# data[].attributes.body
Read this article for a lot of good info !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feed Your Mind is our new education initiative to help consumers better understand genetically engineered foods, commonly called GMOs or genetically modified organisms. en Español (Spanish)
GMO foods have been available to consumers since the early 1990s. Since then, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have worked to ensure that GMOs are safe for people, animals, and the environment.

Despite there being a wide range of foods-GMO and non-GMO-available to consumers, there is some confusion around what GMOs are and how they are used in our food supply.
GMOs 101: Your Basic Questions Answered
To help increase consumer understanding of GMOs, in 2017, Congress provided funding for an Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative, which calls upon FDA to work with EPA and USDA to share science-based educational information about GMOs, beginning with answers to some basic GMO questions.

What makes it a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering.

Learn more about Types of Genetic Modification Methods for Crops.

Is it called GMO or something else?

"GMO" has become the common term consumers and popular media use to describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering. This term is not generally used to refer to plants or animals developed with selective breeding, like the common garden strawberries available today that were created from a cross between a species native to North America and a species native to South America. While "genetic engineering" is the term typically used by scientists, you will start seeing the "bioengineered" label on some of the foods we eat in the United States because of the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

Did you know?

Bioengineered food is the term that Congress used to describe certain types of GMOs when they passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The Standard defines bioengineered foods as those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.

What GMO crops are out there?

Only a few types of GMO crops are grown in the United States, but some of these GMOs make up a large percentage of the crop grown (e.g., soybeans, corn, sugar beets, canola, and cotton).

In 2020, GMO soybeans made up 94% of all soybeans planted, GMO cotton made up 96% of all cotton planted, and 92% of corn planted was GMO corn.

Most GMO crops are used in food for animals like cows, chickens, and fish. They are also used to make ingredients that are then used in food products like cereal, snack chips, and vegetable oils. Even though you won't find many GMO fruits or vegetables in the produce section of your grocery store, GMOs are a common part of today's food supply.

Did you know?

As of 2017, GMO crops are grown in 24 countries around the world, such as Canada, Brazil, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. The approval process for GMO crops varies from country to country, but all regulations are based on the same objective that GMOs should be safe for human and animal health and the environment.

Why do we have GMOs?

Humans have used traditional ways to modify crops and animals to suit their needs and tastes for more than 10,000 years. Cross-breeding, selective breeding, and mutation breeding are examples of traditional ways to make these changes. These breeding methods often involve mixing all of the genes from two different sources. They are used to create common crops like modern corn varieties and seedless watermelon.

Modern technology now allows scientists to use genetic engineering to take just a beneficial gene, like insect resistance or drought tolerance, and transfer it into a plant. The reasons for genetic modification today are similar to what they were thousands of years ago: higher crop yields, less crop loss, longer storage life, better appearance, better nutrition, or some combination of these traits.

Do GMOs affect your health?

GMO foods are as healthful and safe to eat as their non-GMO counterparts. Some GMO plants have actually been modified to improve their nutritional value.

An example is GMO soybeans with healthier oils that can be used to replace oils that contain trans fats. Since GMO foods were introduced in the 1990s, research has shown that they are just as safe as non-GMO foods.

Additionally, research shows that GMO plants fed to farm animals are as safe as non-GMO animal food.

Do GMO plants reduce pesticide use?

Some GMO plants contain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) to make them resistant to insects, reducing the need for and use of many spray pesticides. As another safety measure, EPA works with developers and scientists to help develop GMOs that will resist insects for as long as possible through their Insect Resistance Management program. Other GMO plants are developed to tolerate certain weed killers, which allows farmers a wide variety of options for weed control. Some people are concerned that farmers who grow these GMOs will use more weed killer. While this is sometimes the case, EPA regulates the safety of all weed killers that farmers use on GMO crops and non-GMO crops alike. EPA also shares information to help farmers who are concerned about weeds developing resistance to weed killers.
How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond How GMO Crops Impact Our World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMO foods have been available to consumers since the early 1990s. Since then, the FDA, EPA, and USDA have worked together to ensure that crops produced through genetic engineering for sale to consumers are safe for people, animals, and the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
https://undark.org/2021/04/12/gmo-mosquitoes-to-be-released-florida-keys/

# data[].attributes.headline
Mrs. Meade - Starbucks and Plant-Based Milk

# data[].attributes.subject
Mrs. Meade - Starbucks and Plant-Based Milk

# data[].attributes.body
Read this article to find out what it has to do with GMOs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Starbucks Corp. is experiencing an oat-milk shortage at some of its locations, a testament to the growing popularity of plant-based foods of all kinds.

"Customers' response to the national launch of oat milk at Starbucks has been positive," the company said in a statement after media reports about some Starbucks locations running out of the nondairy item.

"As more customers return to our stores, some customers may experience a temporary shortage of oat milk at their store. We apologize for any inconvenience to the customer experience and recommend trying soy milk, almond milk or coconut milk. Customers will have oat milk available in their store soon."

Starbucks launched a crop of oat-milk beverages, including those made with the Oatly brand, nationwide on March 2. Customers were also given the option of adding Oatly to their drinks along with soy milk, coconut milk and almond milk. A regional launch of oat milk began in the Midwest in January 2020.

See: Chipotle takes another step closer to margin goals with steak price hike: Truist

Starbucks began offering nondairy milk alternatives in 1997 with soy milk.

Kevin Johnson, Starbucks' chief executive, noted the growing demand for plant-based products in his remarks during the January earnings announcement. Not only is the company providing plant-based milk, but plant-based foods, including the Impossible Sausage Breakfast Sandwich.

In Seattle, there's one location where the food menu is all plant-based.

"So if I think about both beverage and food, the No. 1 trend that I would highlight there is just the consumer shift in consumer preferences around plant-based," Johnson said during the earnings call, according to FactSet.

Starbucks stock has rallied 64.5% over the past year while the S&P 500 index is up 53.3% for the period.

Johnson isn't the only one who has noticed the growing taste for oat milk and other plant-based items.

Oatly confidentially filed to go public in late February. The company has big-name backers, including Oprah Winfrey.

According to data provided by the Plant Based Foods Association and the Good Food Institute, U.S. retail sales of plant-based foods jumped 27% in 2020 to $7 billion.

Also: Smoothies and salads: Kroger says these 4 items account for 28% of its produce sales

Plant-based milk is the largest plant-based category, with $2.5 billion in sales and 35% of the plant-based-food market. Almond milk accounts for about two-thirds of plant-based-milk sales by dollars spent. The groups say that the growth in plant-based milk has opened the door to other plant-based nondairy items, like yogurt and cheese.

Plant-based meat is the second largest plant-based category, with sales growing 45% in 2020 to reach $1.4 billion.

Among the brands in the plant-based meat category are Beyond Meat Inc. , which just opened its first manufacturing facility in China; Impossible Foods; and Incogmeato, a Morningstar Farms brand, which is part of the Kellogg Co. brand lineup.

Beyond Meat launched its first product for the Chinese market, Beyond Pork, in November 2020.

Market research company Forrester outlined a number of issues that the food industry is facing in a January report, including the need to feed a growing global population that is experiencing an upward economic shift; threats to food production due to environmental degradation and climate change; and health concerns as allergies, diabetes and obesity rise.

Plant-based-food makers say they are tackling these issues.

Don't miss: Olive Garden parent is raising wages for hourly workers as customers start dining in again

"As we stay true to our guiding principle of providing consumers with great-tasting plant-based meats, made without the use of GMOs, bioengineered ingredients, hormones, antibiotics or cholesterol, we believe we are on a path to building an enduring global protein company that advances a more sustainable meat supply chain, consumer health and the health of our planet," said Beyond Meat Chief Executive Ethan Brown in a statement accompanying the release of the company's February earnings.

The latest Piper Sandler "Taking Stock With Teens" survey of 9,800 U.S. teens found that the environment is one of the top three political/social issues that Gen Z is concerned about.

The other two were racial equality/Black Lives Matter and the 2020 election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Starbucks oat-milk shortage comes as sales of plant-based food soar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Starbucks Corp. is experiencing an oat-milk shortage at some of its locations, a testament to the growing popularity of plant-based foods of all kinds. "Customers' response to the national launch of oat milk at Starbucks has been positive," the company said in a statement after media reports about some Starbucks locations running out of the nondairy item.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

# data[].attributes.body
This is a short article but it has some good and easy to understand information.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/chipotle-and-the-gmo-debate/2015/05/04/5034e526-ef49-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are genetically modified organism (GMO) foods safe? Learn what the research says about the effects of GMO foods on human health and the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Video about Organic Food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a GMO? Under the Non-GMO Project Standard, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism to which biotechnology has been applied. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Are GMOs safe?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A genetically modified organism contains DNA that has been altered using genetic engineering. Genetically modified animals are mainly used for research purposes, while genetically modified plants are common in today’s food supply.

# data[].attributes.body
This article includes information about what foods contain GMO. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term "genetic modified organisms (GMO)" has become a controversial topic as its benefits for both food producers and consumers are companied by po...

# data[].attributes.body
This is a short video about GMO's and if they are bad or not. This video cites all their sources in the description if you want to check that out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

# data[].attributes.body
GMOs Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are genetically modified organism (GMO) foods safe? Learn what the research says about the effects of GMO foods on human health and the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Read this article to find out are GMOs safe for your health or not?
https://gmo.uconn.edu/topics/gmos-and-human-health/#

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feed Your Mind Main Page en Español (Spanish)
Am I eating foods that come from GMO crops?

It is very likely you are eating foods and food products that are made with ingredients that come from GMO crops. Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar. A few fresh fruit and vegetables are available in GMO varieties, including potatoes, summer squash, apples, papayas, and pink pineapples. Although GMOs are in a lot of the foods we eat, most of the GMO crops grown in the United States are used for animal food.

To make it easier for consumers to know if the foods they eat contain GMO ingredients, the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains a list of bioengineered foods available throughout the world. Additionally, you will start seeing the "bioengineered" label on some of the foods we eat because of the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

GMOs, Farm to Table

What GMO crops are in the United States?
Corn:
Corn is the most commonly grown crop in the United States, and most of it is GMO. Most GMO corn is created to resist insect pests or tolerate herbicides. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn is a GMO corn that produces proteins that are toxic to certain insect pests but not to humans, pets, livestock, or other animals. These are the same types of proteins that organic farmers use to control insect pests, and they do not harm beneficial insects, such as ladybugs. GMO Bt corn reduces the need for spraying insecticides while still preventing insect damage. While a lot of GMO corn goes into processed foods and drinks, most of it is used to feed livestock, like cows, and poultry, like chickens.
Soybean:
Most soy grown in the United States is GMO soy. Most GMO soy is used for food for animals, predominantly poultry and livestock, and making soybean oil. It is also used as ingredients (lecithin, emulsifiers, and proteins) in processed foods.
Cotton:
GMO cotton was created to be resistant to bollworms and helped revive the Alabama cotton industry. GMO cotton not only provides a reliable source of cotton for the textile industry, it is also used to make cottonseed oil, which is used in packaged foods and in many restaurants for frying. GMO cottonseed meal and hulls are also used in food for animals.
Potato:
Some GMO potatoes were developed to resist insect pests and disease. In addition, some GMO potato varieties have been developed to resist bruising and browning that can occur when potatoes are packaged, stored, and transported, or even cut in your kitchen. While browning does not change the quality of the potato, it often leads to food being unnecessarily thrown away because people mistakenly believe browned food is spoiled.
Papaya:
By the 1990s, ringspot virus disease had nearly wiped out Hawaii's papaya crop, and in the process almost destroyed the papaya industry in Hawaii. A GMO papaya, named the Rainbow papaya, was created to resist ringspot virus. This GMO saved papaya farming on the Hawaiian Islands.
Summer Squash:
GMO summer squash is resistant to some plant viruses. Squash was one of the first GMOs on the market, but it is not widely grown.
Canola:
GMO canola is used mostly to make cooking oil and margarine. Canola seed meal can also be used in food for animals. Canola oil is used in many packaged foods to improve food consistency. Most GMO canola is resistant to herbicides and helps farmers to more easily control weeds in their fields.
Alfalfa:
GMO alfalfa is primarily used to feed cattle-mostly dairy cows. Most GMO alfalfa is resistant to herbicides, allowing farmers to spray the crops to protect them against destructive weeds that can reduce alfalfa production and lower the nutritional quality of the hay.
Apple:
A few varieties of GMO apples were developed to resist browning after being cut. This helps cut down on food waste, as many consumers think brown apples are spoiled.
Sugar Beet:
Sugar beets are used to make granulated sugar. More than half the granulated sugar packaged for grocery store shelves is made from GMO sugar beets. Because GMO sugar beets are resistant to herbicides, growing GMO sugar beets helps farmers control weeds in their fields.
Pink Pineapple:
The GMO pink pineapple was developed to have pink flesh by increasing the levels of lycopene. Lycopene is naturally found in pineapples, and it is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink.

What about animals that eat food made from GMO crops?

