# data[].attributes.body
1.allowing farmers large or small grow crops on less land

2. arent just in foods, the u.s. was the first to invent gmo's

# data[].attributes.body
1. GMOs can cause people to have allergic reactions to the chemicals.
2. potential impact on non-target species

# 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 crops have had their DNA altered to be more resistant to pesticides and less expensive to produce, but some experts have raised health concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
1.reduced need for pesticides

2. better taste in some cases

# data[].attributes.body
Gmo is good because it can grow fast and cheap that make it easy to make food for people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you like it or not, you probably have an opinion on GMO. But how much do you actually know about it? Find out which knowledge nuggets might have gone under your radar!

1. GMO - the process

We know the term, GMO, and know it has something to do with genetics, right? But what do we actually know about the process itself? The exact details are as follows *drum roll*. GMO stands for genetically modified organism and it is a bioengineering technique. It extracts the foreign DNA of one organism and inserts it artificially into the DNA of a completely different organism altogether. And they don't even need to be of the same species. If it has genes, it's possible. For a step by step guide on the process, read on here.

2. GMO has been around for ages

As crazy as it sounds, a lot of what we already eat is genetically modified - we might just not know it. For centuries, we've been Nature's matchmaker through farming, and in the process, we've played a hand in genetically modifying a lot of what we'd define as normal' today. For example, a wild carrot looks more like a potato that's been on a torture rack than any carrot we've ever seen (the poor things).

3. GMOs can actually help out small farmers

A farmer's job can be pretty tough sometimes. For a farmer to bring home the bacon (asides from the pigs on the farm of course) everything depends on how mean Nature is feeling that year. Crop yields can plummet if there are bad weather conditions, which can be catastrophic for a small farmer. Inbuilt resistance in GMOs, however, can really help fight this, and when your harvest is already small, every little helps!

4. GMOs aren't just in your food

Cotton can also be 'GMO'd', and as a result a whole tonne of other everyday items have GMO ingredients in them. Sheets, towels, clothes, you name it, if it's cotton, GMO could be in there too. It doesn't stop at cotton though. GMO can be found in a bunch of other products. Alcohol can be made from GM corn and soy, so as a result GM can be found in toiletries, hand sanitiser, ink, gasoline - the list is as surprising and diverse as it comes.

5. Some countries really don't like GMO. Seriously.

In 2015, 38 countries had a ban on the cultivation of GM crop, and with new laws and technologies always developing, such regulation is constantly under review. This distrust can be traced back to uncertainty. As mentioned earlier, even our definition of GMO can vary, so it can all become quite messy. Even scientists are divided in their opinions and do not wish to assert GMO as definitively safe or unsafe. The official scientific consensus may back GM, but people like certainty across the board when it comes to matters this important, and this is where division can arise.

6. The US was the first country to invent GMO crops

Their investment goes further, with 93% of soy and 88% of corn in the US being GM. That's a big number for two big products. Corn is used for thickening food such as porridge and soup, sweetening thousands of food products and feeding farm animals. Soy also feeds farms, is a big source of food oil and can actually be used as a biofuel. To top it off, between 60-70% of all processed food in US grocery stores have some form of GMO ingredients in them. Phew.

7. GMO is also known as... Frankenfoods

Get it? Because it's the Frankenstein of foods? There are actually multiple names GMO goes by, so it's good to know the list in case you ever want to impress your friends at a party (I go to some fun parties). There's transgenic organisms, Frankenfoods and living modified organisms. You're welcome.

8. GMO can allow for fewer pesticides to be used

Pesticides are used to get rid of those pesky critters eating all our grub. But one form they can come in is damaging chemicals, which the less we use the better. One use of GM is to do the job of pesticides for them. For example, some crops have been given the Bt gene, which produces Bt bacteria - harmless to the plant, but deadly to the specific insects who enjoy a nibble of that crop. These crops have turned into some tough cookies, I mean vegetables.

9. There are multiple generations of GMOs

GMOs have been around since the early 90s, and in plant years, that's ages (I'm sure there's a wizened old vegetable out there mumbling, 'Back in my day...'). As a result, enough time has passed for there to be multiple generations for the reasoning behind GM. The first centred around the farmer and delivering better yields and reducing costs. The second was consumer centric, better taste and shelf life. Only time will tell what the next will be...

10. GMO may one day be outmuscled by CRISPR

There's a new kid on the genetic block, and its name is CRISPR. It edits genes that already exist in an organism rather than inserting new foreign ones. It's cheaper, it's easier, and it may end up being the future of genetic engineering. Just don't tell GMO I said that OK?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you like it or not, you probably have an opinion on GMO. But how much do you actually know about it? Find out which knowledge nuggets might have gone under your radar! We know the term, GMO, and know it has something to do with genetics, right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FORUM

The Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops Resistant to Insects

ELIANA M.G. FONTES ¹, CARMEN S.S. PIRES ¹, EDISON R. SUJII ¹ AND ANTÔNIO R. PANIZZI ²

1Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, C. postal 02372, 70849.970, Brasília, DF

² Embrapa-Labex-USA, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, USDA-ARS, 1815 North University Street, Peoria, IL 61604-3902, USA

Efeitos Ambientais de Culturas Geneticamente Modificadas Resistentes a Insetos

RESUMO - Cultivares transgênicas de várias culturas estão sendo utilizadas em escala comercial em muitos países. A área dedicada ao cultivo com plantas transgênicas resistentes às pragas em todo o mundo alcançou 13 milhões de hectares em 2001. As cultivares transgênicas proporcionam benefícios, mas também apresentam riscos potenciais. As avaliações do seu impacto no ambiente são conduzidas antes da sua aprovação para uso comercial, como requerido pelas normas de biossegurança. Nesta revisão, serão discutidas as conseqüências ecológicas potenciais do uso comercial na agricultura de cultivares geneticamente modificadas que apresentam resistência aos insetos-pragas. Também serão discutidos os impactos ambientais causados pelas mudanças nas práticas agrícolas, identificando-se falhas e oportunidades de pesquisa, considerando-se essa nova ferramenta tecnológica. Os comentários e análises serão baseados no conhecimento atual que se tem dos riscos e beneficios do uso de cultivares resistentes a insetos, geneticamente modificadas, dentro do contexto dos programas de manejo integrado de pragas tradicionais.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Planta transgênica, Bacillus thuringiensis, organismo não-alvo, fluxo gênico, biossegurança

ABSTRACT - Transgenic crops are currently being cultivated on a commercial scale in many countries. The area devoted to transgenic pest resistant varieties worldwide reached 13 million hectares in 2001. These varieties offer valuable benefits but also pose potential risks. Assessments of their impact on the environment are conducted before they are approved for commercial use, as required by the regulatory biosafety frameworks. In this review, we discuss the potential ecological consequences of the commercial use in agriculture of genetically modified insect resistant crops. We also discuss the impacts caused by the change in agricultural practices, and attempt to identify gaps and possible opportunities for research, considering this new technological tool. We based our analysis and comments on the current knowledge of the risks and benefits of these genetically modified insect resistant crops, within the context of traditional insect management strategies.

KEY WORDS: Transgenic crop, Bt gene, non-target organism, gene flow, biosafety

In recent years, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops through modern biotechnology is been considered a new technological breakthrough in agriculture, only comparable to the green revolution of the early 70's. The potential impact of this technology has also been compared with the introduction in the market of synthetic insecticides and many believed that this would solve pest problems around the world. Parallel to this great expectation, the molecular breeding of cultivated plants through genetic engineering has raised a worldwide debate about their potential impact on the environment.

