# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMO Corn

There is a great deal of misinformation out there regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). From monikers like "Frankenfoods" to general skepticism, there has been a variety of biased reactions to these organisms, even though we as a species have been genetically modifying our foods in one way or another for approximately 10,000 years. Perhaps some of this distrust will be put to rest with the emergence of a new meta-analysis that shows GM corn increases crop yields and provides significant health benefits.

The analysis, which was not limited to studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada, showed that GMO corn varieties have increased crop yields worldwide 5.6 to 24.5 percent when compared to non-GMO varieties. They also found that GM corn crops had significantly fewer (up to 36.5 percent less, depending on the species) mycotoxins - toxic chemical byproducts of crop colonization.

Some have argued that GMOs in the U.S. and Canada haven't increased crop yields and could threaten human health; this sweeping analysis proved just the opposite.

For this study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, a group of Italian researchers took over 6,000 peer-reviewed studies from the past 21 years and performed what is known as a "meta-analysis," a cumulative analysis that draws from hundreds or thousands of credible studies. This type of study allows researchers to draw conclusions that are more expansive and more robust than what could be taken from a single study.

Repairing Misinformation

There have been, for a variety of largely unscientific reasons, serious concern surrounding the effects of GMOs on human health. This analysis confirms that not only do GMOs pose no risk to human health, but also that they actually could have a substantive positive impact on it.

Mycotoxins, chemicals produced by fungi, are both toxic and carcinogenic to humans and animals. A significant percentage of non-GM and organic corn contain small amounts of mycotoxins. These chemicals are often removed by cleaning in developing countries, but the risk still exists.

GM corn has substantially fewer mycotoxins because the plants are modified to experience less crop damage from insects. Insects weaken a plant's immune system and make it more susceptible to developing the fungi that produce mycotoxins.

In their analysis, the researchers stated that this study allows us "to draw unequivocal conclusions, helping to increase public confidence in food produced with genetically modified plants."

While there will likely still be questions raised as GMOs are incorporated into agriculture, this analysis puts some severe concerns to rest. Additionally, this information might convince farmers and companies to consider the potential health and financial benefits of using genetically modified corn. Some are already calling this meta-analysis the "final chapter" in the GMO debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After two decades, scientists find GMOs in corn are good for you. Seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a great deal of misinformation out there regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). From monikers like "Frankenfoods" to general skepticism, there has been a variety of biased reactions to these organisms, even though we as a species have been genetically modifying our foods in one way or another for approximately 10,000 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new spreadsheet and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Sheets to edit Excel files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Goal 1: Check HK universities if they are doing GMO - interview

Goal 2: Go on a trip to a farm GMO or Organic

Goal 3: Finish all the questions

Goal 4: Make a DNA model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AP

Scientists are abuzz over a new technique that lets people edit the genes of practically any animal.

The method, known as CRISPR, holds the potential to fix genetic defects that cause disease in humans. And researchers are also experimenting with tweaking the genes of other animals. For example, you could modify mosquitoes to prevent them from spreading horrific diseases like malaria and dengue fever, or make agricultural crops resistant to pests.

But this could go terribly awry if one of these tweaked genes, which research suggests could spread through a population like wildfire, turned out to have unintended effects.

In a recent study, a team of scientists at Cornell University created a mathematical model for how quickly and extensively one of these modified genes spread through a population, a phenomenon known as gene drive.

Their findings were disturbing: It took only a few tens of generations for the tweaked gene to become widespread in a population. By comparison, a naturally occurring gene could take hundreds of generations to reach the same frequency, the researchers said.

Tinkering with nature

Normally when two animals reproduce, the offspring inherits two copies of a gene, one from each parent. But in previous research, scientists at UC San Diego figured out a way to use CRISPR in fruit flies to change one of these copies into the other, desired copy of the gene. The resulting flies got two copies of the desired gene, ensuring it would get passed on to any offspring they had.

In this way, the tweaked gene could rapidly spread through an entire population. That gene could be one that makes male mosquitoes sterile, for instance.

In nature, genetic mutations that cause changes in a single copy of a gene are almost always lost, because most mutations are bad, so any animal that gets two copies is unlikely to survive and reproduce. But the Cornell researchers found that under the right conditions, introducing a tweaked gene in one individual spread to the entire population almost one-third of the time.

This could have some horrific consequences.

For example, the gene might get into a population you don't want it in. Say we tweaked a gene in mosquitos carrying dengue fever to protect humans from the disease, but the modified gene somehow jumped into a related species and wiped it out. At worst, the gene could be transferred (by a mite or wasp) to honey bees, whose populations are already suffering from mysterious declines. If the gene ended up wiping out bees, suddenly we'd have a hard time pollinating our crops.