Similarly, the DNA from GMO animal food does not make it into the meat, eggs, or milk from the animal. Research shows that foods like eggs, dairy products, and meat that come from animals that eat GMO food are equal in nutritional value, safety, and quality to foods made from animals that eat only non-GMO food.

Learn more about GMO Crops and Food for Animals.

Who makes sure animal food is safe?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safety of GMO and non-GMO food for animals. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine manages this responsibility. FDA requires that all food for animals, like food for human foods, be safe for animals to eat, be produced under clean conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be accurately labeled.

Are there GMO animals in the food supply?

Yes. FDA has approved an application allowing the sale of the AquAdvantage Salmon to consumers. The AquAdvantage Salmon has been genetically modified to reach an important growth point faster. FDA has also approved an alteration in the GalSafe pig for human food consumption and potential therapeutic uses. The GalSafe pig was developed to be free of detectable alpha-gal sugar on its cell surfaces. People with Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) may have allergic reactions to alpha-gal sugar found in red meat (e.g., beef, pork, and lamb). FDA has determined that food from the AquAdvantage Salmon and the GalSafe pig are as safe and nutritious to eat as food from non-GMO salmon and pigs.

Are GMOs used to make anything besides food?

When you hear the term "GMO" you probably think of food. However, techniques used to create GMOs are important in creating some medicines as well. In fact, genetic engineering, which is the process used to create GMOs, was first used to make human insulin, a medicine used to treat diabetes. Medicines developed through genetic engineering go through an in-depth FDA approval process. All medicines must be proven to be safe and effective before they are approved for human use. GMOs are also used in the textile industry. Some GMO cotton plants are used to create cotton fiber that is then used to make fabric for clothing and other materials.
How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar.

# data[].attributes.body
Brief video explaining GMO's and their pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO): the future? | AnyStory made by Cooler Media

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.foodnetwork.com/healthyeats/healthy-tips/2019/07/are-gmos-bad-you

# data[].attributes.body
Read this to learn more about GMO'S!
TEXT Link

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although most notable organizations and research suggest that GMO foods are safe and sustainable, some people claim they may harm your health and the environment.

GMOs, short for genetically modified organisms, are subject to a lot of controversy.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), GMO seeds are used to plant over 90% of all maize (corn), cotton, and soy grown in the United States, which means that many of the foods you eat likely contain GMOs ( 1).

This article helps explain what GMOs are, provides a balanced explanation of their pros and cons, and gives guidance on how to identify GMO foods.

"GMO," which stands for genetically modified organism, refers to any organism whose DNA has been modified using genetic engineering technology.

In the food industry, GMO crops have had genes added to them for various reasons, such as improving their growth, nutritional content, sustainability, pest resistance, and ease of farming ().

While it's possible to naturally give foods desirable traits through selective breeding, this process takes many generations. Also, breeders may struggle to determine which genetic change has led to a new trait.

Genetic modification significantly accelerates this process by using scientific techniques that give the plant the specific desired trait.

For example, one of the most common GMO crops is Bt corn, which is genetically modified to produce the insecticide Bt toxin. By making this toxin, the corn is able to resist pests, reducing the need for pesticides ().

GMO crops are incredibly common in the United States, with at least 90% of soy, cotton, and corn being grown through genetic techniques ().

While GMO crops make farming much easier, there is some concern around their potential effect on the environment and their safety for human consumption - specifically surrounding illnesses and allergies ().

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and USDA maintain that GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption ().

Summary
GMOs are food items that have been made using genetic engineering techniques. They comprise 90% of soy, cotton, and corn grown in the United States and are deemed safe for human consumption.

GMO foods may offer several advantages to the grower and consumer.

For starters, many GMO crops have been genetically modified to express a gene that protects them against pests and insects.

For example, the Bt gene is commonly genetically engineered into crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans. It comes from a naturally occurring bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis.

This gene produces a protein that is toxic to several pests and insects, which gives the GMO plants a natural resistance. As such, the GMO crops don't need to be exposed to harmful pesticides as often ().

In fact, a 2020 study asserts that GMO technology has reduced global chemical pesticide use by 8.3% and indirectly reduced greenhouse gas emissions because farmers don't need to spray their fields as often ().

Other GMO crops have been modified with genes that help them survive stressful conditions, such as droughts, and resist diseases like blights, resulting in a higher yield for farmers (, , ).

Together, these factors help lower the costs for the farmers and consumers because it allows a greater crop yield and growth through harsher conditions.

Additionally, genetic modification can increase the nutritional value of foods. For example, rice high in beta carotene, also called golden rice, was developed to help prevent blindness in regions where local diets are chronically deficient in vitamin A ().

Moreover, genetic modification may be used simply to enhance the flavor and appearance of foods, such as the non-browning apple ().

In addition, current research suggests that GMO foods are safe for consumption ().

Summary
GMO foods are easier and less costly for farmers to grow, which makes them cheaper for the consumer. GMO techniques may also enhance foods' nutrients, flavor, and appearance.

Although current research suggests that GMO foods are safe, there is some concern around their long-term safety and environmental impact ().

Here are some of the key concerns around GMO consumption.

Allergies

There is some concern that GMO foods may trigger an allergic reaction.

This is because GMO foods contain foreign genes, so some people worry that they harbor genes from foods that may prompt an allergic reaction.

A study from the mid-1990s found that adding a protein from Brazil nuts to GMO soybeans could trigger an allergic reaction in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. However, after scientists discovered this, they quickly abandoned this GMO food ().

Although allergy concerns are valid, there have been no reports of allergic reactions to GMO foods currently on the market.

According to the FDA, researchers who develop GMO foods run tests to ensure that allergens aren't transferred from one food to another ().

In addition, research has shown that GMO foods are no likelier to trigger allergies than their non-GMO counterparts ( 16).

Yet, if you have a soy allergy, both GMO and non-GMO soy products will prompt an allergic reaction.

Cancers

Similarly, there's a common concern that GMO foods may aid the progression of cancers.

Because cancers are caused by DNA mutations, some people fear that eating foods with added genes may affect your DNA.

This worry may stem partly from an early mice study, which linked GMO intake to a higher risk of tumors and early death. However, this study was later retracted because it was poorly designed (, , ).

Currently, no human research ties GMO intake to cancers, and there is no evidence that eating GMOs will change your DNA.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated that there's no evidence to link GMO food intake to an increased or decreased risk of cancer ().

All the same, no long-term human studies exist. Thus, more long-term human research is needed.

Other environmental and health concerns

Although GMO crops are convenient for farmers, there are environmental concerns.

Most GMO crops are resistant to herbicides, such as Roundup. This means that farmers can use Roundup without fear of it harming their own crops.

However, a growing number of weeds have developed resistance to this herbicide over time. This has led to even more Roundup being sprayed on crops to kill the resistant weeds because they can affect the crop harvest (, , 23).

Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate are subject to controversy because animal and test-tube studies have linked them to various diseases (, , ).

There is new evidence that glyphosate exposure may increase the relative risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma by 41% (, ).

There has also been concern that pollen from Bt crops may negatively impact honeybees, but there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence to support this yet (, , ).

That said, more long-term human research is necessary.

Summary
The main concerns around GMOs involve allergies, cancer, and environmental issues - all of which may affect the consumer. While current research suggests few risks, more long-term research is needed.

Although GMO foods appear safe for consumption, some people wish to avoid them. Still, this is difficult since most foods in your supermarket are made with ingredients from GMO crops.

GMO crops grown and sold in the United States include corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, papaya, pink pineapple, summer squash, and a few apple varieties ().

In the United States, no regulations currently mandate the labeling of GMO foods.

Yet, as of January 2022, the USDA requires food manufacturers to label all foods containing GMO ingredients ( 33).

That said, the labels won't say "GMO" but instead the term "bioengineered food." It will display either as the USDA bioengineered food symbol, listed on or near the ingredients, or as a scannable code on the package with directions, such as "Scan here for more information" ( 34).

Presently, some foods may have a third-party "Non-GMO project verified" label, which indicates that the product contains no GMOs. However, this label is voluntary.

It's also worth noting that any food labeled "100% organic" does not contain any GMO ingredients, because U.S. law prohibits this. However, if a product is simply labeled " organic," it may contain some GMOs ( 35, 36).

In the European Union (EU), foods with more than 0.9% GMO ingredients must list "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [name of food]." For foods without packaging, these words must be listed near the item, such as on the supermarket shelf ( 37).

Summary
As of 2022, the USDA requires that foods with GMO ingredients must be labeled "bioengineered food". You can avoid GMOs by limiting GMO ingredients, eating locally, or buying 100% organic.

GMOs are foods that have been modified using genetic techniques.

Most foods in your local supermarket contain GMO ingredients because they're easier and more cost-effective for farmers, which makes them cheaper for the consumer.

In the United States, foods grown using GMO techniques include corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, papaya, pink pineapple, summer squash, and a few varieties of apples.

Although current research suggests that GMO foods are safe for consumption, some people are concerned about their potential health effects. Due to a lack of long-term human studies, more research is needed.

As of 2022, all foods in the United States that contain GMO ingredients must have the term "bioengineered food" somewhere on the packaging or a scannable code to show that it has GMO ingredients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are very controversial. This article reviews the pros and cons of GMO foods, as supported by science.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/food-genetically-modified#:~:text=GM%20foods%20currently%20available%20on,where%20they%20have%20been%20approved.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a popular source in public forum debate...

https://www.procon.org/headlines/gmos-top-3-pros-and-cons/

# data[].attributes.body
Find out the GMO's Pros and Cons by reading this article!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMO foods are designed to be healthier and cheaper to produce.

Advantages of GMO foods include added nutrients, fewer pesticides, and cheaper prices.

Disadvantages of GMO foods can be allergic reactions or increased antibiotic resistance.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms that have had their genes altered in some way - also called "bioengineering."

GMOs can be animals or bacteria, but most often they are crops like corn or potatoes that have been tweaked in a lab to increase the amount or quality of food they produce.

There are many advantages of GMO crops, but some groups have raised concerns that GMOs may have negative health effects. Here's what you need to know about the pros and cons of GMO foods and whether you should avoid them.

What are GMOs?

Humans have been altering the genetics of plants for thousands of years through the slow process of cross-breeding between crops. Today, scientists can take a shortcut to modify plants by editing their DNA in a lab setting.

Chances are, you've eaten GMO foods without even realizing it - in 2018, around 92% of corn and 94% of soybeans grown in the US came from genetically modified seeds.

The process of creating a GMO plant is complex, but it follows these basic steps:

1. Researchers identify the genes in a plant that cause specific traits, such as resistance to insects.

2. They then make copies of these insect resistance genes in a lab.

3. Scientists next insert the gene copies into the DNA of another plant's cells.

4. These modified cells are then used to grow new, insect-resistant plants that will go through various reviews and tests before they are sold to farmers.

Pros of GMOs

"GMOs are designed to be extra - extra healthy, extra fast-growing, and extra resistant to weather or pests," says Megan L. Norris, PhD, a biomedical researcher at the UT Southwestern Medical Center.

Because scientists can select the most ideal traits to include in GMO crops, there are many advantages of modified foods, including:

GMOs may have fewer pesticides

Many GMO crops have been altered to be less vulnerable to insects and other pests. For example, Bt-corn is a GMO crop that has a gene added from Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil bacteria.

This gene causes the corn to produce a protein that kills many pests and insects, helping to protect the corn from damage. "Instead of having to be sprayed with a complex pesticide, these crops come with an innate 'pesticide'," Norris says.

This means that farmers don't need to use as much pesticide on crops like Bt-corn - a 2020 study found that farmers with GMO crops reduced their pesticide use by 775.4 million kilograms (8.3%) between 1996 and 2018.

Quick tip: The use of fewer pesticides in crops may lead to fewer health risks for people eating them and less damage to the environment.

GMOs are usually cheaper

GMO crops are bred to grow efficiently - this means that farmers can produce the same amount of food using less land, less water, and fewer pesticides than conventional crops.

Because they can save on resources, food producers can also charge lower prices for GMO foods. In some cases, the costs of foods like corn, beets, and soybeans may be cut by 15% to 30%.

GMOs may have more nutrients

Certain GMO crops are designed to provide more nutrients like vitamins or minerals. For example, researchers have been able to create a modified form of African corn that contains:

2 times as much folate when compared to traditional crops

6 times as much vitamin C when compared to traditional crops

169 times more beta-carotene than traditional crops

Important: This may be especially helpful in regions where people suffer from nutritional deficiencies.

Cons of GMOs

GMO crops can offer many advantages in costs and nutrition, but some experts worry that they carry health risks, as well.

GMOs may cause allergic reactions

Because GMO foods contain DNA from other organisms, it's possible that the new DNA can trigger allergies in people who wouldn't normally be allergic to the food.

In one instance, a GMO soybean crop created using DNA from a Brazil nut was unsafe for people with nut allergies and couldn't be released to the public.

However, GMO foods go through extensive allergen testing, so they shouldn't necessarily be riskier than conventional crops.

GMOs may increase antibiotic resistance

When GMO scientists insert new DNA into plant cells, they will often add in an additional gene that makes the modified cells resistant to antibiotics. They can then use an antibiotic to kill off any plant cells that didn't successfully take in the new DNA.