These questions have been the subject of research for the past 15 years. The information raised is being used for the environmental risk assessments of GM crops, which is a fundamental procedure in the biosafety regulatory process internationally.

The objective of this article is to discuss the ecological principles and questions that have emerged from the environmental impact of this technology, and to consider the present state of knowledge about the different kinds of environmental effects of GM insect resistant crops available so far. Our review was based on diverse and consistent peer-reviewed literature, which we have tried to reproduce in a style easily understood by entomologists; we have tried to avoid much of the specific details of the diverse and complex issues involved in this subject.

The Market of GM Plants in the World

The global area of genetically modified plants reached 52.6 million hectares in 2001 (James 2001). Transgenic plants expressing Bt toxins conferring resistance against insects were tested in the field in at least 18 crops. However, only corn, cotton and potato are commercially available (Shelton et al. 2002). In the United States, pest resistant transgenic crops have been cultivated in large areas since 1996. In 2001, approximately 13 million hectares were cultivated with Bt corn and Bt cotton, mainly in the USA and Canada (James 2001). Bt crops are also being cultivated in China, India, South Africa and Argentina, with a great expansion in China (Carpenter et al. 2002). Consequently, some experience is being accumulated on the commercial use of insect resistant transgenic crops.

Protecting Plants from Pests - Risks and Benefits

Plant breeders attempt to minimize the impacts of crop pests by breeding plants resistant to the attack of pests. These breeders use the natural plant genetic variation and induced mutations to select desirable traits and introduce them into cultivated plants, using a combination of classical and modern plant breeding methods.

To make crop plants resistant to the attack of insects and diseases, breeders have relied on the chemical defenses of plants. Plants produce a variety of antimicrobial or insecticidal or defensive substances that provide protection against pests. These are secondary plant metabolites that include phenolics, terpenoids and steroids (Kogan 1986).

Traditional breeding to alter the plant's chemical composition to intoxicate target herbivores is achieved through the transfer or exchange of the desired traits among sexually compatible, i.e., related plant species which share genomes that are largely homologous. On the other hand, molecular breeding through genetic engineering can use genes and gene constructs derived from completely unrelated organisms, and add them to the existing genome in an entirely novel genetic context (Regal 1994). The added novel gene constructs contain not only the desired trait, but also marker genes, promoters and terminators.

The greater diversity of genes that can be transferred by genetic engineering methods, their enhanced effectiveness, and the ability to insert the same gene into many cultivated species have led to concerns about transgenic crops. Some transgenic breeding result in pest-protective traits that are phenotypically indistinguishable from those conferred by traditional breeding methods. In addition, transgenic methods are based on a more complete knowledge of the genes that are being transferred into cultivated plants. There are cases, however, when transgenic pest-protection traits may result in plants having new phenotypes that could affect human or animal health, non-target organisms, or the weediness of crop relatives. Transgenic methods can also introduce extraneous traits when they involve marker genes, such as antibiotic resistance genes. These are concerns that are taken into consideration by the biosafety regulatory process before transgenic varieties are commercialized.

Perceived disadvantages of genetically modified crops may be grouped into five categories: 1) potential impact on non-target species; 2) potential for increased weediness; 3) increase in toxin levels in the soil; 4) exchange of genetic material between the transgenic crop and related plant species; and 5) selection for resistance among populations of the target pests.

Transgenic Strategies for Plant Protection

Characteristics. The transgenic breeding method or the DNA recombinant technology allows the transference of genes from one species to another without sexual hybridization. Plant breeding by biotechnological processes (Brasileiro & Carneiro 1998) starts with prospecting desirable traits expressed under control of a single gene, e.g., production of a protein that could be toxic to herbivorous insects. Microorganisms and plants that produce toxins against pests have been the main source of genes for this technology. The next step in the process is the identification of the gene in charge of expressing the selected trait and then its isolation using restriction enzymes. This gene is then cloned and linked to other gene fragments to form the cassette of expression. This cassette is a piece of DNA that will be inserted into the plant to promote the expression of the desired characteristic.

Besides the gene of interest the cassette of expression is commonly comprised of a marker gene, a promoter gene and a terminator gene. The promoter gene has a central role in the gene transfer. Its function is to promote the expression of the gene of interest since many foreign genes (mainly those isolated from prokaryotes) will not express in plants. The 35S promoter gene isolated from the cauliflower mosaic virus is largely used due to its strength in inducing the expression of selected genes, and because it has a constitutive character, i.e., it is expressed in all tissues of the plant. Another important gene usually present in the cassette of expression is the marker gene. It allows the selection of the transformed cells in the cell culture media. The most commonly used marker is the antibiotic resistance gene. In this case, the selection is made by adding to the culture media a specific antibiotic. The transformed cells that became resistant to that antibiotic will survive and the other cells will die. Biosafety concerns about the use of antibiotic resistant genes has lead researchers and the industry to avoid these genes and use new markers such as herbicide resistance and the expression of special carbohydrate (mannose) degradation enzymes. The terminator gene contained in the cassette "informs" to the cells the end of the expression code.

The last step in the transformation process is to grow the selected cells to regenerate the plant that will express and transmit the new trait to other varieties through sexual hybridization or cloning.

Since 1942, when E. A. Steinhaus demonstrated the potential of this bacterium for pest control, the use of Bt formulations increased as bioinsecticides because of its safety, been harmless to vertebrates and other non-target fauna, and because of the specificity of each cry protein which infects only a narrow range of hosts (Tanada & Kaya 1993, Peferoen 1997). However, instability and degradation of cry proteins when exposed to ultra violet radiation and short persistence on the plant (easily washable by rain and irrigation), have constrained large adoption of Bt pesticides by farmers.

B. thuringienis produces a broad diversity of cry proteins with a range of around 100 holotype toxins distributed in 40 groups (cry1, cry2, etc.) each one with several subgroups and a narrow range of host (Bravo et al. 1998). This variability is being used to develop transgenic plants resistant to pest attack.

Transgenic Plants Expressing Bt Toxins. Several Bt toxins have been inserted into crop plants to provide protection against different groups of pest insects. A brief list was presented by Jouanin et al. (1998), which we updated ( Table 1). Many crops such as vegetables, forage crops, root crops, cereals, and trees are now being transformed to be protected against insects by Bt toxins (Shelton et al. 2002). New constructs of Bt toxin genes with promoters to be expressed in monocots or dicots, and in different tissues of the plant are been studied, including the integration of a native Bt gene into the chloroplast genome of tobacco (McBride et al. 1995). The chloroplast genome is bacterial in nature, avoiding the need of modifying the toxin gene for higher expression. Although it is still not commercially available, this technique opens new perspectives for the Bt plant breeding in the future.

Inhibitors of Insect Digestive Enzymes. Plants extensively produce proteins with antimetabolic activity against diverse digestive enzymes of herbivores. These proteins have either a role as part of defense strategy against herbivores or for preserving stored nutrients as proteins and carbohydrates. Genes encoding these proteins are a valuable source to enhance resistance of plants against insects and could be used in plant breeding programs.

Inhibitor of Alfa-Amylase. The alfa-amylase inhibitor is a seed protein contained in the common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., and its linkage with certain amylases forming inactive complex provide seed protection against several bruchid beetles (Shade et al. 1994, Shroeder et al. 1995). However, other species of bruchids ( Zabrotes subfasciatus Boh. and Acanthoscelides obtectus Say) have a protective mechanism to inactivate alpha-amylase (Ishimoto et al. 1996). The limited range of target insects makes it difficult to evaluate the real value of this gene in the protection of seeds against post-harvest pests.

