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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Breeding a grape that tastes just like cotton candy to capture consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By marrying select traits across thousands of trial grapes, a California fruit breeder came up with a grape that tastes like puffy spun sugar. The first big harvest will be in August.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Academy of Sciences - probably the country's most prestigious scientific group - has reaffirmed its judgment that GMOs are safe to eat. But the group's new report struck a different tone from previous ones, with much more space devoted to concerns about genetically modified foods, including social and economic ones.

The report marks an anniversary. Twenty years ago, farmers started growing soybeans that had been genetically modified to tolerate the popular weedkiller known as Roundup and corn that contains a protein, extracted from bacteria, that kills some insect pests.

In the years since, arguments about these crops have grown so contentious that the National Academy can't be sure that people will believe whatever it has to say on the topic.

Even before this report came out, an anti-GMO group called Food & Water Watch attacked it. The group accused some members of the committee that prepared the report of receiving research funding from biotech companies, or having other ties to the industry.

"The makeup of the panel is pretty clear. People are coming in with a perspective that is pro-genetically engineered crop," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch.

The preemptive attack frustrates Fred Gould, the North Carolina State University scientist who chaired the committee. Gould has been known in the past as a GMO critic. He has pushed for restrictions on the planting of some GMO crops. "I have not been a darling of the industry. As a matter of fact, they denied me seeds and plants to do my experiments," he says.

Gould says that over the two years that he and the other members of this committee worked on this report, they had one important rule: "If you had an opinion, you had to back it up with data. If you didn't have the data, it didn't go into the report."

The report tries to answer a long list of questions about GMOs, involving nutrition, environmental effects, effects on the farm economy and monopoly control over seeds.

The most basic conclusion: There's no evidence that GMOs are risky to eat.

The committee also found that GMOs, as promised, have allowed farmers of some crops to spray less insecticide to protect their crops - although there's a risk that the GMO crops may not work as well in the future, because insects could develop resistance to them. Also, there's no evidence that GMOs have reduced the amount of wild plant and insect life on farms.

And the report found that some claims about the benefits of GMOs have been exaggerated.

For instance, the productivity of crops has been increasing for a century, and that didn't change when GMOs came along. "The expectation from some of the [GMO] proponents was that we need genetic engineering to feed the world, and we're going to use genetic engineering to make that increase in yield go up faster. We saw no evidence of that," Gould says.

The report urges federal agencies to change the way they regulate GMOs. Up to now, companies have introduced just a small number of different kinds of genetically modified crops. That could change very soon, because there's new technology, called gene editing, that isn't exactly genetic engineering, but it's not traditional plant breeding, either.

The report urges regulators to look at all new crops, no matter how they're created, if they "have novelty and the possibility of some kind of risk associated with them," Gould says.

Many scientists who got their first look at the report Tuesday praised it. Some called it the most comprehensive review of GMOs that anyone, so far, has carried out.

But longtime critics of GMOs were less impressed.

Patty Lovera, from Food & Water Watch, the group that attacked the National Academy's committee for being too closely linked to industry, took a quick look at the report and didn't see much that seemed new. "It's not the final word" on GMOs, she says.

The National Academy of Sciences is trying to make this report more easily accessible to the public. It has set up a website where people can read the report and also look up the sections that address specific comments that were submitted by the public.

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Academy of Sciences - probably the country's most prestigious scientific group - has reaffirmed its judgment that GMOs are safe to eat. But the group's new report struck a different tone from previous ones, with much more space devoted to concerns about genetically modified foods, including social and economic ones.

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

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

Erin Blakemore

Get Smithsonian Educational Resources

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Chinese company edits pig DNA, develops piglets that will stay pet-sized

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's like a lapdog, but it's a pig. A Chinese biotech company has edited porcine genes so these pigs will not get too big. Available only in China, each tiny pig carries a hefty price tag of $1,600.

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ReadWorks | Award-Winning, EdTech Nonprofit Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ReadWorks is an edtech nonprofit organization that is committed to helping to solve America's reading comprehension crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Potato company engineers spuds that are resistant to late blight disease

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Campbell Labels Will Disclose G.M.O. Ingredients (Published 2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Campbell Soup breaks from its rival food companies to disclose the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in its products.

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Acreage for Genetically Modified Crops Declined in 2015 (Published 2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Efforts to expand use of biotechnology to crops other than corn, soybeans, cotton and canola have been hindered by opposition from consumer and environmental groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American consumers who want to avoid genetically modified foods should not have to resort to guesswork.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to learn more about the process of genetic engineering?