However, researchers are finding that these antibiotic-resistant genes don't always go away once you digest GMO foods, but can actually be passed through your feces into sewage systems. Some experts worry that these genes may be absorbed into harmful bacteria found in sewers or your gut that can cause serious illnesses like staph infections. This means that the usual antibiotic treatments would be powerless against these new super-bacteria.

Not all experts agree on this concern, however - some scientists argue that this type of gene transfer is very unlikely and there is little risk to humans.

Insider's takeaway

GMO crops have many advantages for your health, such as greater nutritional value and fewer pesticides. They may also be cheaper for farmers to grow, allowing for lower food prices.

Though there are possible risks, major agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency tightly regulate GMO foods and ensure that they are safe for people to eat. "I consume GMO products and feed them to my family without hesitation," Norris says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and cons of GMOs: An evidence-based comparison of genetically modified foods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMO foods are designed to be healthier and cheaper to produce. Advantages of GMO foods include added nutrients, fewer pesticides, and cheaper prices. Disadvantages of GMO foods can be allergic reactions or increased antibiotic resistance. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms that have had their genes altered in some way - also called "bioengineering."

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article that states the pros and cons of GMO food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMO foods are designed to be healthier and cheaper to produce.

Advantages of GMO foods include added nutrients, fewer pesticides, and cheaper prices.

Disadvantages of GMO foods can be allergic reactions or increased antibiotic resistance.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms that have had their genes altered in some way - also called "bioengineering."

GMOs can be animals or bacteria, but most often they are crops like corn or potatoes that have been tweaked in a lab to increase the amount or quality of food they produce.

There are many advantages of GMO crops, but some groups have raised concerns that GMOs may have negative health effects. Here's what you need to know about the pros and cons of GMO foods and whether you should avoid them.

What are GMOs?

Humans have been altering the genetics of plants for thousands of years through the slow process of cross-breeding between crops. Today, scientists can take a shortcut to modify plants by editing their DNA in a lab setting.

Chances are, you've eaten GMO foods without even realizing it - in 2018, around 92% of corn and 94% of soybeans grown in the US came from genetically modified seeds.

The process of creating a GMO plant is complex, but it follows these basic steps:

1. Researchers identify the genes in a plant that cause specific traits, such as resistance to insects.

2. They then make copies of these insect resistance genes in a lab.

3. Scientists next insert the gene copies into the DNA of another plant's cells.

4. These modified cells are then used to grow new, insect-resistant plants that will go through various reviews and tests before they are sold to farmers.

Pros of GMOs

"GMOs are designed to be extra - extra healthy, extra fast-growing, and extra resistant to weather or pests," says Megan L. Norris, PhD, a biomedical researcher at the UT Southwestern Medical Center.

Because scientists can select the most ideal traits to include in GMO crops, there are many advantages of modified foods, including:

GMOs may have fewer pesticides

Many GMO crops have been altered to be less vulnerable to insects and other pests. For example, Bt-corn is a GMO crop that has a gene added from Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil bacteria.

This gene causes the corn to produce a protein that kills many pests and insects, helping to protect the corn from damage. "Instead of having to be sprayed with a complex pesticide, these crops come with an innate 'pesticide'," Norris says.

This means that farmers don't need to use as much pesticide on crops like Bt-corn - a 2020 study found that farmers with GMO crops reduced their pesticide use by 775.4 million kilograms (8.3%) between 1996 and 2018.

Quick tip: The use of fewer pesticides in crops may lead to fewer health risks for people eating them and less damage to the environment.

GMOs are usually cheaper

GMO crops are bred to grow efficiently - this means that farmers can produce the same amount of food using less land, less water, and fewer pesticides than conventional crops.

Because they can save on resources, food producers can also charge lower prices for GMO foods. In some cases, the costs of foods like corn, beets, and soybeans may be cut by 15% to 30%.

GMOs may have more nutrients

Certain GMO crops are designed to provide more nutrients like vitamins or minerals. For example, researchers have been able to create a modified form of African corn that contains:

2 times as much folate when compared to traditional crops

6 times as much vitamin C when compared to traditional crops

169 times more beta-carotene than traditional crops

Important: This may be especially helpful in regions where people suffer from nutritional deficiencies.

Cons of GMOs

GMO crops can offer many advantages in costs and nutrition, but some experts worry that they carry health risks, as well.

GMOs may cause allergic reactions

Because GMO foods contain DNA from other organisms, it's possible that the new DNA can trigger allergies in people who wouldn't normally be allergic to the food.

In one instance, a GMO soybean crop created using DNA from a Brazil nut was unsafe for people with nut allergies and couldn't be released to the public.

However, GMO foods go through extensive allergen testing, so they shouldn't necessarily be riskier than conventional crops.

GMOs may increase antibiotic resistance

When GMO scientists insert new DNA into plant cells, they will often add in an additional gene that makes the modified cells resistant to antibiotics. They can then use an antibiotic to kill off any plant cells that didn't successfully take in the new DNA.

However, researchers are finding that these antibiotic-resistant genes don't always go away once you digest GMO foods, but can actually be passed through your feces into sewage systems. Some experts worry that these genes may be absorbed into harmful bacteria found in sewers or your gut that can cause serious illnesses like staph infections. This means that the usual antibiotic treatments would be powerless against these new super-bacteria.

Not all experts agree on this concern, however - some scientists argue that this type of gene transfer is very unlikely and there is little risk to humans.

Insider's takeaway

GMO crops have many advantages for your health, such as greater nutritional value and fewer pesticides. They may also be cheaper for farmers to grow, allowing for lower food prices.

Though there are possible risks, major agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency tightly regulate GMO foods and ensure that they are safe for people to eat. "I consume GMO products and feed them to my family without hesitation," Norris says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and cons of GMOs: An evidence-based comparison of genetically modified foods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMO foods are designed to be healthier and cheaper to produce. Advantages of GMO foods include added nutrients, fewer pesticides, and cheaper prices. Disadvantages of GMO foods can be allergic reactions or increased antibiotic resistance. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms that have had their genes altered in some way - also called "bioengineering."

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some thoughts about GMO's from other peoples perspective!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chipotle's decision to prepare only food that does not contain genetically modified ingredients is adding fuel to an ongoing debate about the health and safety of these foods.

The Mexican-style restaurant chain cited three reasons for removing such foods from its menu, saying on its Web site that scientists are still studying the long-term implications of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs; that the foods can damage the environment; and that "Chipotle should be a place where people can eat food made with non-GMO ingredients."

But experts contend that GMO-containing foods being grown in the United States are no riskier than conventional foods. The "growing international consensus" among scientific organizations is that foods made from currently approved genetically modified crops are safe to eat, said Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington.

"This is not an ultra-hazardous technology," Jaffe said. Although every new food product must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, "all current applications are safe," he said.

How GM foods are made

Genetically modifying an organism involves inserting genes from one species into the DNA of another, in order to produce desirable traits, such as being resistant to pests.

Eight genetically modified crops are grown widely in the United States: corn, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, zucchini, squash and papaya. In fact, more than 90 percent of the country's total acreage of corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beets comes from seeds that have at least one genetically engineered trait, Jaffe said.

And foods containing GMOs are tough to avoid because genetically modified crops are found in processed foods such as high-fructose corn syrup, canola oil and soybean oil, he said.

Chipotle previously used genetically modified corn and soy as ingredients in its tortillas and cooking oil. Now, the company says it has replaced these with ingredients that are not genetically modified, such as rice bran oil and sunflower oil.

But people may not know that plant-based oils don't contain any DNA or protein, Jaffe noted. That means that genetically modified soybean oil and non-genetically modified soybean oil are "biologically and chemically identical," he said.

At any rate, Chipotle's menu will not be completely GMO-free. According to its Web site, the company will still sell soft drinks that contain sweeteners made from genetically modified corn, along with meat and dairy products from animals that may be fed genetically modified grains.

Are these foods safe?

Foods derived from genetically engineered plants must meet the same safety standards as foods from traditionally bred plants, according to the Food and Drug Administration. (No food products from genetically engineered animals are currently on the market.)

"GM foods are safe if they have undergone the proper risk assessment to be put on the market," said Peter Ben Embarek, a food safety scientist with the World Health Organization in Geneva. "So far, all the GM products on the market [in the United States] have undergone such risk assessments," he said.

Still, some consumer groups have argued that products containing genetically modified ingredients should be labeled as such, and Ben Embarek said he favors giving people such information. "Consumers are the ones who are buying the products. . . . Therefore, they should have all the information in front of them," Ben Embarek said.

In 2013, Chipotle became the first restaurant chain to label items that contained GMOs. Jaffe said discussions about genetically modified ingredients seem to overlook other aspects of the nutrition of the chain's meals, most of which have more than 1,000 calories and most of the daily allowance of sodium, according to a nutritional information calculator on the chain's Web site.

"If they really wanted to improve people's health, they should worry a lot more about the salt and fat in their burritos than a little bit of soybean oil and a little cornmeal," Jaffe said.
- Live Science
7 Biggest Diet Myths

Science You Can Eat: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Food

5 Not-So-Miraculous Dr. Oz Claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chipotle's decision to prepare only food that does not contain genetically modified ingredients is adding fuel to an ongoing debate about the health and safety of these foods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's what you need to know about the debate around GMOs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feed Your Mind Main Page en Español (Spanish)
Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world. "GMO" (genetically modified organism) is the common term consumers and popular media use to describe a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering. Since the first genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, for sale to consumers were planted in the 1990s, researchers have tracked their impacts on and off the farm.

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

Most of the GMO crops grown today were developed to help farmers prevent crop loss. The three most common traits found in GMO crops are:

Resistance to insect damage

Tolerance to herbicides

Resistance to plant viruses

For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers can apply fewer spray pesticides to protect the crops. GMO crops that are tolerant to herbicides help farmers control weeds without damaging the crops. When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts.

The GMO papaya, called the Rainbow papaya, is an example of a GMO crop developed to be resistant to a virus. When the ringspot virus threatened the Hawaii papaya industry and the livelihoods of Hawaiian papaya farmers, plant scientists developed the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya. The Rainbow papaya was commercially planted in 1998, and today it is grown all over Hawaii and exported to Japan.

Learn more on Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

The most common GMO crops were developed to address the needs of farmers, but in turn they can help foods become more accessible and affordable for consumers. Some GMO crops were developed specifically to benefit consumers. For example, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available. GMO apples that do not brown when cut are now available for sale and may help reduce food waste. Plant scientists continue to develop GMO crops that they hope will benefit consumers.

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment.

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

GMOs also impact the lives of farmers in other parts of the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of people's diets. For example, a GMO eggplant developed to be insect resistant has been slowly released to farmers in Bangladesh since 2014. Farmers who grow GMO eggplants are earning more and have less exposure to pesticides. USAID is also working with partner countries in Africa and elsewhere on several staple crops, such as virus-resistant cassava, insect-resistant cowpea, and blight-resistant potato.

Learn more about GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development and GMOs Outside the U.S.
How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Allison Baker figures by Lillian Horin
The Arctic apple is the juiciest newcomer to produce aisles. It has the special ability to resist browning after being cut (), which protects its flavor and nutritional value. Browning also contributes to food waste by causing unappealing bruising on perfectly edible apples. Food waste, especially for fruits and vegetables, is a major problem worldwide; nearly half of the produce that's grown in the United States is thrown away, and the UK supermarket Tesco estimates that consumer behavior significantly contributes to the 40% of its apples that are wasted. Therefore, Arctic apples not only make convenient snacks, but they also might be able to mitigate a major source of food waste.

While a non-browning apple sounds great, how exactly was this achieved? Arctic apples are genetically engineered (GE) to prevent browning. This means that the genetic material that dictates how the apple tree grows and develops was altered using biotechnology tools. But before learning about the modern science used to make Arctic apples, let's explore how traditional apple varieties are grown.

How are new apple varieties developed?

Harvesting tasty apples is more complicated than simply planting a seed in the ground and waiting for a tree to grow. In particular, it's difficult to predict what an apple grown from a seed will look and taste like because each seed contains a combination of genetic material from its parents. But farmers can reliably grow orchards of tasty apples by using an ancient technique called grafting. After a tree that produces a desirable apple is chosen, cuttings of that original tree are grafted, or fused, onto the already-established roots of a donor tree, called rootstock. The cuttings then grow into a full-sized tree that contains the exact same genetic material as the original tree. As a result, each tree of a specific apple variety is a cloned descendant of the original tree, and thus produce very similar apples.

New apple varieties emerge when genetic changes are allowed to occur. Traditionally, new apples are produced by cross-breeding existing apple varieties. This reshuffles the genetic makeup of seeds, which are then planted to see if they grow into trees that produce delicious new apples. On the other hand, Arctic apples are created by making a targeted change to the genetic material of an existing variety (more on this later). The advantage of using genetic engineering over traditional breeding methods is that scientists can efficiently make precise improvements to already-beloved apple varieties-in contrast, traditional cross-breeding is much more random and difficult to control.

