram[?], a phenoxy herbicide mainly used to control unwanted trees in pastures and edges of fields.

atrazine[?], a triazine herbicide used in corn and sorghum for control of broadleaf weeds and grasses

Other herbicides of historical interest

2,4,5T was a widely used broadleaf herbicide until the 1970s. The manufacturing process for 2,4,5T contaminates this chemical with trace amounts of dioxin, which is a human carcinogen. For this reason 2,4,5T is no longer used. It was largely been replaced by dicamba[?], which is still in widespread use.

Agent Orange was a herbicide blend used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War as a defoliant. It was a mixture of 2,4,5T, 2,4D, and picloram; because of dioxin contamination it caused serious illnesses in many veterans who were exposed to it.

See also; Weed control, weed, farming, agriculture, FIFRA[?]- Federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act (USA) (also covers herbicides despite the title), Organic farming, Organic gardening

External links

Manufacturers and distributors

http://www.dowagro.com

http://www.syngenta.com

http://www.basf.com

http://www.monsanto.com

Regulatory policy http://www.epa.gov

Usage statistics http://www.nass.usda.gov

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

# data[].attributes.headline
“The Battle Over GMOs” by Alessandra Potenza

# data[].attributes.subject
“The Battle Over GMOs” by Alessandra Potenza

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The New York Times Upfront — Alessandra Potenza

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 1990s, a bunch of gene jockeys brought the first genetically engineered food to market.  The business crashed but biotech science has flourished far beyond the produce aisle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
wheat photograph ©h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright ©2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova

# data[].attributes.headline
“NASA is hoping for potatoes to take root on Mars” by Dan Collyns

# data[].attributes.subject
“NASA is hoping for potatoes to take root on Mars” by Dan Collyns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Here’s what your food would look like if it weren’t genetically modified over millennia” by Tanya Lewis

# data[].attributes.subject
“Here’s what your food would look like if it weren’t genetically modified over millennia” by Tanya Lewis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic Literacy Project
Next time you bite into a slice of watermelon or a cob of corn, consider this: These familiar fruits and veggies didn't always look and taste this way.

Genetically modified foods, or GMOs, inspire strong reactions nowadays, but humans have been tweaking the genetics of our favorite produce for millennia.

While GMOs may involve splicing genes from other organisms (such as bacteria) to give plants desired traits - like resistance to pests, selective breeding is a slower process whereby farmers select and grow crops with those traits over time.

From bananas to eggplant, here are some of the foods that looked totally different before humans first started growing them for food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's what your food would look like if it weren't genetically modified over millennia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Next time you bite into a slice of watermelon or a cob of corn, consider this: These familiar fruits and veggies didn't always look and taste this way. Genetically modified foods, or GMOs, inspire strong reactions nowadays, but humans have been tweaking the genetics of our favorite produce for millennia.