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

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

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

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

Erin Blakemore

Get Smithsonian Educational Resources

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

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

By The Editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Issue Overview: GMOs and engineered food

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Florida mom sues food maker over "natural" label on Goldfish snacks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The elementary schoolteacher's lawsuit against Pepperidge Farm accuses it of mislabeling the Goldfish as natural. She seeks $5 million in damages for Floridians who have bought the snacks.

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

And with Oscar-ready animation from the acclaimed visual effects wizards at MOONBOT Studios set over a score of Fiona Apple covering "Pure Imagination" from the 1971 cult children's film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, is it any wonder that Chipotle's "stealth" promo for a free iOS game is already on a fast-track to become one of this year's most successful marketing campaigns - all without barely mentioning the word "Chipotle."

Add to that a powerful anti-factory-farming message, and all other ads should just give up:

In a dystopian fantasy world, all food production is controlled by fictional industrial giant Crow Foods. Scarecrows have been displaced from their traditional role of protecting food, and are now servants to the crows and their evil plans to dominate the food system. Dreaming of something better, a lone scarecrow sets out to provide an alternative to the unsustainable processed food from the factory.

Already America's favorite "Mexican restaurant chain," Chipotle has shied away from running ads on TV, believing its target audience - Millennials - "are skeptical of brands that perpetuate themselves."

Since parting ways with its former majority owner McDonald's, Chipotle has tried even harder to live up to its mission statement of "food with integrity."

Back in July, for example, the company announced plans to become the first US restaurant chain to strip its menu items of all genetically engineered ingredients.

Chipotle has high hopes that The Scarecrow will officially cement its status as a fast food chain with a brain.

[H/T: The Week]

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

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

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

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

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

Uses

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

Classification of herbicides

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

They are also classified by their activity:

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

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

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

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

Application

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

Some major herbicides in use today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other herbicides of historical interest

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

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

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

External links

Manufacturers and distributors

http://www.dowagro.com

http://www.syngenta.com

http://www.basf.com

http://www.monsanto.com

Regulatory policy http://www.epa.gov

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gregor Mendel discovered that genes could allow organisms to inherit specific characteristics

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Spuds or duds? Movie magic may become a reality for astronauts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like in Ridley Scott's "The Martian," NASA is running tests to see if potatoes could survive the climatic extremes of the Red Planet

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bet you've never seen fruits and veggies that look like these before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Federal regulators on Thursday approved a genetically engineered salmon as fit for consumption, making it the first genetically altered animal to be cleared for American supermarkets and dinner tables.

The approval by the Food and Drug Administration caps a long struggle for AquaBounty Technologies, a small company that first approached the F.D.A. about approval in the 1990s. The agency made its initial determination that the fish would be safe to eat and for the environment more than five years ago.

The approval of the salmon has been fiercely opposed by some consumer and environmental groups, which have argued that the safety studies were inadequate and that wild salmon populations might be affected if the engineered fish were to escape into the oceans and rivers.

"This unfortunate, historic decision disregards the vast majority of consumers, many independent scientists, numerous members of Congress and salmon growers around the world, who have voiced strong opposition," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.

Within hours of the agency's decision on Thursday, one consumer advocacy group, the Center for Food Safety, said it and other organizations would file a lawsuit challenging the approval.

The AquAdvantage salmon, as it is known, is an Atlantic salmon that has been genetically modified so that it grows to market size faster than a non-engineered farmed salmon, in as little as half the time.

"The F.D.A. has thoroughly analyzed and evaluated the data and information submitted by AquaBounty regarding the AquAdvantage salmon and determined that they have met the regulatory requirements for approval, including that food from the fish is safe to eat," Bernadette Dunham, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said in a statement.

F.D.A. officials said on Thursday that the process took so long because it was the first approval of its kind. People involved in the application suspect that the Obama administration delayed approval because it was wary of a political backlash.

The officials said the fish would not have to be labeled as being genetically engineered, a policy consistent with its stance on foods made from genetically engineered crops. However, it issued draft guidance as to wording that companies could use to voluntarily label the salmon as genetically engineered or to label other salmon as not genetically engineered.

Despite the approval, it is likely to be at least two years before any of the salmon reaches supermarkets, and at first it will be in tiny amounts.

Ronald Stotish, the chief executive of AquaBounty, which is majority-owned by Intrexon Corporation, said he was delighted and somewhat surprised by the approval after all this time. "We had no indication that approval was imminent," he said in an interview.

Mr. Stotish declined to say what the plans were for bringing the fish to market, other than that the salmon would not be in stores immediately because it would take about two years for even these fast-growing salmon to reach market size. It is also not likely there will be much of the salmon on the market because the approved production facility, which is in Panama, has the capacity to produce only about 100 tons of fish a year - a tiny amount compared with the more than 200,000 tons of Atlantic salmon the United States imports each year.