What causes apple browning?

Insight into the molecular causes of apple browning guided the genetic alteration that made Arctic apples. Apples naturally contain chemicals known as polyphenols that can react with oxygen in the air to cause browning. This reaction won't occur, however, without the help of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) enzymes, which bring polyphenols and oxygen together in just the right way. PPO enzymes and polyphenols are normally separated into different compartments in apple cells, which is why the inside of a fresh apple is white or slightly yellow-green in color. But these structures are broken when the fruit is cut or crushed, allowing PPOs to interact with polyphenols and oxygen to drive the browning reaction (). This process occurs in all apples, but some varieties are less susceptible than others due to factors like lower amounts of PPOs or polyphenols. Common household tricks can also delay browning by a few hours by interfering with the PPO reaction, but no method prevents it completely or indefinitely. Knowing that PPOs were responsible for browning, researchers thought about blocking the production of these enzymes with genetic tools to create non-browning apples.

How are Arctic apples made?

Genetic material is stored in our DNA and divided into functional units called genes. The genes are "read" by copying the DNA sequence into a related molecule called RNA. The RNA copy functions as a blueprint that instructs the cell how to build the product for that gene, which is called a protein. The production of PPO enzymes, therefore, can be blocked by simply removing their RNA blueprints. To do so, researchers used a tool from molecular biology called RNA interference (RNAi). RNAi is a natural biological process that recognizes and destroys specific RNA structures. Biologists can use RNAi to lower PPO levels by introducing RNA sequences that cause the degradation of PPO RNA. Using this technique, researchers developed an anti-PPO gene that makes anti-PPO RNA, which destroys the PPO RNA before it can be used to make PPO enzymes.

Once scientists created the anti-PPO gene, they needed to safely introduce it into the apple genome. To make a variety called the Arctic Golden, researchers began with Golden Delicious apple buds and inserted an engineered piece of genetic material called a transgene that contained the anti-PPO gene. After confirming that the plant received the transgene, the saplings were then allowed to grow into mature trees, one of which produced the apple that is now known as the Arctic Golden.

Are Arctic apples safe?

After over a decade of research, regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada like the FDA and USDA recently approved Arctic apples for human consumption. Accumulated evidence shows that Arctic apple trees and fruit are no different from their traditional counterparts in terms of agricultural and nutritional characteristics. On the molecular level, the transgene genetic material present in Arctic apples is quickly degraded by your digestive system to the point where it's indistinguishable from that found in traditional apples. The only new protein in Arctic apple trees-a protein called NPTII that's used to confirm that the genetic engineering was successful-was not only undetectable in their apples, but it has also been evaluated and deemed nontoxic and non-allergenic by the FDA.

Yet some anti-GMO groups continue to protest the approval of Arctic apples, arguing that unforeseen consequences of the genetic alteration could impact safety. It's true that it's impossible to predict and disprove every possible consequence of a genetic change. But a recent review by the National Academies of Science that covers decades of published research found no convincing evidence that GE crops have negatively impacted human health or the environment. While it's important to rigorously test all new crops that are developed, GE crops should not be considered inherently more dangerous than their traditionally-bred relatives.
Allison Baker is a second-year Ph.D. student in Biological and Biomedical Sciences at Harvard University.
So what's next for the Arctic apple? It takes several years for new apple trees to grow and literally bear fruit, so it'll take time for non-browning apples to expand to supermarkets throughout the US. Currently, Arctic Goldens are only available in bags of pre-sliced apples in select US cities, but Arctic versions of Granny Smith and Fuji apples have received USDA approval, and Arctic Galas are in development. If commercially successful, non-browning apples could help to combat rampant food waste one slice at a time.

For more information:

A cool time-lapse video that compares Arctic apples to conventional apples

This article on the history and economics of Okanagan

Multimedia resources that provide more insight into the science behind RNAi

Cover image credit:Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arctic Apples: A fresh new take on genetic engineering - Science in the News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Allison Baker figures by Lillian Horin The Arctic apple is the juiciest newcomer to produce aisles. It has the special ability to resist browning after being cut (Figure 1), which protects its flavor and nutritional value. Browning also contributes to food waste by causing unappealing bruising on perfectly edible apples.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

# data[].attributes.body
An article assessing the risks of GMO's, and how to proceed scientific growth without endangering consumers, as well as the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Commercial potential of biotechnology is immense since the scope of its activity covers the entire spectrum of human life. The most potent biotechnological approach is the transfer of specifically constructed gene assemblies through various techniques. However, this deliberate modification and the resulting entities thereof have become the bone of contention all over the world. Benefits aside, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have always been considered a threat to environment and human health. In view of this, it has been considered necessary by biosafety regulations of individual countries to test the feasibility of GMOs in contained and controlled environments for any potential risks they may pose. This paper describes the various aspects of risk, its assessment, and management which are imperative in decision making regarding the safe use of GMOs. Efficient efforts are necessary for implementation of regulations. Importance of the risk assessment, management, and precautionary approach in environmental agreements and activism is also discussed.

1. Introduction

Modern biotechnology has allowed the movement of genetic material across unrelated species, something impossible with the traditional breeding methods. This intentional transfer of genetic material has in turn brought biotechnology out from the laboratory to the field. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially modified to change their characteristics in some way or another [ 1]. In essence, "genetic modification" or "genetic engineering" techniques enable scientists to find individual genes that control particular characteristics, separate them from the original source, and transfer them directly into the cells of an animal, plant, bacterium, or virus. This technology has many potential applications [ 2]. These new opportunities bring along greater public scrutiny and government regulation. Risk assessment is a common regulatory tool used in the decision-making process for a proposed commercial release of a GMO into the environment [ 3, 4].

Environmental applications of microorganisms are wide and varied, ranging from bioremediation, biopesticides, nitrogen fixation, plant growth promoter, to biocontrol of plant diseases, and other such agricultural practices. The sensible application of recombinant DNA techniques has shown the potential for genetically improved microorganisms to be used as soil or seed inoculants [ 5- 8]. However, when introduced into the environment, they could have unintended environmental consequences and may play more pronounced ecological roles than the wild types [ 9- 11]. Genetically improved microorganisms are able to reproduce and establish themselves as persistent populations and may have subtle and long-term effects on biological communities and natural ecosystems [ 12]. Results of DNA modification may not be limited only to the particular characteristics of the replaced gene. It is therefore important to ensure that when these organisms are released into nature they do not harm the environment or human health [ 13]. Such concerns have led to broader interests in the theme of risk assessment in the release of GMOs. A cautious approach is necessary to assess environmental risks which may occur due to introduction of recombinant organisms in the natural environment [ 14].

The application of genetic modification allows genetic material to be transferred from any species into plants or other organisms. The introduction of a gene into different cells can result in different outcomes, and the overall pattern of gene expression can be altered by the introduction of a single gene. The sequence of the gene and its role in the donor organism may have a relatively well-characterized function in the organism from which it is isolated. However, this apparent "precision" in the understanding of a gene does not mean that the consequences of the transfer are known or can be predicted [ 15]. Copies of a gene may be integrated, additional fragments inserted, and gene sequences rearranged and deleted-which may result in lack of operation of the genes instability or interference with other gene functions possibly cause some potential risks [ 16]. Therefore, there could be a number of predictable and unpredictable risks related to release of GMOs in the open environment. The report prepared by the Law Centre of IUCN, the World Conservation Union (2004), enlists numerous environmental risks likely to occur by the use of GMOs in the field. These risks are as follows.

Each gene may control several different traits in a single organism. Even the insertion of a single gene can impact the entire genome of the host resulting in unintended side effects, all of which may not be recognizable at the same time. It is difficult to predict this type of risk.

Horizontal Transfer of Recombinant Genes to Other Microorganisms
One risk of particular concern relating to GMOs is the risk of horizontal gene transfer (HGT). HGT is the acquisition of foreign genes (via transformation, transduction, and conjugation) by organisms in a variety of environmental situations. It occurs especially in response to changing environments and provides organisms, especially prokaryotes, with access to genes other than those that can be inherited [ 17, 18].
HGT of an introduced gene from a GMO may confer a novel trait in another organism, which could be a source of potential harm to the health of people or the environment. For example, the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to a pathogen has the potential to compromise human or animal therapy [ 19]. HGT has been observed for many different bacteria, for many genes, and in many different environments. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that recombinant genes would not spread to other bacteria, unless precautions are taken. Recent evidence from the HGT technology confirms that transgenic DNA in GM crops and products can spread by being taken up directly by viruses and bacteria as well as plant and animals cells. Very recently, Yoshida et al. [ 20] reported that HGT also moved from a nuclear monocot gene into the genome of the eudicot parasite witchweed, which infects many grass species in Africa.
Some of the important potential impacts of HGT from GMOs include the following [ 21].

Unpredictable and Unintended Effects
HGT may transfer the introduced genes from a GMO to potential pests or pathogens and many yet to be identified organisms. This may alter the ecological niche or ecological potential of the recipient organism [ 9] and even bring about unexpected changes in structure or function [ 22]. Furthermore, the gene transferred may insert at variable sites of the recipient gene, not only introducing a novel gene but also disrupting an endogenous gene, causing unpredictable and unintended effects.

Long-Term Effects
Sometimes the impact of HGT may be more severe in the long term. Even under relatively strong selection pressure, it may take thousands of generations for a recipient organism to become the dominant form in the population [ 23]. In addition, other factors such as timing of appropriate biotic or abiotic environmental conditions and additional changes in the recipient organism could delay adverse effects.

Ethical Concerns
Various ethical issues associated with HGT from GMOs have been raised including perceived threats to the integrity and intrinsic value of the organisms involved, to the concept of natural order and integrity of species, and to the integrity of the ecosystems in which the genetically modified organism occurs [ 24].
Several scientific evidence that has emerged on GMOs over the last couple of years shows that there are several clear risks to human health and the environment. When genetic engineers create GMO or transgenic plants, they have no means of inserting the gene in a particular position. The gene ends up in a random location in the genetic material, and its position is not usually identified [ 25, 26]. There are already several examples of such undesired effects being identified in the US after approval (e.g., GM cotton with deformed cotton bolls; increased lignin in GM soya, etc.) [ 27]. Releasing genetically modified plants or crop into the environment may have direct effects, including gene transfer to wild relatives or conventional crops, weediness, trait effects on nontarget species, and other unintended effects [ 28].
It is widely accepted that the gene flow from GM crops is possible through pollen, from open-pollinated varieties crossing with local crops or wild relatives [ 29]. Because gene flow has happened for millennia between land races and conventionally bred crops, it is reasonable to expect that it could also happen with transgenic crops. Transgenic crops vary in their tendency to outcross, and the ability to outcross depends on the presence of sexually compatible wild relatives or crops, which varies according to location. However, some lines of evidence suggested that whether or not gene flow between transgenic crops and wild relatives matters, in and of itself [ 15]. If a resulting transgenic/wild hybrid had some competitive advantage over the wild population, it could persist in the environment and potentially disrupt the ecosystem [ 28, 30].
In addition, some indirect effects of GMO were also observed which potentially harm to the environment. For example, some transgenic traits such as the pesticidal toxins expressed by Bt genes may affect nontarget species as well as the crop pests. It could happen but still uncertain how likely it is [ 31, 32]. The toxicological studies of Monarch butterfly provide excellent examples, which established the sensitivity of Monarch larvae to consuming Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) expressed in transgenic maize [ 33], thereby triggering further to assess exposure and population level effects [ 31]. It was determined that larval exposure to pollen on a population-wide basis was low, given the proportion of larvae in maize fields during pollen shed, the proportion of fields planted in Bt maize, and the levels of pollen within and around maize fields that exceed the toxicity threshold [ 29, 30]. However, an acute dose, even if several times higher than would be expected in the field, is not equivalent to a low natural chronic dose experienced over a longer period; therefore, a two-year study was undertaken and subsequently demonstrated that the risk to Monarch butterfly populations is 0.6% of the total of Monarch butterflies breeding in the North American Corn Belt [ 31, 34]. These results indicated negligible effects of Bt pollen to Monarch butterfly larvae from extended exposures in field settings.
Extensive long-term use of herbicides glyphosate and gluphosinate in the Bt crops can promote the development of resistant insect pests and weeds. The Royal Society in the year 2003 has published the results of extensive farm-scale evaluations of the impacts of transgenic HT maize, spring oilseed rape (canola), and sugar beet on biodiversity in the United Kingdom. These studies found that the main effect of these crops compared with conventional cropping practices was on weed vegetation, with consequent effects on the herbivores, pollinators, and other populations that are feed on it. These groups were negatively affected in the case of transgenic HT sugar beet, were, positive in case of HT Maiza and showed no effect in spring oilseed rape. However, there is still insufficient evidence to predict what the long-term impacts of transgenic HT crops will be on weed populations and associated in-crop biodiversity.
Most of the ecologists agree that gene flow is not an environmental problem unless it leads to undesirable consequences. In the short term, the spread of transgenic herbicide resistance via gene flow may create logistical and/or economic problems. Over the long term, transgenes that confirm resistance to pests and environmental stress and/or lead to greater seed production have the greatest likelihood of aiding weeds or harming nontarget species [ 1]. However, these outcomes seem unlikely for most currently grown transgenic crops. Many transgenic traits are likely to be innocuous from an environmental standpoint, and some could lead to more sustainable agricultural practices.