Lectins. This is a heterogeneous group of proteins with carbohydrate-binding activity. They are found in many plants, in higher concentrations in storage tissues and seeds. Lectin expression genes have been inserted into several plant species which then demonstrated enhanced resistance against insects, although the way these proteins cause deleterious effects on insects is not well known (Gatehouse & Gatehouse 2000). The well-documented anti-nutrient action and toxicity of these proteins towards mammals and birds in nature, in spite of its inactivation by cooking (Shatters 2000), have served as a baseline of an intense discussion about the biosafety of transgenic plants.

Non-target Effects of Insect Resistance

In the scope of this review, following the definition of Dale et al. (2002), non-target effects are any undesirable effects of insect resistance GM plants on friendly organisms (unintended targets) in the environment. Non-target organisms include natural enemies, pollinators, and other non-target herbivorous that feed preferentially on the surrounding vegetation and might be affected.

Effect on Natural Enemies. Despite their apparent simplicity, agricultural systems consist of organisms that interact in food webs (Price et al. 1980). In the last 20 years the effect of host plants on higher-trophic-level organisms, such as parasitoids and predators, has been studied (Groot & Dicke 2002). Most of the published papers have demonstrated that differences in plant traits may affect natural enemies directly. The plants are a source of water or nutrition for many species of parasitoids and predators that feed on floral or extrafloral nectar, pollen or plant sap. Consequently, changes in plant quality may affect the food source of those species.

Variation in the quality and quantity of plant secondary compounds may indirectly affect the natural enemies by reducing the nutritional suitability and palatability of their prey (Price et al. 1980, 1997). Alternatively, plant resistance traits may indirectly affect the population of natural enemies by severely depleting their supply of prey or hosts (Hoy et al. 1998, Schuler 2000). Yet plants provide not only food but also play an important role in the host searching behavior of many species of natural enemies that commonly seek herbivores on plants. Consequently, differences in plant chemicals produced constitutively or in response to herbivory may alter the attractiveness of the plant to some species of entomophagous arthropods (Vinson 1976, Lewis & Takasu 1990).

Despite many examples that have shown that plant breeding affects the effectiveness of biological control agents (Groot & Dicke 2002), conventional plant breeding programs have largely ignored natural enemies of pests in their protocols. A change in this tendency has been observed in regard to GM insect resistant crops (Schuler 2000). The potential effects of insect resistant GM plants on ecological disruption of food webs and consequent effects on natural biological control has been discussed by Hoy et al. (1998) and Groot & Dicke (2002). Genetic engineering capability to produce precise genetic alterations increases confidence that unintended changes in the genome have not occurred. However, precise genetic characterization does not ensure that all ecologically important aspects of the phenotype can be predicted for the environments into which an organism will be introduced (Tiedje et al. 1989).

Natural enemies might be affected by GM plants in several ways: directly through feeding on the plant tissues (e.g., pollen) that express the gene product ( Bt protein, transgenic lectin or proteinase inhibitors); feeding on prey or host that feed on GM plants; and indirectly through the interference with the production of volatile chemicals responsible for the plant's attractiveness to natural enemies. Additionally, the most obvious way the GM plants can affect natural enemies is by deploying the population of their prey or hosts. This applies to all pest control methods and will be more severe for specialized natural enemies that feed exclusively on the target insect of the pest resistant GM plant. Compared to predators, parasitoids that are relatively host-specific will probably be more affected by host population depletion.

The impact of transgenic plants resistant to insect on the population dynamics of natural enemies will also depend on the plant species in question, on the geographical location in which the GM plant is cultivated, and on the management of the crop (Schuler 2000). For example, crop plants with different life cycles (annual versus perennial) will differ in their associated arthropod communities. The impact of the removal of one target pest species on the non-target fauna will differ between the two crops. Additionally, different pest and non-target species occur in different parts of the world. Therefore, risk assessment results obtained in one country do not necessarily apply to other geographical regions.

In the last seven years, some studies have examined the safety of transgenic crops, especially the effect of these plants on the fitness of non-target organisms (Groot & Dicke 2002, Obriky et al. 2001). Most of the available risk assessment information relates to insect-resistant transgenic plants containing genes coding for Bt toxins (corn, cotton, and potato). However, the points discussed here also apply to other insect resistant GM plants.

We analyzed 21 research reports where results of 41 studies were presented ( Table 2). Twenty of them were conducted in the laboratory and 21 reported field sampling of natural enemies. In some of the laboratory studies (14 cases), no adverse effects of Bt plants were observed. In six other studies, negative effects on fitness of certain natural enemies were reported. In 14 of 21 field studies, the authors found no differences in density of natural enemies between Bt and non- Bt crops, whereas in seven cases lower density of natural enemies was registered in the Bt fields. From the 21 reports, only two were related to resistant traits other than Bt-protein. Birch (1999), working with transgenic lectin (GNA) expressing plants, found that GNA exhibited sublethal effects on aphids, in turn affecting reproduction and longevity of beneficial coccinellid predators. Bell et al. (2001) evaluated the effect of trypsin inhibitor expressed in potato leaves on the gregarious ectoparasitoid Eulophus pennicornis (Nees) and found a decrease in parasitism rates on hosts fed on GM potato leaves. Only one study (Schuler et al. 1999b) evaluated the possible effects of GM plants on the searching behavior of parasitoids. In this study the authors found that Bt-oilseed rape leaves, in the presence of Bt non-resistant larvae of Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutelidae), were less attractive to Cotesia plutellae (Kurdjumov) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) due to the low leaf consumption rate.

The studies of Hilbeck et al. (1998a, b; 1999) and Bell et al. (2001), despite their non-conclusive results, demonstrated the importance of experiments where the three-way interaction among plants, Bt-protein, and herbivores can be evaluated. They found highest mortality of the natural enemy when the prey's food source was GM plants compared to protein-incorporated diets. They observed highest mortality of the predator Crysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Hilbeck et al. 1998a, b; 1999), and low parasitism rate of the ectoparasitoid E. pennicornis (Bell et al. 2001) when the prey's food source was the GM plant compared to protein-incorporated artificial diets. Hilbeck (2002) argued that this may be due to the fact that higher-trophic-level organisms might receive the compound in an altered form due to processing by the herbivores.

Effect on Non-Target Lepidoptera. Many species of Lepidoptera, both target and non-target, are likely to be directly susceptible to the Bt toxins. Studies on the ecological interactions of Bt insecticide sprays have documented some effects on non-target organisms. For example, as summarized by Obrycki et al. (2001), Tyria jacobaeae (L.), a beneficial lepidopteran introduced into North America for biological control of the weed tansy ragwort, increased mortality of 4 th and 5 th instars after feeding on tansy ragwort leaves dipped in Bt, in laboratory bioassays (James et al. 1993). Bt sprays can affect non-target Lepidoptera from up to 30 days after spraying (Johnson et al. 1995). Furthermore, a reduction in lepidopteran species richness was found two years after forest plots were sprayed with Bt (Miller 1990).

Likewise, many species of Lepidoptera or Coleoptera (depending on the type of Bt toxin expressed), both target and non-target, are likely to be susceptible to the Bt toxins produced by transgenic crops. Losey et al. (1999) showed that the larvae of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (L.), living in weeds near corn fields, could be affected adversely by Bt corn pollen drifting onto the foliage of plant species explored by the butterfly. These results have been questioned on the basis that they came from small-scale laboratory assays with high levels of toxin expressed in no-choice tests. Indeed, recent studies suggest that risks posed by current corn crops incorporating the Bt toxin genes to monarch butterflies are not likely to be significant (Sears et al. 2001). These studies show that, while Bt pollen does have some toxic effects when fed to butterfly larvae, the pollen densities likely to be encountered in the field are too low to pose a risk to monarch larvae. However, another study showed that low concentrations of pollen from event 176 Bt corn, dramatically reduced growth rates among black swallowtail caterpillars, Papilio polyxenes F., in field tests (Zangerl et al. 2001). An earlier study (Wraight et al. 2000) noted that a widely used Bt corn-containing event 810, had no adverse effect on black swallowtails living on weeds near cornfields. From these results, it is reasonable to infer that a careful event selection is advisable in the development of pest-protected crops, and that research is needed on the impact of Bt varieties on non-target species.