The technology is still very new, and we are just beginning to understand its possible consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CRISPR, the fancy new technology that lets people edit genes, could have an unprecedented and horrific consequence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists are abuzz over a new technique that lets people edit the genes of practically any animal. The method, known as CRISPR, holds the potential to fix genetic defects that cause disease in humans. And researchers are also experimenting with tweaking the genes of other animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been altered using genetic engineering methods. Although genetic engineering is a common and essential practice in biotechnology, its specific use in crops is controversial. The key steps involved in genetic engineering are identifying a trait of interest, isolating that trait, inserting that trait into a desired organism, and then propagating that organism. Methods for genetic manipulation have rapidly improved over the last century from simple selective breeding, to inserting genes from one organism into another, to more recent methods of directly editing the genome.

-

What qualifies as a GMO?

A common misconception is that any animal or plant considered to be outside the realm of our reference for "natural" is a GMO. Images of abnormally large cows and tomatoes come to mind. However, the scientific community and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use a stricter definition for a GMO: an animal or plant that has been created through genetic engineering [1]. Genetic engineering is a term used to describe biotechnological methods used by scientists to directly manipulate an organism's genome. Under this definition GMOs do not include plants or animals made by selective breeding, or animals modified by being given hormone supplements or antibiotics. In fact, we do not currently eat any meat products considered to be GMOs, although farm animals may be fed a genetically modified crop [2].

The main goal of the majority of genetic engineering performed on food is to increase crop yield and/or to improve the nutrient value in animal feed. No genetically engineered crops on the market in the United States have been modified to be unusually large (Table 1). Pictures of extremely large vegetables used to support the "Franken-food" image of GMOs are probably not GMOs at all; an unusually large vegetable would more likely be created through less controversial methods of selective breeding or nutrient supplements, not genetic engineering.

The process of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering is widely used in biological research. Mouse models are engineered for biomedical studies, bacteria are engineered to produce medications such as insulin, and crops are engineered for agriculture. All of these products of genetic engineering were created using the same basic steps: identifying a trait of interest, isolating that genetic trait, inserting that trait into the genome of a desired organism, and then growing the engineered organism (Figure 1). These steps are explained in detail below, using examples from Monsanto as the details of their technologies are publicly available. Other major companies such as Syngenta, BASF, Dow, Bayer, and Du Pont use similar methods, as outlined in brief on their respective websites [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Step 1: Identify a trait of interest
In order to identify a desirable new trait scientists most often look to nature. Successful discovery of a new genetic trait of interest is often a combination of critical thinking and luck. For example, if researchers are searching for a trait that would allow a crop to survive in a specific environment, they would look for organisms that naturally are able to survive in that specific environment. Or if researchers are aiming to improve the nutritional content of a crop, they would screen a list of plants that they hypothesize produce a nutrient of interest.

An example of a trait currently in GMOs that was identified through this combination of luck and critical thinking is tolerance to the herbicide Roundup (see this article). Monsanto created "Roundup Ready" plants after finding bacteria growing near a Roundup factory that contained a gene that allowed them to survive in the presence of the herbicide [8]. Although it is not on the market in the United States, Syngenta has designed Golden Rice with an increased amount of pro-vitamin A, which the human body may turn into the vitamin A (see this article). Researchers at Syngenta identified the gene sequence that produces pro-vitamin A and compiled a list of plants to screen with that sequence [9]. With a little luck, there was a plant in nature, maize, that contained a gene that would make Golden Rice produce pro-vitamin A at a level that could meet the nutritional needs of vitamin A deficient communities.

Step 2: Isolate the genetic trait of interest
Comparative analysis is used to decode what part of an organism's genetic makeup contains the trait of interest. The genomes of plants with the trait are compared to genomes in the same species without the trait, with the goal of identifying genes present only in the former [8]. The genomes of different species with the same trait may also be compared in order to identify a gene, as was the case while developing Golden Rice [9]. If there is no database of genetic information for comparison, scientists will purposefully delete, or "knock out," parts of the genome of interest until the desired trait is lost, thereby identifying the genes that lead to the trait.

In order to expedite this process, Monsanto has developed and patented a method known as seed chipping [8]. Through this method Monsanto shaves off parts of seeds for high-throughput genetic sequencing while leaving the rest of the seeds viable for planting. This creates a genetic database for plants before they are even grown, where a barcode system is used to match plants to their genotypes. Researchers may then use this database to identify new traits of interest as well as to optimize the desirable traits in a crop by selecting for the best genotypes based on plant phenotypes.