3. Risk Assessment

Risk is ubiquitous and unavoidable. To a great extent, therefore, our modus operandi involves assessment and management of risk. Directly observable risks are assessed and managed through heuristic processes. This direct observation may sometimes be insufficient to establish the nature and extent of risk. In such cases, we rely on other institutions, especially reputation and the rule of law [ 35]. Biosafety issues pertaining to the marketing of GMOs have received increasing attention by national and international agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide [ 2, 4, 36]. These are based on a common set of principles built on the accumulation of experience and scientific knowledge over the past decades.

Risk assessment intends to quantify risks and evaluate the probabilities of possible outcomes on the basis of scientific data. It is a fundamental part of improving quality, being the quality of products or the quality of life, and plays a central role in the innovation required to maximize benefits. A critical step in risk assessment is identification of circumstances that may give rise to an adverse effect(s) (risk identification or "what could go wrong'' step) [ 25]. The level of risk is then estimated from both the likelihood ("how likely is it to happen'' step) and severity/consequences ("would it be a problem'' step) associated with the circumstances of concern. This is then followed by characterization of the risk based on evaluation of likelihood and consequences of the identified adverse effects being realized ("what is the risk'' step) [ 11].

The international agreements such as Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) address the environmental aspects of GMOs. The Article 15 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CBD 2000) implies risk assessment to be in compliance with criteria of science and transparency using already existing and recognized techniques. The characterization process should adopt a multidisciplinary approach that(i) analyses methodologies in statistics, (ii) considers the individual components employed to produce the GMOs (such as characteristics of the donor organism, vector, and inserted DNA), (iii) evaluates the final result in its totality (characteristics of the organism with new traits, information related to intended use, and characteristics of the potential receiving environment), (iv) considers relevant information produced from both public and private research institutes and from international agencies.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the year 2006 introduced an Annex III in the protocol of Article 15 for scientifically sound and transparent risk assessment taking into account risk assessment techniques. Such risk assessments shall be based at a minimum, on information provided in Article 8, and other available scientific evidence in order to identify and evaluate the possible adverse effects on human health and environment. The principles and methodology described in Annex III of the protocol follows the proven, well-accepted risk assessment paradigm, including identification of potential harmful characteristics of modified organisms that may have an adverse effect. Risk are then to be evaluated based on a combined analysis of the likelihood of the identified risks materializing and their consequences. The general principle of this protocol includes the following:(i) lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk; (ii) risks should be considered in the context of risks posed by the nonmodified recipients or parental organisms; (iii) risks should be assessed on a case-by-base basis.

In addition, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety evaluated the effectiveness of the protocol (COP-MOP) for risk assessment in the Article 35 in the year of 2008 for the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms (LMO) to protect the significant loss of biological diversity.

As in the year 2010, biodiversity target is approaching to revise the current Strategic Plan of the Convention and adopt a new biosafety strategic plan (2011-2020) to implementation of more effective risk assessment strategic plans to protect the risk of GMO/LMO according to the Bureau of COP-MOP/4.

Several pieces of information would be necessary for successful risk assessment prior to release of the GMO (1) molecular characteristics of the GMO with detailed information on genetic changes in the size and sequence, (2) details of the technology used to effect the genetic changes, (3) details of the genes and their properties that have been introduced and the possible effects of any other genetic change brought about in the organism, (4) automated karyotyping and chromosomal analysis, (5) growth characteristics of the GMO in comparison with the host organism, (6) nutrient, soil, climatic, and other requirements, (7) nature of interaction with other organisms, (8) nutritional, allergenicity and toxicity studies in case of products intended for use as food and feed, (9) gene flows from the GMO under normal ecological conditions and its impact on ecology in controlled field trials, and (10) the viability of hybrids plants, its biomass productivity, and chemical composition [ 37].

In order to assess whether a GMO will be safe for environment, most GMOs can reproduce, multiply, and spread in the environment after they are released. The genetic modification could give GM plants, animals, or microorganisms an advantage that would allow them to increase in numbers and spread in the environment. The environmental risks from GMOs will vary, depending on the characteristics of, and the interactions among, the organism, the trait introduced through the gene, and the environment. The novelty of GMOs, the fact that like all plants they will continue to reproduce after release, the complexity of natural environments and ecosystem processes, and the unknown evolutionary fate of inserted genes, all need to be considered in predicting environmental impacts. Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences which could be the change in the organism's/plants metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate.

In 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations,'' became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that environmental risk assessments can be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approaches of risk assessment for GMO have been widely accepted. However, the USA. has generally taken a product-based approach of risk assessment and Europe adopted a process-based risk assessment approach for GMO [ 38].

3.1. Environmental Risk Assessment

Environmental risk assessment (ERA) considers the impact of introducing a GM plant into a given environment. The ERA is concerned with evaluating the potential for harm to ecosystem components given that there is exposure to the GM plant. Importantly, the focus and degree of emphasis on elements of the ERA will change during the development process for the GM plant as the scope of environmental release ranges from confined field trials of limited extent through to larger-scale trials and seed increases in more environments, and to the final unconfined commercial release.

The risk of GMO toward the environment is conducted on a case-by-case basis, is comparative, and uses lines of evidence to arrive at a holistic understanding of the nature and degree of risk posed by the particular type of environmental release being analyzed [ 39]. In addition, a stepwise or tiered approach of data generation and analysis is used in order that the focus be directed to consequential concerns within the universe of possibilities.

Because the universe of possible concerns relevant to ERA is very large, the process of problem formulation is especially critical in order that the risk assessment be properly framed and conducted [ 23, 40, 41]. The universe of concerns generally need to be addressed with a few very specific questions within context to release most of the GMOs in the environments with special references to genetically modified plants. Does the genetic modification of the plant cause it to have attributes commonly associated with weeds in managed environments? Invasiveness in natural environments? Will the transgenic element in the GM plant move into native plant populations, and so what if it does? That is, will gene flow cause a native plant to become weedy or invasive (or more so)? Or will isolated populations become extinct through hybridization with the GM plant (gene swamping)? And will the GM plant adversely impact nontarget organisms that may be of special interest because they are beneficial, endangered, threatened, or charismatic? [ 12]. Problem formulation is a formal process whereby the risk assessor determines relevant considerations for risk assessment from this wide host of possible concerns.

The commercial development of a GM plant proceeds in a stepwise fashion, and environmental release in the first instance is in the form of field trials that are limited in number, size, and environments in which they occur. Finally, with commercialization, the GM plant is widely deployed with little concern for its confinement. Obviously, the nature of environmental impacts that need to be addressed, and therefore the data intensity and degree of scrutiny given these impacts in the ERA, will vary with the stage of development and scale of deployment being considered [ 42]. In view of this, the environmental risk assessment proceeds in a tiered fashion where the problem formulation considers the specific questions to be addressed and arrives at relevant data, and data synthesis needed to undertake the appropriate ERA [ 43]. Therefore, the ERA is dynamic with respect to the questions addressed, the data synthesized, and the comprehensiveness of the analysis conducted.

As the environmental risk assessment iterates through tiers, conservatism in conduct and interpretation of findings is balanced against uncertainties in the state of understanding. Thus, lower-tier ERA will be highly conservative to balance uncertainty, and as higher tiers of assessment are needed, increased understanding allows for more realistic (less conservative) appraisals [ 44].

Risk assessment also focused on the change brought about by genetic engineering allows for detailed consideration of the potential consequences of the change relative to the way the GM plant is intended to be used and the environments in which it may be found. One of the examples of safety for food use of corn engineered to be resistant to insect pests; the risk analyst at this stage can ask how specifically the change manifested by genetic transformation/expression of an active protein conferring insect resistance to the plant and may pose risks to consumers of food derived from the GM corn. In terms of potential genetically modified food safety, key considerations are how the change may result in toxicity or allergenicity.

4. Risk Management

Once a risk is assessed, it must be managed. The management of risk is an exclusively political action, resulting in a decision regarding whether to accept or not the risk previously estimated. It can take additional aspects (e.g., socioeconomic or ethical) into consideration and concerns methods used to reduce the scientifically identified risk. Many frameworks of risk assessment methodology separate risk assessment from risk management. Some frameworks, however, consider only certain aspects of risk management (e.g., monitoring) as separate from risk assessment but other aspects of risk management (e.g., consideration of risk mitigation options) to be part of risk assessment methodology, since a final characterization of risks must take into account the effects of any mitigation options that reduce risks. The important aspect is, of course, the iterative and interlinked relationship between risk assessment and risk management [ 3].

Often decisions are made with incomplete information, and this leads to uncertainty. This uncertainty needs to be handled to assess the impact it might have on a decision. Biosafety regulatory frameworks should serve as mechanisms for ensuring the safe use of biotechnology products without imposing unintended constraints to technology transfer.

The Article 16 of the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety is purely relevant to risk management of GMO. The protocol establishes and maintains appropriate mechanisms and measures strategies to regulate, manage, and control risks identified in the provision of risk assessment.(i) The potential to harmonize national regulatory frameworks thus ensures appropriate biosafety decision making based on scientific risk assessment. If properly implemented, the protocol has the potential to encourage innovation, development, technology transfer, and capacity building in relation to biotechnology, while also achieving the goals of conservation, sustainable agriculture, and equitable sharing of the technology's benefits. (ii) To realize its potential, however, decisions concerning protocol implementation must be carefully considered and should not place undue burdens on a technology that possesses such great potential to contribute positively to sustainable agriculture and development throughout the world. (iii) A first-things-first approach where initial efforts focus on bringing all parties to the protocol into compliance with it as quickly as possible. Developing further requirements or fine-tuning obligations at this stage only worsens the degree of noncompliance already in existence. (iv) Therefore, capacity building should remain the primary area of focus under the Biosafety Protocol to ensure the safe adoption of this technology. In this regard, material exists to help national governments. (v) The users and developers of agricultural biotechnology embrace their share of the duty in the protocol implementation process and will continue to campaign for fair, science-based regulations and assist with and contribute to effective capacity building.

Risk management process also forms a second focus of the economic/political component of the GMO biosafety issue. Whereas a risk/benefit analysis concludes that risks exist with regard to a GMO introduction or other activity, but are sufficiently outweighed by the benefits of that action, it will probably still be required both practically and legally to take steps to manage the risk and to ensure that damage will be minimized [ 45]. Elements of currently used and proposed risk management process include a variety of different kinds of activities. To a large extent, the specific protective measures imposed on the GMO user will be determined based on scientific factors linked to specific details of the GMO and the proposed use. These issues, too, turn on the ability of the decision maker to rely on unbiased scientific experts who are able to analyze each proposal or application and determine what controls are needed, and what the best available technologies and practices are [ 46].

The three important components was design for risk management. These components are impact assessment, public awareness/participation, and the design of regulatory systems. These concepts, all very important in this field, are critically important for GMO-related governance. It is not possible to overstate the importance of the public's contribution to effective decision making, as well as the importance of public awareness, within the context of government decisions on matters and activities affecting the environment [ 47].

4.1. Role of Impact Assessment Processes

Within the concept of risk management, the mechanism of impact assessment plays a crucial role. Although extending well beyond the scope and detail of many environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures, the assessments mandated under national biosafety-related legislation, and especially under the Cartagena Protocol, provide a clear foundation on which at least some of a country's various decision making, permitting, labeling, and other processes relating to GMOs could be based. Unfortunately, although the need for risk assessment is undisputed, the particular parameters of that investigation are difficult to quantify in the biosafety area, given the fact that GMO introductions are a relatively new innovation. In this connection, it is important to note that the development of agreed risk management measures would provide a real benefit for both the GMOs proponents, the communities, and the ecosystems that would be most affected by the identified risks.

4.2. Public Awareness/Access to Information

Public access to information is an important cornerstone of public participation and is one of the tools that could help to realize the benefits and avoid the risks of modern biotechnology. This concept is well recognized in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, and in the recently adopted Åarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making, and access to justice in environmental matters [ 12].

4.3. Transparency and Capacity

Simple "transparency"and "access" to relevant documents, however, may not be sufficient in the case of biosafety issues. Arguably, the concept of access to information must include, in some way, access to the tools and expertise with which to understand that information. While merely providing access to the data will be sufficient in many developed countries that are home to highly specialized and active NGOs, even here the balance of expertise weighs heavily on the side of the GMO proponents, often the companies or institutions that developed the GMOs [ 48].

4.4. Labelling, Standards, and Certification

Beyond the public's access to governmental documents and processes, however, there are other mechanisms by which public awareness and access to information can be encouraged, including product labeling, food safety standards, and general consumer protection laws, all of which are designed to foster awareness and communicate public preferences to the commercial proponents of GMOs in a way that will get their attention. These mechanisms can be effective if they are accurate, specific, and clearly expressed in understandable language, unbiased, and based on full disclosure of the relevant facts by the GMO proponents. In California, a major referendum requiring disclosures of toxic and carcinogenic substances in public places and consumer goods was basically invalidated by regulations that allowed those disclosures to be made in generic terms.