Effects on Bees. The proteins present on commercial formulation of B. thuringiensis have being considered non-toxic against bees (Atkins et al. 1981, Arpaia 1996, Malone et al. 2001). However, different proteinase inhibitors have shown different effects on performance and behavior of worker honeybees, Apis mellifera L. (Picard-Nizou et al. 1997, Girard et al. 1998, Malone et al. 2001). The proteins inducing resistance to pest cowpea trypsin inhibitor and b-1,3 glucanase negatively affect the behavior of honeybees (Picard-Nizou et al. 1997) but three proteinase inhibitors, suitable for incorporation into oilseed rape, did not affect bee behavior and caused no short-term mortality (Girard et al. 1998). These results showed that a case-by-case analysis is needed when evaluating the effect of proteinase inhibitors on learning performance of bees (Girard et al. 1998). In addition, it is necessary to test the different protein inducing resistances to insects on other bee species because, in a diverse group such as bees, it is possible that different species present different susceptibilities to these insecticidal molecules.

Caution is needed on the interpretation of results of small sets of laboratory studies of insect resistant crops, which are conducted under artificial condition, and have minor ecological relevance. Laboratory conditions do not always reproduce the complex mechanisms by which plants affect natural enemies and the detailed interactions of food webs. Furthermore, field surveys with a focus on diversity and abundance of species are needed to understand the effect of insect resistant GM crops on arthropod communities.

Fate and Consequences of Insecticidal Toxins in Soil

Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt) insecticides have been used for more than 30 years and they are generally considered safe for the environment. This is probably because Bt does not survive or grow well in natural habitats such as soil and its spores are rapidly inactivated by ultraviolet radiation (Stotzky 2002). However, when the genes that code for the production of insect toxins are genetically engineered into plants, the toxins continue to be synthesized during the growth of the plant and are present throughout the whole life cycle (Saxena & Stotsky 2000). There are other differences between Bt-insecticides and transgenic Bt plants, including the Bt toxin mode of action (Hilbeck 2002), that make it necessary to verify the possible impact of Bt crops on the soil environment, particularly on the soil microbiota. Deviations in the numbers and kinds of soil organisms may influence the fertility considerably, for example by decreasing the ability to retain water and nutrients (Christensen 1989).

Other studies including analyses of different types of soils under Bt-crops cultivation are necessary to clarify the contrasting differences observed in the persistence of Bt cry1Ac protein between laboratory assays and field observations. Moroever, more information on the effect on soil microbiota is needed, including possible interference with nutrient cycles and effects on ecosystem functions, although these kinds of data are still very difficult to obtain.

Change in Persistence or Invasiveness of the Crop

Studies on the comparison between transgenic and non-transgenic crops also consider that any additional genetic material, which provides a benefit, will also carry a metabolic cost (Hails et al. 1997). The genetic baggage hypothesis (Regal 1988) predicts that, in the absence of selection pressure, which causes the transgenic plant to be favored, the additional cost of metabolising the detoxifier could cause the transgenic to be less competitive than the wild type. Other considerations related to the cost of transgenes refer to the uncontrolled position in which the genes have been integrated into the genome, and the possibility that some traits may result in features, which will be of selective advantage in particular habitats (Hails et al. 1997).

Transfer of Insect Resistance to Weeds or Feral/Wild Plants

It is known that in nature there is a genetic flow among plants of the same species and among plants of related species. There is a body of scientific evidence that genetic material introduced into certain species of crops will recombine with related weed species (Ellstrand 1999, Dale et al. 2002). Gene flow from crops to wild relatives is often cited as a potential risk in the commercialization of transgenic crops, based on the possibility that the introduced genes may be transferred by pollen to wild or weedy relatives and may produce offspring that will become more weedy or invasive.

The exchange of genes between weeds and crops is a natural phenomenon, but genetic engineering raises additional concerns because it enables the introduction into the ecosystem of genes that confer novel fitness-related traits. Furthermore, it allows novel genes to be introduced into many diverse types of crops, each with its own specific potential to outcross. Snow (2002) reported the results of a recent workshop held at the Ohio State University. The studies showed that transgenes disperse and become incorporated into the genomes of other species in the same manner as do other crop genes and that gene flow can be very widespread. It is now evident that some crops can pass genes to a wild relative even when those genes are carried on unshared (non-homologous) chromosomes. Snow (2002) also reported that a range of possible fitness costs and benefits has been associated with particular GM traits, and that under some conditions, single or multiple transgenes will not have any detectable effect on the survival or reproduction of wild or weedy species. If there are effects, they may be difficult to detect unless weed populations are released from strongly limiting factors such as drought stress, salinity or herbivores.

This means that newly introduced genes could disperse into nearby populations, bringing new phenotypic traits such as resistance to insects, diseases, herbicides or harsh growing conditions. Data presented at the OSU meeting, indicated that wild sunflowers containing a B. thuringiensis gene for lepidopteran resistance can result in a large production of seeds. As Snow (2002) puts it, "when novel genes spread to free-living plant population, they have the potential to create or exacerbate weed problems by providing novel traits that allow these plants to compete better, produce more seeds and become more abundant."

Enhanced understanding of this process and, more importantly, of the impact of crop gene introgression into populations growing on roadsides, field margins, or uncultivated areas is needed as GM crops continue to be adopted. In view of these results, it becomes necessary to raise information about gene flow from transgenic plants to wild and weedy species in Brazil, aiming at the elaboration of regulatory measures to reduce the probability of unexpected and undesirable events.

Development of Resistance to Bt Toxins in Pests

The strategy favored by the industry of producing transgenic varieties expressing high doses of different toxins, associated with the tactics of refuges, seemed at first to be a good idea. This strategy, however, was not prove to be efficient, due to factors such as polyphagy among insect pests that also feed on other plants including weeds, or to the movement among different cultivated fields by some insect pests. When the pests move to non-transgenic fields they are exposed to low to moderate doses of the toxin, which prevents the desirable effects of high-dose exposure (Gould 1998). Another approach to delay the evolution of resistance much more effectively is the use of additional pesticide gene, called transgene pyramiding. The new generation of GM pest resistance crops already contain two insecticidal genes. The cotton variety sGK commercially available in China contain the cry1A gene and the CpT1, the cowpea trypsin inhibitor gene (Shelton et al. 2002).

Implementing resistance management practices when a pest protection substance or its functional equivalent are providing effective pest control, or when there is a threat to the utility of existing uses of the pest protection substance (e.g., Bt proteins) is crucial for obtaining the greatest benefits from pest resistance transgenic crops, and for allowing the continued use of B. thuringiensis biopesticides.

Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives

The use of toxin by plants for defense against pests is a common phenomenon in nature. There is good evidence from traditional breeding varieties that plant resistance can reduce the use of broad-spectrum pesticides (NRC 2000), as it allows naturally occurring pest predators and parasites to act and suppress secondary pest populations (Hoy et al. 1998). Science-based solutions to some difficulties have yet to be sought to achieve the ecological benefits of GM pest resistant crops. Among them is the incompatibility of the high concentration and presence of the pesticidal toxin in all parts of the plant during the entire season. This fails to comply with the very principle of integrated pest management (IPM), which predicts the application of control measurements only when pest populations reach the economic injury level. It is likely that in the future, greater attention will be given to aspects of resistance mechanism that are sharply targeted to inhibit the pest of interest and that is active only during the phase of plant growth when the protection is mostly needed. Tissue-specific gene promoters expressing the insecticidal proteins only in structures attacked by the pests are being developed to reduce risks to human health and to enhance the environmental safety of the new GM pest protected varieties.

The possible interference on food webs and on non-target organisms is another issue for careful consideration in tropical areas, especially if the varieties were developed aimed at the control of insects that are mainly pests in temperate regions. Different pest and non-target species occur in different parts of the world, and the management of the crop as a whole will also differ among different geographical locations. Thus, risk assessment results obtained in one country do not necessarily apply to another geographical region. Furthermore, a case-by-case approach is necessary and each GM plant and ecosystem must be looked at separately until there is sufficient experience to allow some extrapolation of the data and a wider view and interpretation of the environmental impacts.

Although the data presented in the literature regarding the impact of Bt-crops on natural enemies and biodiversity are, in general, not conclusive, they tend to support the idea that transgenic resistance, by controlling primary pests without insecticides, could preserve natural biological controls acting upon secondary pests. However, more information is needed on three-trophic level interferences. Effort should be given to evaluate the utility of community diversity studies for risk assessment, particularly those broad studies that include all possible species without prior judgments of what will be the relevant data to approach key ecological questions. Furthermore, some impacts of GM crops will be scale dependent and this emphasizes the need to extend impact assessments beyond small-scale field experiments to farm scale, and eventually to commercial scale impact monitoring, to detect cumulative effects over time (Marvier 2001). This is consistent with the CTNBio ² regulation on post-commercialization monitoring of the Roundup Readyâ soybean.

Cross-pollination between sexually compatible crops and between GM crops and native/weedy species is a highly probable event. Hybridization between GM crops and weeds could produce more persistent weeds, especially through genetic modifications that confer selective advantage such as reduced herbivory. To fully assess these risks, studies are needed on the ecology of potential transgene recipient populations to assess the consequences of the transfer of the insect resistant trait. This issue will need to be examined carefully in the GM crop regulatory approval process.

In assessing the environmental impact of genetically modified pest resistant crops we should acknowledge the fact that agriculture inevitably has an impact on the environment. We should also deal with the question of what is a reasonable trade-off between crop production, wildlife and the non-agriculture demands of the human population. It is especially relevant to take a baseline for comparison in the case of pest resistant crops, as current practices in conventional agriculture involves an intensive use of chemical pesticides. In this case, we must take into account the environmental damage caused by the use of pesticides in agriculture. In the United States alone, millions of birds and billions of insects, both harmful and beneficial are killed each year as a result of pesticide use (Pimentel & Raven 2000).

Acknowledgments

This article originated from presentations made by the first and the last authors, in different symposia at the XIX Brazilian Congress of Entomology in Manaus, AM, June 16-21, 2002. We thank Bonifácio P. Magalhães, Marcos R. de Faria, and Carl W. Schaefer for revising an early draft of the manuscript. The opinions expressed are those solely of the authors.

Literature Cited

Alstad, D.N. & D.A. Andow. 1995. Managing the evolution of insect resistance to transgenic plants. Science 268: 1894-1896.

Atkins, E.L., D. Kellum & K.W. Atkins. 1981. Reducing pesticide hazards to honey bees: mortality prediction techniques and integrated management strategies. Leaflet 2883, revised edition. Riverside, Division of Agriculture Sciences, University of California,24p.

Baker H.G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 1-24.

Barton, K.A., R.H. Whiteley & N.S. Yang. 1987. Bacillus thuringiensis d-entodoxin expressed in transgenic Nicotiana tabacum provides resistance to lepidopteran insects. Plant Physiol. 85: 1103-1109.

Birch, A.N.E., I.E. Geoghegan, M.E.N. Majerus, J.W. McNicol, C. Hackett, A.M.R. Gatehouse & J.A. Gatehouse. 1999. Tri-trophic interactions involving pest aphids, predatory 2-spot ladybirds and transgenic potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin for aphid resistance. Mol. Breed. 5: 75-83.

Brasileiro, A.C.M. & V.T. de Carneiro. 1998. Manual de transformação genética de plantas. Embrapa SPI/Cenargen, Brasília, 309p.

Carpenter, J., A. Felsot, T. Goode, M. Hammig, D. Onstad & S. Sankula. 2002. Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn, and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Iowa, USA. 189p.

Cheng, X.Y., R. Sardana, H. Kaplan & I. Altosaar. 1998. Agrobacterium-transformed rice plants expressing synthetic cryIA(b) and cryIA(c) genes are highly toxic to striped stem borer and yellow stem borer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 2767-2772

Christensen, M. 1989. A view of fungal ecology. Mycologia 81: 1-19.

Dale, P.J., B. Clarke, & E.M.G. Fontes. 2002. Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nat. Biotechol. 20: 567-574.

Dogan, E.B., R.E. Berry, G.L. Reed & P.A. Rossignol. 1996. Biological parameters of convergent lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) feeding on aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) on transgenic potato. J. Econ. Entomol. 89: 105-1108.

Duan, X., X. Li, Q. Xue, M. Abo-El-Saad, D. Xu & R. Wu. 1996. Transgenic rice plants harboring an introduced potato proteinase inhibitor II gene are insect resistant. Nat. Biotechnol. 14: 494-496.

ESA. 2001. Entomological Society of America. Symposium Summaries. 2001 ESA Annual Meeting. December 9-12, San Diego, California.

Fischholff, D.A., K.S Bowdish, F.J Perlak, P.G. Marrone, S.M. McCormick, J.G. Niedermeyer, D.A. Dean, K. Kusano-Katzmer, E.J. Mayer, D.E. Rochester, S.G. Rogers & R.T. Finley. 1987. Insect tolerant transgenic tomato plants. BioTechnology 5: 807-813.

Fitter, A., J. Perrins & M. Williamson. 1990. Weed probability challenged. BioTechnology 8: 473.

Gatehouse, J.A. & A.M.R. Gatehouse. 2000. Genetic engineering of plants for insect resistance, p. 211-241. In J.E. Rechcigl & N.A. Rechcigl (eds.). Biological and biotechnological control of insect pests. Lewis, Boca Raton, 374p.

Girard, C., A.L. Picard-Nizou, E. Grallien, B. Zaccomer, L. Jouanin & M.H. Pham-Delegue. 1998. Effects of proteinase inhibitor ingestion on survival, learning abilities and digestive proteinases of the honeybee. Transgenic Res. 7: 239-246.

Gould, F. 1991. The evolutionary potential of crop pests. Am. Sci. 79: 496-507.

Gould, F. 1998. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 701-726.

Groot, A.T. & M. Dicke. 2002. Insect-resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. Plant J. 31: 387-406.

Hilbeck, A. 2002. Transgenic host plant resistance and non-target effects, p. 167-185. In D.K. Letourneau & B.E. Burrows (eds.). Genetically engineered organisms. Assessing environmental and human health effects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 438p.

Hilder, V.A., K.S. Powell, A.M.R. Gatehouse, J.A. Gatehouse, L.N. Gatehouse, Y. Shi, W.D.O. Hamilton, A. Merryweather, C. Newell, J.C. Timans, W.J. Peumans, E.J.M. Van Damme & B. Boulter. 1995. Expression of snowdrop lectin in transgenic tobacco plants results in added protection against aphids. Transgenic Res. 4: 18-25.