Mr. Stotish said he did not know if approval was still needed from Panama to export the fish.

It is not clear how well the salmon will sell. Some leading supermarkets have already said, in response to the vocal opposition, that they have no plans to sell it.

The fish are supposed to be raised inland in contained tanks to lessen the chances that they will escape into the wild. AquaBounty and its supporters say this will also be less stressful on the environment than using pens in the ocean. And it could eventually allow the fish to be raised in the United States, rather than being imported, as most farmed Atlantic salmon is.

For now, however, the fish are being raised in Panama, from eggs produced in Prince Edward Island, Canada. If the salmon were bred or raised elsewhere, for marketing to Americans, that would require separate approvals.

However, moving beyond Canada and Panama seems to be the plan, according to a regulatory filing by AquaBounty a year ago. It said at that time that after winning F.D.A. approval it would look to build a hatchery in the United States and expand the one in Canada to sell more eggs to fish farmers, who would then grow the salmon to market size. AquaBounty said it might also grow salmon from the eggs itself. In addition to the United States, it said it eventually hoped to sell the salmon in Canada, Argentina, Brazil and China.

The approval could help other efforts to develop genetically modified animals. Scientists and biotechnology industry executives have complained that the long, unexplained delay in approving the salmon was a deterrent to the field. Several other attempts to develop genetically engineered animals for consumption, like a pig whose manure would be less polluting, have fallen by the wayside.

Now, however, there has been a surge of interest in developing new genetically altered farm animals and pets because new techniques, including one known as Crispr-Cas9, allow scientists to edit animal genomes rather than add genes from other species. That has made it far easier to create altered animals.

Scientists in China, for instance, recently created goats with more muscle and longer hair. Researchers in Scotland used gene editing to create pigs resistant to African swine fever. It is not yet clear whether animals created this way would fall under F.D.A. regulation.

The AquAdvantage salmon contains a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a genetic switch from the ocean pout, an eel-like creature, that keeps the transplanted gene continuously active, whereas the salmon's own growth hormone gene is active only parts of the year. The company has said the fish can grow to market weight in 18 to 20 months, compared with 28 to 36 months for conventionally farmed salmon.

Opponents of the fish say that if the bigger fish were to escape, they could outcompete wild salmon for food or mates. Among the opponents have been members of Alaska's congressional delegation, who say they are worried about the effects on the image and health of wild salmon.

"This harebrained decision goes to show that our federal agencies are incapable of using common sense," Representative Don Young, a Republican, said in a statement.

But some scientists have dismissed these concerns. William Muir, a professor of animal sciences at Purdue University, said the fish posed no risk to the environment. "In contrast, the current practice of using wild caught salmon as a food source is not sustainable; our oceans are overfished," he said in a statement. "This development provides a safe and sustainable alternative."

The F.D.A. said on Thursday that there were multiple physical barriers in the Canada and Panama facilities to prevent any escape. The salmon are also made sterile to prevent reproduction in the event they do escape, although the sterilization technique is not foolproof.

The F.D.A. regulates genetically engineered animals as veterinary drugs, using the argument that the gene inserted into the animal meets the definition of a drug. Critics have branded this an inadequate solution intended to squeeze a new technology into an old regulatory framework. They say the F.D.A. is not as qualified as other government agencies to do environmental assessments. The White House is now reviewing the entire framework for regulating genetically engineered products.

The F.D.A. said that to approve the salmon, it determined that the fish was safe to eat, that the inserted genetic elements did not harm the fish itself, and that the company had adequately proved that the salmon grew faster.

AquaBounty, which is based in Maynard, Mass., has long struggled to raise enough money to stay in business. It is now about 60 percent owned by Intrexon, a company started by the biotechnology entrepreneur Randal J. Kirk to pursue synthetic biology, a term for sophisticated genetic engineering.

Intrexon has also acquired the company that developed a recently approved genetically modified apple resistant to browning and a British company working on genetically modified insects, such as mosquitoes that might be tested in the Florida Keys as a way to prevent dengue fever. Shares of Intrexon rose nearly 4 percent Thursday, closing at $36.65.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Genetically Engineered Salmon Declared Ready for U.S. Plates . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federal regulators on Thursday approved a genetically engineered salmon as fit for consumption, making it the first genetically altered animal to be cleared for American supermarkets and dinner tables. The approval by the Food and Drug Administration caps a long struggle for AquaBounty Technologies, a small company that first approached the F.D.A.