4.5. Confidential Information

One of the key concerns in this regard relates to the proponent's need to maintain some information as "confidential." While the basic realities of modern business clearly underscore the need for confidentiality, it is also true that confidentiality provisions are often used as a means of avoiding disclosures. In the face of increasing recognition that activities, including especially species introduction, in one country may have serious impacts on neighbouring countries, labelling and other access to information is increasingly addressed at international and regional levels [ 49].

4.6. Direct Public Participation and Awareness Mechanisms

With regard to direct public participation in biosafety-related decision making, a small number of countries, including Denmark, The Netherlands, and New Zealand, are also taking a leading role in developing mechanisms for public awareness. These countries' legislative provisions require relatively broad-based stakeholder processes addressing certain aspects of modern biotechnology, including the release of GMOs. Such processes help the governments and regulatory agencies to gauge public opinion, generate dialogue, gather useful information, and develop awareness within their populations on modern biotechnology [ 50].

4.7. Design of Regulatory Systems for GMO Development and Use

In many different fields of endeavour, technological capacity to act has moved significantly faster than has the governmental ability to oversee and regulate it. As a consequence, many concerns relating to the risk of GMOs are directed more closely to the apparent lack of societal and governmental restraints on GMO developers and users, rather than to addressing particular scientific issues. This suggests that a third key element of the risk-management process involves a reconsideration of regulatory mechanisms and systems for governmental oversight of GMO development and use [ 51].

4.8. Sociocultural Impacts

It is in the area of sociocultural impacts that the controversy over GMOs and biosafety takes on its most complex aspect. On one hand, food production, food security, and livelihood improvement are all critical elements of sustainable development, to which GMOs and other products of modern biotechnology are often cited as important contributions. On the other hand, the introduction of GMOs can affect humans, (as well as animals and ecosystems), particularly at the community level, in many ways beyond direct physical sustenance, not all of which are beneficial [ 52]. The environmental questions surrounding biotechnology need to be addressed, yet the technology as a whole offers great promise of environmental, social, and economic benefits that should not be inhibited unnecessarily. A number of concerns should be addressed through sociocultural assessment of the impact (sociocultural risks and benefits) of GMOs. These include the biodiversity impacts of extending GMO introductions into marginal areas (which are often centres of diversity not only of wild species but also of traditional agricultural species) and into protected areas and their buffer zones [ 53].

5. Ways to Manage Risks

Management and mitigation of risk allows feedback for validation of the initial assessment. Risks can vary depending on several factors including nature of the GMO, its intended use, and the environment receiving the GMO. Therefore, they should be assessed and managed on a case-by-case basis. The purpose of case-by-case practice is to treat every release as unique, since every GMO represents different genetic characteristics. Prior consent from the authorities is advisable in order to perform deliberate release, and field trials before the GMO may be commercialized [ 54, 55]. This is particularly important for genetically engineered microorganisms that have the potential to survive, persist, and spread in the environment to which they may gain access. As cited by the European food safety authority [ 13], the following points should be addressed when appropriate:(i) the potential for survival and persistence in the receiving environment and any selective advantage that may be offered: in case of selective advantage, its nature should be identified along with any potential for negative effects; (ii) the potential for gene transfer; (iii) the potential for negative effects or consequences based on interactions with indigenous microorganisms; (iv) possible effects on humans, animals, and plants; (v) possible effects or (nonreversible) perturbations on biogeochemical processes.

These points may be assessed by a combination of laboratory studies, micro- and mesocosm experiments, and small-scale field releases to identify hazards and to quantify actual levels of exposure [ 56]. However, extrapolation of assessment from one context to another, that is, from laboratory research to small-scale field trials and finally to commercial scale is not recommended. Small-scale trials involve a lesser number of GMOs and may provide valuable information related to concerns like survival and persistence, competitive fitness, and some ecological implications of release. Commercial release, on the other hand, involves a higher number of GMOs to be released in different, complex ecosystems and needs to be carefully carried out over time and at different sites to reveal impact on relationships between species and ecosystem interactions [ 57].

Generally, potential risks by use of GMOs can be mitigated using risk-management strategies that may make some proposed activities acceptable. This can be achieved, for example, using confinement strategies and monitoring.

5.1. Contained Use of GMOs

The term "contained use" covers any activity involving GMOs in which measures are taken to limit contact between them and people or the environment. It relates to the actual process of genetic modification, and also to the use, storage, transport, and destruction of GMOs. Containment of GMOs can be physical or biological. Physical containment includes barriers designed to prevent organisms from escaping the laboratory and be accidentally released. This may involve the use of specially built laboratories, sterilization procedures, restriction of access, and so forth. Biological containment involves designing the organism in such a manner that they cannot grow out of the laboratory.

5.2. Monitoring the Fate of GMOs Released in the Environment

An important aspect in the process of GMO risk management is the postrelease monitoring phase initiating from the moment of environmental release. Regular inspections are necessary for effective monitoring, using a diversity of analyses over an extensive period of time. Monitoring will have two focuses: (1) possible effects of the GMO identified in the formal risk assessment procedure and (2) identification of the occurrence of adverse unforeseen effects of the GMO or its use that were not anticipated in the environmental risk assessment.

The establishment of monitoring procedures may be difficult, but such monitoring is essential not only to understand the effectiveness of the introduced organism but also to detect unexpected spread. In general, the procedures involve development or application of already existing techniques for identifying the organism in environmental samples. These procedures have been developed and are, in most cases, well accepted [ 58].

The scientific knowledge and experiences gained from monitoring will in turn inform the risk assessment process. Thus, the results of monitoring provide opportunities to update risk assessment continually in the light of any new knowledge.

Biosafety regulatory frameworks of GMO should serve as mechanisms for ensuring the safe use of biotechnology products without imposing unintended constraints to technology transfer. To be able to judge the sensitive balance between these aspects of GMO risk management, measuring the costs of biosafety regulation and the potential impacts on biotechnology research and development is crucial. A necessary first step to answering questions about the causes and consequences of the process of regulatory approval for new biotech crops is to understand the operation of the regulatory system and the size and structure of the costs of compliance. It seems that the compliance costs incurred by biotechnology developers are quite high, and the regulatory burden of novel biotech crops might be out of balance. Reflections on trends, challenges, and issues on risk assessment and management in a developing country context were presented. Biosafety regulatory frameworks were reviewed in relation to the development process, challenges, and trends in its formulation, especially in the context of risk assessment and management. The choice of a biosafety regime in the context of developing countries is influenced not only by the science-based approach in risk analysis but also by the social, political, and environmental governance mechanisms and experience gained in relation to practice and conventions within a particular country.

The regulatory systems designed to deal with GMO should reduce the amount of risk and create the social adaptive capacity necessary to cope with the risks associated with new technologies. There are many different ways to achieve these goals. However, the three separate methods for addressing these challenges are biosafety protocols, a moratorium, and insurance.

Currently, Austria, UK, and Germany have moratoriums, while the EU has a de facto moratorium effected from June, 1999 until 2003. Such moratoriums delay the introduction of GMO that could reduce the amount of ecological degradation produced by GM. However, moratoriums offer a number of benefits. A delay could provide the opportunity to develop institutions to effectively evaluate and monitor GMO. It would also allow science to better assess the potential indirect impacts of existing GM, such as the evolution of Bt resistance. Furthermore, a moratorium may provide the time needed to allow a richer public debate to address how to fairly balance the risks and benefits of GMO. Given the uncertainty surrounding both the likelihood and degree of potential impacts of GMO risks, it is sensible for society to purchase insurance against these risks [ 59]. However, due to the unknown and variable nature of risks, private insurance is virtually impossible, which forces the public to play this role. Taxes on the use of transgenic products could function as a type of social insurance, as long as such a tax was invested in ecological conservation and restoration, to mitigate against any disruption caused by GMO.

6. Precautionary Approach

When there is a risk, two or more outcomes are possible, which one will occur is unknown but at least one of them is undesired. It is within this context that the precautionary approach from Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration [ 60] can be introduced.

Precautionary approach is premised on the notion of reducing, if not eliminating, risks to human health and the environment. It acknowledges the complexity and variability of the natural environment and embodies certain humility about scientific procedures and knowledge. It prioritizes the rights of those who stand to be affected by an activity, rather than those who stand to benefit from it [ 57]. It involves scrutiny of all available alternatives and an examination of justifications and benefits as well as risks and costs. In short, a precautionary approach involves the adoption of long-term, holistic, and inclusive perspectives in environmental protection [ 46, 61, 62].

Precautionary approach or precautionary principle is the borderline between science and policy or science and governance, in modern parlance. It is often divided into three components: (1) the lack of scientific certainty, (2) a risk of irreversible or serious damage, and (3) an obligation for states to take measures accordingly. The precautionary principle aims to replace uncertainty to ensure safety until other measures or solutions can be implemented. Within a policy that strives to achieve sustainable development over a long period, the precautionary principle seems to be indispensable. As the precautionary principle intends to protect the environment beyond current scientific knowledge, its implementation may not be justified or questioned on the basis of current scientific data alone.

The virtue of precautionary principle is the avoidance of risks that are impossible to assess. Its vice is that these risks, which may not even exist, can only be avoided by refusing to improve quality, being product quality or the quality of life. It has been justified by academics and pressure groups for imposing restrictions on the use of genetic modification technology claiming that the lost species and ecosystems can never be recovered for future generations. On the other hand, the development-focused environmentalists note that future generations may not come into being to appreciate these ecosystems without effective action on development imperatives.

The precautionary calculus often overlooks the fact that even when technologies introduce new risks, very often they confer net benefits-that is, their use reduces many other serious and costly hazards. For example, the use of GMOs with enhanced pest and disease resistance has reduced the use of pesticides, reducing runoff into waterways, and the exposure of workers who manufacture, transport, and apply these chemicals. It has also permitted farmers to adopt environment-friendly, no-till farming practices. Rice varieties enhanced with provitamin A and iron could drastically improve health of hundreds of millions of the malnourished in developing countries. Such tangible environmental and health benefits are usually given little or no weight in precautionary risk calculations [ 63].

To gain more clarity on whether the precautionary principle could be used as an effective tool to reduce the overall risks or to merely regulate risks, we can consider the experience of the European Union and the US, respectively, with the genetically modified crops [ 64]. The EU has ensured low rates of adoption of GM crops within Europe, but it does not follow that this has reduced overall environmental or health risks, the very reason for the precautionary approach. But the US approach, which incorporates a moderate version of the principle (requiring governmental approval prior to their commercial cultivation), has led to rapid adoption of GM crops and brought significant environmental benefits (relative to conventional crops) such as higher yields, lower pesticide usage, and increases in biodiversity [ 65]. Thus, while the EU's version of the precautionary principle has effectively limited GM crops by prolonging riskier practices, it has been environmentally counterproductive.

Even though several countries have adopted well-drafted environmental and biodiversity laws, reference to "precautionary principle" is missing. For instance, Malaysia's national biodiversity policy makes explicit reference to the convention on biological diversity (1992) but refrains from using the term "precautionary principle." Similarly, other countries in the region, Vietnam, Indonesia and Lao PDR, also do not directly invoke precautionary principle in their laws.

On the other hand, in several countries (e.g., India and Pakistan), the highest judicial authority has cited "precautionary principle" in its judgments. Several African countries have made explicit reference to "precautionary principle" in their laws. Examples include the 1997 Mozambique environment legislation, the 1996 general environmental law of Cameroon, and South Africa's National Environmental Management Act.

Latin American countries have also incorporated 'precaution as guiding principle' in their national environmental laws. Examples include general and biodiversity-related environmental laws in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Ecuador.

The "precautionary principle" in Australia's environmental policy is deeply rooted, as reflected in the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Environment of 1992 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999.

This "Precautionary Principle" as mentioned above is deeply entrenched in the environmental legislations of several European countries. On the other hand, in the United States of America, precaution is rarely stated explicitly in any of its laws. However, the precautionary principles are well entrenched in several protection acts such as Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992.

A report by the European Environment Agency (2002) summarizes the European experience invoking "Precautionary Principle" for environmental management which provides useful insights on what lessons can be learned about the Precautionary Principle from several case studies. These lessons include the following: (1) respond to ignorance as well as uncertainty, (2) research and monitor for early warnings, (3) search out and address "blind spots" and gaps in scientific knowledge, (4) identify and reduce interdisciplinary obstacles to learning, (5) ensure that real-world conditions are fully accounted for and systematically scrutinize and justify the claimed "pros" and "cons", (6) evaluate alternatives, (7) promote robust diverse and adaptable solutions, and (8) use "lay" and local knowledge as well as all relevant specialist expertise.

The increasing acceptance of precautionary principles has, however, been accompanied by changes in their public profile. Many European industries decreasingly view precautionary principles as acceptable risk management approaches and increasingly view them as tools for environment and health advocates. These industries 'disenchantment is fed both by decreasing control over regulatory bodies' interpretation of  "precaution" and by seeing precautionary principles endorsed by individuals with very different worldviews. These proponents advocate precaution as a response to globalization and the so-called "risk society" where risks extend over time and national boundaries, without compensating many of those affected by them [ 63].