Hoy, C.W., J. Feldman, F. Gould, G.G. Kennedy, G. Reed & J.A. Wyman. 1998. Naturally occurring biological controls in genetically engineered crops, p. 185-205. In P. Barbosa (ed.). Conservation biological control. Academic Press, London, 396p.

Ishimoto, M., J. Sato, M.J. Chrispeels & K. Kitamura. 1996. Bruchid resistance of transgenic azuki bean expressing seed alpha-amylase inhibitor in the common bean. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 79: 309-315.

James, C.A. 2001. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops, 2001. ISAAA Briefs No. 24. Preview ISAAA, Ithaca, NY. http://www.isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_24.htm

James, R.R., J.C. Miller & B. Lighthart. 1993. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki affects a beneficial insect, the cinnabar moth (Lepidoptera: Archtiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 334-339.

Jelenkovic, G, S. Billings, Q. Chen, J. Lashomb, G. Hamilton & G. Ghidiu. 1998. Transformation of eggplant with synthetic cryIIIA gene produces a high level of resistance to the Colorado potato beetle. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 123: 19-25.

Jouanin L., M. Bonade-Bottino, C. Girard & G. Morrot. 1998. Transgenic plants for insect resistance. Plant Sci. 131: 1-11.

Kogan, M. 1986. Plant defense strategies and host-plant resistance, p. 83-134. In M. Kogan (ed.), Ecological theory and integrated pest management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 362p.

Kumar, P.A., A. Mandaokar, K. Sreenivasu, S.K. Chakrabarti, S. Bisaria, S.R. Sharma, S. Kaur & R.P. Sharma. 1998. Insect-resistant transgenic brinjal plants. Mol. Breed. 4: 33-37.

Lacey, L.L. & H.K. Kaya. 2000. Field manual of techniques in invertebrate pathology. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 911p.

Lewis, W.J. & K. Takasu. 1990. Use of learned odours by a parasitic wasp in accordance with host and food needs. Nature 348: 635-636.

Losey, J. E., L.S. Rayor & M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214.

Luby, J.J. & R.F. McNichol. 1995. Gene flow from cultivated to wild raspberries in Scotland: developing a basis for risk assessment for testing and deployment of transgenic cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 90: 1133-1137.

Maqbool, S.B., S. Riazuddin, N.T. Loc, A.M.R. Gatehouse, J.A. Gatehouse & P. Christou. 2001. Expression of multiple insecticidal genes confers broad resistance against a range of different rice pests. Mol. Breed. 7: 85-93.

Marvier, M. 2001. Ecology of transgenic crops: Genetically engineered plants might generate weed problems and affect non-target organisms, but measuring the risk is difficult. Am. Scien. 89: 160-167.

Miller, J.C., 1990. Field assessment of the effects of a microbial pest control agent on non-target Lepidoptera. Am. Entomol. 36: 1355-139.

NRC National Research Council. 2000. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. National Academy Press. Washington, DC, 263p.

Obrycki, J.J., J.E. Losey, O.R. Taylor & L.C.H. Jesse. 2001. Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51: 353-361.

Orr, D.B. and D.A. Landis. 1997. Oviposition of European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and impact of natural enemy populations in transgenic versus isogenic corn. J. Econ. Entomol. 90: 905-909.

Perlak, F.J., R.L. Fuchs, D.A. Dean, S.L. McPherson & D.A. Fishholff. 1991. Modification of the coding sequence enhances plant expression of insect control protein genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 33243328.

Perlak, F.J., R.W. Deaton, T.O. Armstrong, R.L. Fuchs, S.R. Sims, J.T. Greenplate & D.A. Fishholff. 1990. Insect resistant cotton plants. BioTechnology 8: 939-943.

Perlak, F.J., T.B. Stone, Y.M. Muskopf, N. Eagan, R.T. Roush, C.K. Shewmaker, A. Jones, J.V. Oakes & K.E. McBride. 1993. Geneticaly improved potatoes: protection from damage by Colorado potato beetles. Plant Mol. Biol. 22: 313 321.

Picard-Nizou, A.L., R. Grison, L. Olsen, C.P.G. Arnold & M.H. Pham-Delegue. 1997. Impact of proteins used in plant genetic engineering: toxicity and behavioral study in the honeybee. J. Econ. Entomol. 90: 1710-1716.

Price, P. W. 1997. Insect ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 874p.

Price, P.W., C.E. Bouton, P. Gross, B.A. McPherson, J.N. Thompson & A.E. Weis. 1980. Interactions among three trophic levels: interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 41-65.

Ramachandran, S., G.D. Buntin, J.N. All, P.L. Raymer & C.N. Stewart. 2000. Integrated pest management: Intraspecific competition of an insect-resistant transgenic canola in seed mixtures. Agron. J. 92: 368-374.

Raymond, M., A. Callaghan, P. Fort & N. Pasteur. 1991. Worldwide migration of amplidied insecticide resistance genes in mosquitoes. Nature 350: 151153.

Regal, P.J. 1988. The adaptative potential of genetically engineered organisms in nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: S36-S38.

Regal. P.J. 1994. The true meaning of "exotic species" as a model for genetically engineered organisms. Experientia 49: 225-229.

Riddick, E.W., G. Diveli & P. Barbosa. 2000. Season-long abundance of generalist predators in transgenic vs. non-transgenic potato fields. J. Entomol. Sci. 35: 349-359.

Schuler, T.H. 2000. The impact of insect resistant GM crops on populations of natural enemies. Antenna 24: 59-65.

Schuler, T.H., G.M. Poppy & I. Denholm. 2000. Recommendations for assessing effects of GM crops on non-target organisms, p.1221-1228. BCPC Conference - Pests and Diseases 2000, Harpenden, UK, IACR-Rothamsted.

Schuler, T.H., G.M. Poppy, R.P.J. Potting, I. Denholm & B.R. Kerry. 1999a. Interactions between insect tolerant genetically modified plants and natural enemies. BCPC Symp. Proc. 72: 197-202.

Shade, R.E., H.E. Schroeder, J.J. Pueyo, L.M. Tabe, L.L. Murdock, T.J.V. Higgins & M.J. Chrispeels. 1994. Transgenic pea seeds expressing the alpha-amylase inhibitor of the common bean are resistant to bruchid beetles. Biotechnology 12: 793-796.

Shatters, Jr., R.G. 2000. Environmental impact of biotechnology, p. 281-302. In J.E. Rechcigl & N.A. Rechcigl (eds.), Biological and biotechnological control of insect pests. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 374p.

Snow, A.A. 2002. Transgenic crops why gene flow matters. Nature Biotech. 20: 452.

Stewart Jr., C.N., J.N. All, P.L. Raymer & S. Ramachandran. 1997. Increased fitness of transgenic insecticidal rapeseed under insect selection pressure. Mol. Ecol. 6: 773-779.

Stotzky, G. 2002. Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis, p. 187-222. In D.K. Letourneau & B.E. Burrows (eds.), Genetically engineered organisms. Assessing environmental and human health effects. CRP Press, Boca Raton, FL, 438p.

Strizhov, N., M. Keller, J. Mathur, K. Koncz-Kalman, D. Bosch, E. Prudovsky, J. Schell, B. Sneh, C. Koncz & A. Zilberstein. 1996. A synthetic cryIC gene, encoding a Bacillus thuringiensis d-endotoxin, confers Spotoptera r esistance in alfalfa and tobacco, Proc. Nalt.Acad Sci. USA 93: 1512-15017.

Tanada, Y. & H.K. Kaya. 1993. Insect pathology. Academic Press, San Diego, 666p.