Step 3: Insert the desired genetic trait into a new genome
Altering the genome of plant seeds is difficult due to their rigid structure. Many biotech companies use "gene guns" that shoot metal particles coated with DNA into plant tissue with a .22-caliber charge [8]. Monsanto no longer uses gene guns, but instead takes advantage of bacteria, called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, that naturally invade seeds and alter plants by inserting pieces of their own DNA into a plant's genome.

In biotechnology research it is common to genetically engineer bacteria to produce a desired protein. This is done by using enzymes to cut and paste a DNA strand of interest into a plasmid, which is a small, circular molecule of DNA [10]. Bacteria are then shocked using heat or electricity so that the cells accept the engineered plasmid. By modifying A. tumefaciens, which is easier to modify than plant seeds themselves, researchers may use the bacteria's naturally invasive behavior as a Trojan horse for inserting desirable traits into a crop's genome.

Step 4: Growing the GMO
After a genetic trait has been successfully inserted into an organism's genome, the modified organism must then be able to grow and replicate with its newly engineered genome. First, the genotype of the organisms must be checked so that researchers are only propagating organisms in which the genome was modified correctly.

Biotech companies invest large sums into keeping these plants alive and reproducing once they have been successfully created. The companies use special climate-controlled growth chambers, and biologists often check on the plants by hand to make sure that they are growing as expected [8].

During this process biotech companies will use automated machines, such as Monsanto's GenV planter, in order to track plants and calculate optimal seeding and growth conditions to create the best possible yields. GMO seeds often come with instructions on spacing and nutrition that result from these studies.

Future directions for the creation of GMOs

Humans' ability to modify crops for improved yields and nutrients in a given environment is a keystone of agriculture. The technological advancement from selective breeding to genetic engineering has opened up a large realm of possibilities for the future of our food. As techniques for genetic engineering, such as new RNAi- and nuclease-based technologies that allow for direct modification of the genome (see this article and this article), steadily improve, our ability to create new GMOs will also grow [11]. As our scientific capabilities expand it is essential that we discuss the ethics and ideals surrounding GMOs so that we may effectively and safely use this technology in a way that is acceptable to the public.

Table 1. Summary of the FDA's Inventory of Completed Biotechnology Consultations on Genetically Engineered Foods as of June 30th, 2015. Crops listed in order of relative abundance of genetically engineered crop consultations (corn having the most consultations). This information is available to the public:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=Biocon
Chelsea Powell is a PhD student in the Chemical Biology Program at Harvard University.
This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.

References

1. "Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22 June 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
2. Cossins, Daniel. "Will We Ever Eat Genetically Modified Meat?" BBC. BBC, 9 Mar. 2015. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150309-will-we-ever-eat-gm-meat
3. http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/research-development/rdapproach/Pages/research-areas.aspx
4. https://www.basf.com/en/company/research/our-focus/plant-biotechnology.html
5. http://www.dowagro.com/innovation/
6. http://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/Products-and-Innovation/Research-and-Innovation.aspx
7. http://www.dupont.com/industries/agriculture.html
8. Boyle, Rebecca. "How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step." Popular Science. Popular Science, 24 Jan. 2011. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/life-cycle-genetically-modified-seed
9. Paine, Jacqueline A., Catherine A. Shipton, Sunandha Chaggar, Rhian M. Howells, Mike J. Kennedy, Gareth Vernon, Susan Y. Wright, Edward Hinchliffe, Jessica L. Adams, Aron L. Silverstone, and Rachel Drake. "Improving the Nutritional Value of Golden Rice through Increased Pro-vitamin A Content." Nature Biotechnology 23.4 (2005): 482-87. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15793573
10. "Genetic Engineering." BBC. BBC, 2015. Web. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zg2bkqt/revision/2
11. Hsu, Patrick D., Eric S. Lander, and Feng Zhang. "Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineering." Cell 157.6 (2014): 1262-278.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414006047
12. "Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties." Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties. FDA, 30 June 2015. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=Biocon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Chelsea Powell figures by Anna Maurer Summary: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been altered using genetic engineering methods. Although genetic engineering is a common and essential practice in biotechnology, its specific use in crops is controversial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A gene as a stretch of DNA on a chromosome. Alleles as versions (sequence variants) of a gene.

# 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.attachment_link.description
RESEARCH ORGANISERPLANNING YOUR RESEARCH Research Question: One ‘burning’ question I am hoping to answer How genetically modify food?  Predictions: A guess or two about what I think the answer may be (hypothesis) Find the gene that you want to insert the get the organism you want to inser...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are GMOs Good or Bad? Genetic Engineering & Our Food