Some environmental groups argue that this world requires an expanded role for NGOs, representing and interpreting precautionary principles. These groups do not dismiss science but doubt its ability to resolve issues with great uncertainties and pervasive value conflicts. However, even those who acknowledge limits to conventional science may be uncomfortable with the transfer of power where NGOs made the arbiters of ambiguity [ 66].

Some US agencies accepted that businesses and governments may invoke precautionary principles to protect their markets from outside competition. They point to "precautionary" bans that fall heavily on US products, such as GM corn and beef raised with growth hormones [ 67]. The Commission of the European Communities [ 68] has recognized these possibilities without offering a clear resolution.

In contrast, the above precautionary principle is anultimate key issue within the sustainable development framework. New approaches are needed to take into account the risk, uncertainty, and complexity involved. There is a need to identify normative preferences, and the stakeholders perspectives and extended peer communities are needed.

7. How to Ensure the Role of Precautionary Measures

The precautionary approach offers the public and decision makers a forceful, common-sense approach to environmental and public health problems. In order to deliver the promise implied by its name, the principle should not increase the overall risks. To ensure that a policy is truly precautionary, one should compare the risks of adopting the policy against not adopting it. It should take care of some ethical criteria to ensure that it actually reduces overall risks when outcomes are ambiguous. These include the human mortality and morbidity threat, threats from outcomes that are irreversible or persistent, the immediacy criteria wherein immediate threats must be taken care of prior to threats that could occur later, and the uncertainty criteria where threats of harm that are more certain should take precedence over less certain harms.

As formulated at the "Wingspread Conference" [ 69], the principle of precautionary action has 4 parts.(1) People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. (2) The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public. (3) Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of alternatives'' including the alternative of doing nothing. (4) Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open, informed and democratic'' and "must include affected parties.''

In February 2, 2000, European Commission Communication (ECC) released a note on the Precautionary Principle: the "precautionary principle" applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain, and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates of there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal, or plant health EC [2000].

It is important to emphasize that although this principle operates in the context of scientific uncertainty, it is considered by its proponents to be applicable only when, on the basis of the best scientific advice available, there is good reason to believe that harmful effects might occur [ 44]. The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration remains by far the most widely quoted version of the precautionary principle. It states that in case of ''threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation''. It also brings in the element of proportionality by stating that measures should be applied according to the capability of the states.

The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety based on the Precautionary Principle, emerged as a result of international negotiation to reduce the transboundary movement transit, handling and use of living modified organism (LMO) that may negatively impinge on the biological diversity. Three are three core elements of the Cartagena Protocol: advance information agreement (AIA), risk assessment and the precautionary principle. The idea of the for requiring AIA of LMO is that states have a right to know what is coming into their territories, and the information should be provided in time to prepare possible harm. This procedure applies only to LMOs for introduction into environment. AIA procedures are embodied in Articles 8, 9, and 10. According to these procedures, the exporting party must communicate a written request to importer prior to transfer of LMOs intended to be introduced into environment.

The risk assessment of the Article 10 is envisioned in the protocol as guideline for parties in their decisions to import LMOs. An assessment of risk will enable them to anticipate and prevent environmental harm. Risk assessment should be performed with information available to importing state in the AIA documentation. Procedures to assess risk should be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. This article also contains explicit support for the risk management and precautionary approach.

Article 11 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety requires parties to comply with information requirements set in Annex II, according to which states have provided information facility in the protocol, the biosafety clearing house, a risk assessment report according to guidelines established in AnnexIII.

Article 17 stated that the unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures of the living modified organisms that likely have significant adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity take into account risk to human health.

Article 18 of the Caratagena Protocol addressing handling transport, packaging, and identification of transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment must identify the organisms as LMOs. The objective of this article is to make sure that the LMOs are handled and moved safely to avoid adverse effects on biological biodiversity and human health.

The precautionary principle of the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety in Articles 5 and 6 mainly contained the advance information agreement and the risk assessment requirement. The inclusion of precautionary principle in the agreement to some academics contains its strongest enunciation and has been regarded "operationalization" in the body of environmental treaty. The catalyst for the application of precautionary measures in this agreement is the risk assessment. If the risk assessment shows unacceptable level of risk, then the GMO in question could be opposed to introduce in the environment.

Thus, the precautionary principle is not panacea, and it will not change world overnight, but it can make a difference in the protection of human health and environment by providing the guidance to policy makers when considering threats posed by GMOs [ 70, 71].

8. Conclusion

The use of genetically modified organisms is important in order to meet increasing demands and improve existing conditions prevalent in our environment. We are at an anxious juncture where, on one hand, we are faced with unprecedented threats to human health and environment, while on the other hand we have opportunities to change the way things are done. Regulations concerning use of GMOs need a broader basis for decision. Postrelease impacts of GMOs can follow preventive and precautionary measures based on risk assessment and management. Monitoring and detection methods are vital for risk assessment and management to control the negative environmental and health impacts. The international biosafety regulatory frameworks are sufficiently stringent in order to protect against genuine ascertainable risks, as well as the ability of decision makers to discern the appropriateness of data necessary to adequately conduct a risk assessment, which all have considerable consequences. Consideration of social, economic, and ethical issues needs to be taken care of. Application of the precautionary approach provides avenues for future development and use of genetic engineering.

9. Future Prospective of GMO

Regulation of GMO deals with a transscientific problem, that is, the resolution of the problems is beyond the competence of the scientific system. Public perception and acceptance are dependent on trust and whether the products or processes benefit them as citizens and consumers. To take proper accounts of uncertainties and public concern would help to capture the benefits, minimize the risk, and provide goals for future development and use of genetic engineering. Judgment about risks should not be based on the method modification (classical or modern) but on the quality of the final product. What does the GMO contain, is it safe, and not how was the GMO made? Encouragement of new monitoring and detection methods and tools is therefore vital for assessment, control of environmental, and health impacts as well as collection of ecological knowledge of relevance to future releases.

Acknowledgment

Dhan Prakash, Ranjana Bhatia, and Sonika Verma contributed equally for the this review article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Risks and Precautions of Genetically Modified Organisms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Commercial potential of biotechnology is immense since the scope of its activity covers the entire spectrum of human life. The most potent biotechnological approach is the transfer of specifically constructed gene assemblies through various techniques. However, this deliberate modification and the resulting entities thereof have become the bone of contention all over the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This blog is part of a series that explores the themes and issues raised in Farmed and Dangerous, a 4-part satirical web series exploring issues related to the food system and industrial agriculture. If you're interested in joining the conversation, please contact us at FoodForThought@huffingtonpost.com.
Transparency is sexy. Misleading people, not so much.

If you had no idea that ingredients, labeled by the EPA as pesticides, are hiding in your food, you're not alone.

Here are nine dirty little secrets about GMOs that impact everyone from farmers to families to the financials of our economy:

1. Shh, don't mention the food waste: "We need this technology to feed to world," is the marketing cry of the big chemical companies. In truth, they do need this technology to feed the expectations of shareholders, but it turns out that more than one-third of the food produced in the world goes to waste. That amounts to 1.3 billion tons every year, costing us economically. In this country alone, we throw away 96 billion pounds of food every year, or 27 percent of the total amount of available food. That's 3,000 pounds of food a second. With the United Nations on record saying that we need more than just genetically engineered food tools in the toolbox, it appears what we also need is a smarter distribution model to address this waste.

2. Forget Big Tobacco, it's Big Razor's playbook: Gillette will practically give away the razor to get people hooked on buying the razor blade. It's a smart strategy for chemical companies, too. They offer the genetically engineered seed at a discount, then get farmers on the hook for buying the chemicals and suite of chemical products required to make their seeds grow. Pesticide application is up 527 million pounds since the introduction of these genetically engineered crops.

3. EPA now regulates this genetically engineered corn as a pesticide. Seriously, if you had the choice on your kitchen table or at a BBQ between a corn regulated by the EPA as a pesticide and one that wasn't, which would you choose? No brainer. We should know which one is the pesticide and which foods it is going into.

4. Pre-treated seeds doused in chemicals: It's called an accelerating agent, and seeds are pretreated before they are ever even put in the ground. Is it any wonder that farmers using these seeds are increasingly worried about what it is doing to the quality of their soil?

5. Pouring on the Pesticides: The latest analysis shows that genetically engineered crops have driven up overall pesticide use across the country, contributing to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use between 1996 and 2011. And last year alone, genetically engineered crops used 20 percent more pesticides on average than non-GE crops. Who pays for that? Farmers and the people that eat them. Who benefits? The chemical companies selling the seeds engineered to withstand these increasing doses. It goes straight to the bottom line and into the bank.

6. Patent the Chemicals as a Drug: The increasingly controversial weed killer, glyphosate, has been patented an antibiotic: Who knew that the patent had been filed? Apparently the US Patent and Trademark Office. As a growing number of farmers express concern over what this chemical is doing to their soil as headlines around the world express concern over what it is doing to humans, you have to ask yourself: given the 21 st century technology we have today, is it time to make this 20 th century, chemically intensive operating system, obsolete?

7. Patents protect intellectual property: "The development of genetic engineering of plants in the 1980s was accompanied by a sequence of increasingly specific confirmations of the patentability of various types of life forms, provided that they met the standard patent criteria of novelty, utility and nonobviousness." Nonobviousness is pretty discreet. So let's say a pediatric cancer or autism group wanted to study if these crops and chemicals are contributing to the rates of cancer or autism. They'd have to go to Monsanto or the other big chemical companies for permission. It's worth considering that just as Big Tobacco did before it, these chemical companies just might possibly be relying upon concealment of its documents from the public under intellectual property law to avoid liabilities and to evade regulation.

8. Technology Stewardship Agreements lock farmers into contracts for genetically engineered seeds. Want to break the contract? They'll sue you. A farmer in Iowa is living testament to this happening. Once he realized that the details of that contract locked him into purchasing Monsanto's suite of products for the life of the farm, it felt like a noose. When he wanted out, they made a point of showing the farming world that it wasn't an option and sued.

9. Labels mean liability: Right now the companies using these genetically engineered foods want a ban on state labeling and are trying to stop a growing call for mandatory national labeling. Why? Because without labels, this "GMO Buyers Club" can claim that there is no evidence that these crops have ever caused any harm. And guess what? Without labels, they are right, there is no evidence. Labels would bring accountability, traceability and liability. It's no wonder that the food industry is so allergic to labeling these genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. An allergic reaction to food sends someone to the ER once every three minutes.

We label the inside parts of our cars, our cell phones and our computers, so why is the chemical industry so cloaked about what goes into our food?

Can you imagine if Intel operated this way? There would be no Intel Inside and no way of knowing which parts of the operating system were functioning as promised and which parts might be detrimental to the system.

We've got GMO Inside our food, but no label to tell us.

The chemical industry argues that labeling would drive up food costs, and they would have to pass these added expenses on to consumers. But it doesn't ring true, especially when you look at how American food companies label these ingredients in the products that they sell overseas and at the number of label changes for pink ribbons, Easter Bunnies or holiday packaging.

Without labels on genetically engineered ingredients, the industry can claim "no evidence of harm." And they are right. Without labels, there is no traceability, accountability and liability. No way for these companies to be held accountable for the costs that they are externalizing onto society, our farmers, their farms and our economy.

But if the tobacco industry is any indication, it is only a matter of time before these externalized costs come back onto the financial statements of the chemical companies. Farmers and families are being impacted, and there is an antecedent here: it is Medicaid Third Party Liability (TPL) recovery obtained from "Big Tobacco," totaling $240 billion.

As the number of food companies opting out of these ingredients grows, so too, does the number of attorneys who have children that are impacted by food allergies and other conditions.

The food awakening is on, and the companies that are opting out of genetically engineered ingredients and willing to be transparent with the consumers are capturing market share.

That is sexy to shareholders.

Hiding your ingredients and making food dirty with GMOs and lots of chemicals? Not so much.
Farmed and Dangerous was produced by Chipotle and production company Piro. Chipotle is the sponsor for the Food For Thought initiative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog is part of a series that explores the themes and issues raised in Farmed and Dangerous, a 4-part satirical web series exploring issues related to the food system and industrial agriculture. If you're interested in joining the conversation, please contact us at FoodForThought@huffingtonpost.com. Transparency is sexy.

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Ibarra
Richard Ibarra 
Read this article for a lot of good info !
more_vert
Gavin Litfin
Gavin Litfin
https://undark.org/2021/04/12/gmo-

# data[].attributes.body
This article contains a list of foods that contain GMO in it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feed Your Mind Main Page en Español (Spanish)
Am I eating foods that come from GMO crops?

It is very likely you are eating foods and food products that are made with ingredients that come from GMO crops. Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar. A few fresh fruit and vegetables are available in GMO varieties, including potatoes, summer squash, apples, papayas, and pink pineapples. Although GMOs are in a lot of the foods we eat, most of the GMO crops grown in the United States are used for animal food.