Tiedje, J.M., R.K. Colweell, Y.L. Grossman, R.E. Hodson, R.E. Lenski, R.N. Mack & P.J. Regal. 1989. The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: Ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology 70: 298-315.

US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Sets of scientific issues being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding Bt plant-pesticides risk and benefit assessments. SAP Report. 2000-07. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, October 18-20, 2000.

Vaeck, M., A. Reynaerts, H. Hofte, S. Jansens, M. DeBeuckleer, C. Dean, M. Zabeau, M. Van Montagu & J. Leemans. 1987. Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 327: 33-37.

Vinson, S.B. 1976. Host selection by insect parasitoids. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 21: 109-134.

Williamson, M. 1993. Invaders, weeds and the risk from genetically manipulated organisms. Experientia 49: 219-224.

Williamson, M., J. Perrings & A. Fitter. 1990. Releasing genetically engineered plants: present proposals and possible hazards. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 417-419.

Xu, D.P., Q.Z. Xue, D. McElroy, Y. Malwal, V.A. Hilder & R. Wu. 1996. Constitutive expression of a cowpea trypsin-inhibitor gene, CpT1, in transgenic rice plants confers resistance to 2 major rice insect pests. Mol. Breed. 2: 167-173.

Zwahlen, C., W. Nentwig, F. Bigler & A. Hillbeck. 2000. Tritrophic interactions of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn, Anaphothrips obscurus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), and the predator Orius majusculus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Environ. Entomol. 29: 846-850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops Resistant to Insects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FORUM The Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops Resistant to Insects ELIANA M.G. FONTES 1, CARMEN S.S. PIRES 1, EDISON R. SUJII 1 AND ANTÔNIO R. PANIZZI 2 1Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes. Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, where the organism's genes are manipulated indirectly. Thanks to this technology, scientists can precisely transfer beneficial genes from one animal species to another.
What animals are being genetically engineered?
In research studies, animals that have been safely genetically engineered (GE) include cattle, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, dogs, cats, fish, rats, and mice.
Why are animals being genetically engineered?
As scientists have sequenced the genomes of domestic animals, more is known about genes and the traits that they control. By finding genes that control beneficial traits, we are able to precisely introduce those genes into another animal's genome, so the GE animal will possess that trait.

One example is the Enviro-Pig™. Through genetic engineering, this animal emits 30 to 60 percent less phosphorus than traditional pigs fed the same conventional diet. This lessens livestock's impact in the environment.
Is a GE animal an animal clone?
No. A GE animal has a deliberate modification made to its genome. In genetic engineering, scientists can precisely transfer a beneficial gene (for disease resistance, for example) from one animal species to another.

Cloning technology is a type of breeding technology to produce an exact genetic copy of an animal - usually a high quality animal with desirable breeding traits.

Benefits of Genetic Engineering
What are the benefits of genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering of animals offers solutions for improving public health and enhancing quality of life. The benefits include advancing human health, enhancing food production, reducing environmental impact, optimizing animal health and welfare and production of cutting edge industrial applications.
What is the most important application of genetic engineering -- human health or food applications?
Genetic engineering provides significant opportunity to improve human health and the foods we eat. It follows that the regulatory process used by the federal government should equally apply to all possible applications, particularly agricultural animals, which by their nature, are food animals.
What are the primary issues holding up realization of these benefits?
The primary issue holding up the realization of these benefits has been the lack of a U.S. federal regulatory process. However, in January 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clarified the regulatory process for GE animals. Then on February 6, 2009, the FDA approved the first product from a GE animal in the United States. Now new approvals from the FDA of applications that are in the pipeline are needed. The lengthy delay in reaching this point has contributed to a lack of investor confidence as well as a decline in the availability of government research funding. The good news is that because of the published federal regulatory process the industry is now on a positive pathway to provide consumer benefits from new approved products.

General Genetic Engineering Questions:
How many GE animals exist currently?
The numbers of GE animals in research facilities in the U.S. are unknown to BIO, but researchers/producers are required by law to keep records regarding their disposition.
Are GE animals in the food supply?
No. To date, FDA has not permitted GE animals to be placed into the human food supply.
Are GE animals tracked or labeled?
Yes. As a requirement of the regulatory review process, all GE animals are identified and tracked throughout the research and development (R&D) process. Since no GE animals or products of GE animals have been approved for commercialization, this is only being done at the R&D stage at this time.

If GE animals or the products of GE animals have been approved and deemed as safe as conventional animals by the government's arduous review and approval process, then it should not be necessary to differentiate them. Some companies, however, may choose to voluntarily implement labeling programs for specific products for marketing and branding purposes.

BIO supports the labeling policies of FDA and USDA, which state that the labeling of foods is not required unless there has been a significant change in the nutritional components (or an anti-nutritional component) or other chemical characteristic compared to its conventional counterpart. BIO supports voluntary labeling of products.
Will industry propose a supply chain management program for GE animals similar to that developed to track animal clones?
No. Since approved GE animals will be as safe as any animal and no different, there will be no safety or health reason for a supply chain management program.

Industry is exploring other aspects for such a program, such as meeting marketing claims and identity preservation to track a branded product.
How does genetic engineering affect animal welfare?
Genetic engineering has the potential to greatly improve the health and welfare of agricultural animals. GE animals may be disease resistant, parasite resistant, and withstand stress. The beneficial trait can likely improve their well being because they will be more productive. Such animals may need fewer veterinary interventions, use of special feed supplements, or other growth stimulants.

BIO supports animal welfare as a high priority in the conduct of research and development with genetically engineered animals. Research institutions, biotech companies and producer groups engaged in the growing field of animal biotechnology place animal well-being as a top priority. The humane care and use of animals in genomics, cloning and genetic engineering is guided by rigorous regulatory review by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in accordance to the Animal Welfare Act. In many cases, third party and international organizations have established animal welfare guidelines for use by companies engaging in the genetic engineering of animals.

Genetic Engineering Regulatory Process
Why regulate GE animal and their products?
It is important that the technology is approved as safe for humans, animals and the environment.

Industry recognizes that any new technology can create doubt and mistrust in some sectors. To forestall that doubt and to, in part, ensure consumer acceptance, strong regulation based upon an internationally recognized approval process will lead to more efficient commercialization of GE animals, processes and products.

The federal government set the precedent for science-based oversight of biotechnology through the development of its GE plant regulatory framework.
Are all GE animals subject to regulation by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?
Yes. The FDA has stated in Guidance 187 that any animal containing an rDNA construct intended to alter its structure or function is subject to regulation by FDA prior to commercialization. However, based on risk, there are some GE animals for which the FDA may not require a formal approval. In general, these include laboratory animals used for research. On a case-by-case basis, the FDA may consider exercising enforcement discretion for GE animals of very low risk, such as it did for an aquarium fish genetically engineered to express fluorescence (tradenamed "GloFish"). The FDA has stated that it does not anticipate exercising enforcement discretion for any GE animal of a species traditionally consumed as food, and expects to require approval of all GE animals intended to go into the human food supply.
How many GE animals or their products are approved?
There is only one approved product in the world from a GE animal. That product is called ATryn®, a human pharmaceutical developed to prevent blood clots. This drug is produced in the milk of GE goats. It was first approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) of the European Commission in August 2006. It was also approved in the United States by the FDA in February 2009. In addition, as noted above, a type of aquarium fish that expresses fluorescence is marketed under regulatory discretion.
What will be the next approved product in the United States?
BIO does not know what the next approved product will be in the United States. However two companies discuss their regulatory progress publicly. AquaBounty Technologies, a BIO member, has publicly announced its application with the FDA to seek approval for a rapid-growth salmon, the AquAdvantage™ salmon. The fish grows at two times the rate of conventional salmon to the same mature weight while producing safe and healthful salmon for human consumption, and reducing environmental impact.