To make it easier for consumers to know if the foods they eat contain GMO ingredients, the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains a list of bioengineered foods available throughout the world. Additionally, you will start seeing the "bioengineered" label on some of the foods we eat because of the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

GMOs, Farm to Table

What GMO crops are in the United States?
Corn:
Corn is the most commonly grown crop in the United States, and most of it is GMO. Most GMO corn is created to resist insect pests or tolerate herbicides. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn is a GMO corn that produces proteins that are toxic to certain insect pests but not to humans, pets, livestock, or other animals. These are the same types of proteins that organic farmers use to control insect pests, and they do not harm beneficial insects, such as ladybugs. GMO Bt corn reduces the need for spraying insecticides while still preventing insect damage. While a lot of GMO corn goes into processed foods and drinks, most of it is used to feed livestock, like cows, and poultry, like chickens.
Soybean:
Most soy grown in the United States is GMO soy. Most GMO soy is used for food for animals, predominantly poultry and livestock, and making soybean oil. It is also used as ingredients (lecithin, emulsifiers, and proteins) in processed foods.
Cotton:
GMO cotton was created to be resistant to bollworms and helped revive the Alabama cotton industry. GMO cotton not only provides a reliable source of cotton for the textile industry, it is also used to make cottonseed oil, which is used in packaged foods and in many restaurants for frying. GMO cottonseed meal and hulls are also used in food for animals.
Potato:
Some GMO potatoes were developed to resist insect pests and disease. In addition, some GMO potato varieties have been developed to resist bruising and browning that can occur when potatoes are packaged, stored, and transported, or even cut in your kitchen. While browning does not change the quality of the potato, it often leads to food being unnecessarily thrown away because people mistakenly believe browned food is spoiled.
Papaya:
By the 1990s, ringspot virus disease had nearly wiped out Hawaii's papaya crop, and in the process almost destroyed the papaya industry in Hawaii. A GMO papaya, named the Rainbow papaya, was created to resist ringspot virus. This GMO saved papaya farming on the Hawaiian Islands.
Summer Squash:
GMO summer squash is resistant to some plant viruses. Squash was one of the first GMOs on the market, but it is not widely grown.
Canola:
GMO canola is used mostly to make cooking oil and margarine. Canola seed meal can also be used in food for animals. Canola oil is used in many packaged foods to improve food consistency. Most GMO canola is resistant to herbicides and helps farmers to more easily control weeds in their fields.
Alfalfa:
GMO alfalfa is primarily used to feed cattle-mostly dairy cows. Most GMO alfalfa is resistant to herbicides, allowing farmers to spray the crops to protect them against destructive weeds that can reduce alfalfa production and lower the nutritional quality of the hay.
Apple:
A few varieties of GMO apples were developed to resist browning after being cut. This helps cut down on food waste, as many consumers think brown apples are spoiled.
Sugar Beet:
Sugar beets are used to make granulated sugar. More than half the granulated sugar packaged for grocery store shelves is made from GMO sugar beets. Because GMO sugar beets are resistant to herbicides, growing GMO sugar beets helps farmers control weeds in their fields.
Pink Pineapple:
The GMO pink pineapple was developed to have pink flesh by increasing the levels of lycopene. Lycopene is naturally found in pineapples, and it is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink.

What about animals that eat food made from GMO crops?

Similarly, the DNA from GMO animal food does not make it into the meat, eggs, or milk from the animal. Research shows that foods like eggs, dairy products, and meat that come from animals that eat GMO food are equal in nutritional value, safety, and quality to foods made from animals that eat only non-GMO food.

Learn more about GMO Crops and Food for Animals.

Who makes sure animal food is safe?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safety of GMO and non-GMO food for animals. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine manages this responsibility. FDA requires that all food for animals, like food for human foods, be safe for animals to eat, be produced under clean conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be accurately labeled.

Are there GMO animals in the food supply?

Yes. FDA has approved an application allowing the sale of the AquAdvantage Salmon to consumers. The AquAdvantage Salmon has been genetically modified to reach an important growth point faster. FDA has also approved an alteration in the GalSafe pig for human food consumption and potential therapeutic uses. The GalSafe pig was developed to be free of detectable alpha-gal sugar on its cell surfaces. People with Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) may have allergic reactions to alpha-gal sugar found in red meat (e.g., beef, pork, and lamb). FDA has determined that food from the AquAdvantage Salmon and the GalSafe pig are as safe and nutritious to eat as food from non-GMO salmon and pigs.

Are GMOs used to make anything besides food?

When you hear the term "GMO" you probably think of food. However, techniques used to create GMOs are important in creating some medicines as well. In fact, genetic engineering, which is the process used to create GMOs, was first used to make human insulin, a medicine used to treat diabetes. Medicines developed through genetic engineering go through an in-depth FDA approval process. All medicines must be proven to be safe and effective before they are approved for human use. GMOs are also used in the textile industry. Some GMO cotton plants are used to create cotton fiber that is then used to make fabric for clothing and other materials.
How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar.

# data[].attributes.body
Learn about Gmo's right here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Purdue University - College of Agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Story on GMOs

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. Let's break it down word by word. Genetically refers to genes. Genes are made up of DNA, which is a set of instructions for how cells grow and develop. Second is Modified. This implies that some change or tweak has been made. Lastly, we have the word Organism. When it comes to GMOs, many people only think of crops. Yet an 'organism' isn't just a plant; it refers to all living things, including bacteria and fungi.

With that in mind, GMOs are living beings that have had their genetic code changed in some way. While conventional breeding, which has been going on for centuries, involves mixing all of the genes from two different sources, producing a GMO is much more targeted. Rather than crossing two plants out in the field, they insert a gene or two into individual cells in a lab. Yet, as mentioned earlier, GM technology can also be used on microorganisms. For example, bacteria have been genetically modified to produce medicines that can cure diseases or vaccines that prevent them. A commonly used medicine that comes from a genetically modified source is insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, but there are many others.

# data[].attributes.body
This short article will tell you about the risks of eating GMO foods.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/gmos-lesson-for-kids.html

# data[].attributes.body
GMOs: Pros and Cons, Backed by Evidence - Healthline

# data[].attributes.body
This Article will help with know if some gmo foods are good or not!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html

# data[].attributes.body
I used this link to find out about GMO foods. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324576

# data[].attributes.body
this article is if gmo is good or not

https://www.livescience.com/40895-gmo-facts.html

# data[].attributes.body
Here is an article talking about GMO's and all the things you need to know about them from Kiddle!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically modified food Facts for Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn Genetically modified food facts for kids

# data[].attributes.body
GMO video

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like voters on the Kids' Environmental Report Card poll, most people are divided about these relative newcomers to our restaurants and grocery stores.

According to the most recent Report Card poll, the majority of kids think genetically engineered foods are "dangerous." However, nearly half as many kids needed more information before sharing their views on this topic.

Yes, playing with nature can be risky. To make smart decisions about the future of our foods, we'll need to gather more information about the potential effects of genetically engineered foods.

Too Soon to Say?
Genetic engineering is not a new practice. Through standard techniques such as selective breeding, people have been modifying the genetic makeup of food crops and domestic animals for 10,000 years.

Today, two-thirds of the processed foods sold in the U.S. contain ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many GMOs are so new that we haven't had time to weight the effects, good or bad, of these items. Foods such as Bt-resistant corn may be making the world safer, by reducing the need for pesticide sprays. However, they may cause trouble for the environment in other, as-yet undiscovered, ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs: Good or Bad for the Planet? | Scholastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like voters on the Kids' Environmental Report Card poll, most people are divided about these relative newcomers to our restaurants and grocery stores. According to the most recent Report Card poll, the majority of kids think genetically engineered foods are "dangerous." However, nearly half as many kids needed more information before sharing their views on this topic.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/genetically-modified-organisms/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Robert Goldberg sags into his desk chair and gestures at the air. "Frankenstein monsters, things crawling out of the lab," he says. "This the most depressing thing I've ever dealt with."

Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, is not battling psychosis. He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: "Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago."

Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. "A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology," he says. "Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later." The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing.

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops-who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks-find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this contentiousness is a good thing-that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic basis of the world's food supply. To researchers such as Goldberg, however, the persistence of fears about GM foods is nothing short of exasperating. "In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth," he says, "and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we've gone back to being ignorant."

So who is right: advocates of GM or critics? When we look carefully at the evidence for both sides and weigh the risks and benefits, we find a surprisingly clear path out of this dilemma.

Benefits and worries

The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Take it from David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist and one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics. He argues that the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh the health risks, which so far remain theoretical. The use of GM crops "has lowered the price of food," Zilberman says. "It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger."

In the future, Zilberman says, those advantages will become all the more significant. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. Climate change will make much of the world's arable land more difficult to farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides.

Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods. Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, but only two GM crops, Monsanto's MON810 maize and BASF's Amflora potato, are accepted in the European Union. Ten E.U. nations have banned MON810, and although BASF withdrew Amflora from the market in 2012, four E.U. nations have taken the trouble to ban that, too. Approval of a few new GM corn strains has been proposed there, but so far it has been repeatedly and soundly voted down. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve most GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide. In Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GM foods in spite of their lower costs (the result of higher yields and a reduced need for water and pesticides). Kenya has banned them altogether amid widespread malnutrition. No country has definite plans to grow Golden Rice, a crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A), even though vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world.

Globally, only a tenth of the world's cropland includes GM plants. Four countries-the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina-grow 90 percent of the planet's GM crops. Other Latin American countries are pushing away from the plants. And even in the U.S., voices decrying genetically modified foods are becoming louder. In 2016 the U.S. federal government passed a law requiring labeling of GM ingredients in food products, replacing GM-labeling laws in force or proposed in several dozen states.

The fear fueling all this activity has a long history. The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them. Consumers in Europe became particularly alarmed: a survey conducted in 1997, for example, found that 69 percent of the Austrian public saw serious risks in GM foods, compared with only 14 percent of Americans.

In Europe, skepticism about GM foods has long been bundled with other concerns, such as a resentment of American agribusiness. Whatever it is based on, however, the European attitude reverberates across the world, influencing policy in countries where GM crops could have tremendous benefits. "In Africa, they don't care what us savages in America are doing," Zilberman says. "They look to Europe and see countries there rejecting GM, so they don't use it." Forces fighting genetic modification in Europe have rallied support for "the precautionary principle," which holds that given the kind of catastrophe that would emerge from loosing a toxic, invasive GM crop on the world, GM efforts should be shut down until the technology is proved absolutely safe.

But as medical researchers know, nothing can really be "proved safe." One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it-as is the case with GM crops.

A clean record

The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using "mutagenic" techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems.

The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. "We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it," Goldberg says. "We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't."

And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. "When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance," says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. "Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders," McHughen says.

Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to-and even consume-the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. "We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years," Goldberg says.

In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli -infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011.

Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.

Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. "Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment," he says. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences have all unreservedly backed GM crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view.

Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. For example, a 1998 study by plant biochemist Árpád Pusztai, then at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats fed a GM potato suffered from stunted growth and immune system-related changes. But the potato was not intended for human consumption-it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct.

Similar stories abound. Most recently, a team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a researcher at the University of Caen Lower Normandy in France, found that rats eating a common type of GM corn contracted cancer at an alarmingly high rate. But Séralini has long been an anti-GM campaigner, and critics charged that in his study, he relied on a strain of rat that too easily develops tumors, did not use enough rats, did not include proper control groups and failed to report many details of the experiment, including how the analysis was performed. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. "If GM corn were that toxic, someone would have noticed by now," McHughen says. "Séralini has been refuted by everyone who has cared to comment."

Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science-that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. "This has nothing to do with science," Goldberg says. "It's about ideology." Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He has gone as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd "explicitly an antiscience movement."

Persistent doubts

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. "It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things," he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of "insertional mutagenesis," Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes.

True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen-or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. "You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well," Williams says. "But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?"

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh-even unscientific-in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. And even Séralini, the scientist behind the study that found high cancer rates for GM-fed rats, has his defenders. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed. He says that as someone who runs drug-safety studies, he is well versed on what constitutes a good-quality animal toxicology study and that Séralini's makes the grade. He insists that the breed of rat in the study is commonly used in respected drug studies, typically in numbers no greater than in Séralini's study; that the methodology was standard; and that the details of the data analysis are irrelevant because the results were so striking.

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

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. "If it doesn't come out the right way," he says, "you're going to get trashed."

There is evidence to support that charge. In 2009 Nature detailed the backlash to a reasonably solid study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers from Loyola University Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn. Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct.

A way forward

There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing. "We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether," he says.

Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. "Ninety percent of the scientists I talk to assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA," he says. "They absolutely aren't, and they absolutely should be."

Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. "Even under the current testing standards for GM crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn't have made it to market," McHughen says. "What's going to happen if we become even more strict?"

That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents of genetically modified crops say the technology is the only way to feed a warming, increasingly populous world. Critics say we tamper with nature at our peril. Who is right?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/are-genetically-modified-crops-answer-world-hunger/