In addition, the Enviropig™, whose developer, the University of Guelph is a BIO member, has publicly announced its application with the FDA. The Enviropig™ produces dramatically lower levels of phosphorus pollution than traditional pigs, and has a decreased impact on the environment.
The FDA finalized its regulatory guidance document in January 2009. What is the purpose of the guidance and what did the FDA say?
The purpose of the FDA Guidance for Industry 187 (the FDA Guidance) is to clarify the FDA regulatory framework for GE animals based on the New Animal Drug process of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

The FDA laid out a process for the science-based review of applications and how they would lead to an approval. The proposed framework is similar to international guidelines published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on July 4, 2008.
Why is the Guidance important?
The FDA Guidance is the first policy statement published by the U.S. government describing how it regulates GE animals and their products. This system will ensure the products made available through this science will go through a thorough and transparent application process before being approved for the marketplace.
Why is the New Animal Drug (NAD) framework the regulatory process supported by the biotechnology industry, food chain, producer groups, patient groups and consumer groups?
FDA's regulatory pathway, the NAD approval process, provides the following key elements of regulation for these animals:

The NAD pathway criteria can be applied to all genetically engineered animals equitably, including those agricultural animals developed for biomedical purposes and not for food.

The NAD pathway has been used by FDA for the last decade, after scientific, regulatory, and legal experts devised this consensus-based framework to ensure coordination among all centers within FDA.

It is a mandatory process that leads to a formal FDA 'approval.' Such formal recognition by the agency is necessary for both domestic and international government and consumer acceptance of the technology, leading to successful commercialization of the technology and products.

This rigorous, science-based approval process has been demonstrated to be critical to consumer acceptance of the technology and the products that will result.

The NAD process is consistent with key international guidelines for food safety risk assessment for GE animals that was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on July 4, 2008.
Does the FDA Guidance affect international trade?
International trade has not been affected by release of the FDA Guidance. In fact, trading partners have active research programs in genetic engineering of animals.

On July 4, 2008, the 176 member countries of the Codex Alimentarius Commission unanimously adopted international guidelines for the conduct of food safety risk assessment for genetically engineered animals.

The FDA Guidance describes a framework similar to the Codex-approved guideline for evaluating food safety risk assessment of GE animals. The international guideline was the end product of work of a task force led by Japan and Australia, which expedited the finished document due to unprecedented support from countries around the world.
What is BIO's Guidance for Genetically Engineered Animal Stewardship?
The mission of BIO's Stewardship Initiative is to institute and promote guidelines for the development and use of GE animals, which promote good animal welfare, enhance industry credibility, and comply with current regulatory requirements.

BIO's Guidance for Genetically Engineered Animal Stewardship provides information for the development and implementation of stewardship programs for product developers in industry and academia that plan to engage in research, development and commercialization of GE animals.

The Guidance is being developed as a series of educational modules that can be adapted to the specific activities pertinent to the user's own operations. The first module on Research and Development has been completed and publicly released.

Additional modules that are planned for inclusion in the Guidance include Commercialization, Post-Market Monitoring, and Discontinuation - Product Recall.

For more information:

Visit FDA's GE Animals web resource page at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEn...

BIO commissioned a scientific report entitled "Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Helath: Compelling Benefits for Helath Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Weflare" by Dr. Scott Gottlieb and Dr. Matthew Wheeler. It is posted at http://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2011_ge%20animal_benefits_report.pdf

Visit AquaBounty's press room for more information on the AquAdvantage™ salmon online at http://www.aquabounty.com/PressRoom/

More information on the Enviropig™ is located on the University of Guelph website at http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineered Animals: Frequently Asked Questions - BIO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is genetic engineering? Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes. Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, where the organism's genes are manipulated indirectly. Thanks to this technology, scientists can precisely transfer beneficial genes from one animal species to another. What animals are being genetically engineered?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic engineering refers to the direct manipulation of an organism's genes to alter or enhance certain characteristics.

The number of genetically modified animals used in agriculture has increased significantly in recent years. Researchers have genetically engineered a number of mammals, from laboratory animals to farm animals, as well as birds, fish and insects.

The most widely used genetically modified animals are laboratory animals, such as the fruitfly ( Drosophila) and mice. Genetically engineered animals enable scientists to gain an insight into basic biological processes and the relationships between mutations and disease.

However, farm animals, such as sheep, goats and cows, can also be genetically modified to enhance specific characteristics. These can include milk production and disease resistance, as well as improving the nutritional value of the products they are farmed for. For example, cows, goats and sheep have been genetically engineered to express specific proteins in their milk.

The majority of work on genetically modified farm animals is still in the research phase and is yet to be used commercially. Below are some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with genetically modifying animals for agriculture, divided up into four key areas:

Do the benefits of genetically modified farm animals outweigh the risks?

Yes

Genetic engineering holds great potential in many fields, including agriculture, medicine and industry.

Genetic modification can increase the yield from farm animals, for example cows can be engineered to produce more milk for the same size of herd.

Genetically modified farm animals are being used to produce important medicinal products, such as antibodies, in large quantities. These products can be used for the treatment of many different human conditions. The current production system for such products is donated human blood, which is in limited supply due to a lack of donors.

Sheep and goats can be modified to produce medicinal products in their milk. This has no negative impact on the animal but the product can help to treat human diseases.

No

The transfer of genetic material from one species to another raises potentially serious health issues for animals and humans.

There is a risk that new diseases from genetically engineered animals could be spread to non-genetically engineered animals, and even humans.

In many cases, selective breeding is just as effective as genetic engineering and doesn't carry the same risks.

We don't yet know if eating the products of genetically modified animals could potentially harm us.

Is genetic modification of farm animals ethical?

Yes

Genetic engineering is a logical continuation of selective breeding, which has been done by humans for thousands of years.

Genetic engineering of animals is strictly controlled by animal cruelty legislations in many countries and is always carefully scrutinised by teams of experts before being approved for wider use.

No

Many of the embryos that undergo genetic engineering procedures do not survive.

Genetic modification can put animals at risk of harm. For example, transgenic pigs were found to be arthritic, partially blind and infertile when a human growth hormone was inserted into their genomes to make them grow faster.

Is it morally acceptable to genetically modify farm animals?

Yes

Not all genetic engineering directly benefits humans. Some genetic engineering is to improve resistance of livestock to disease, for example, bovine spongiform encephalopathy ('mad cow disease') in cattle. It can also be used to remove characteristics that cause injury, for example, selecting for cattle without horns.

Animals have been used to help humans for millennia. Many would say that human lives are of higher moral value than animal lives.?

The percentage of genetically modified farm animals is tiny compared to the number of animals slaughtered for humans to eat. This practice is widely seen as morally acceptable.

No

Research could use other organisms such as plants and bacteria to mass produce therapies for human medicine. For example, genetically engineered cereal grains to produce human proteins.

The cost to the animal always outweighs the benefits as, by carrying out genetic engineering, we are violating their rights.

Genetic engineering often involves modifying animals for reasons that have no benefit for that species, and could potentially cause them pain and discomfort.

We shouldn't be attempting to 'play God'. Life should not be regarded as a product that can be altered and played with for economic benefit.

Is there a thorough regulatory process for genetic modification of farm animals?

Yes

It has been suggested that, as a rule, genetically engineered animals should be no worse off than the equivalent stock would be if they were not genetically engineered.

The Animal Welfare Act, a federal law passed in the UK in 1966, requires all entities looking to carry out research with animals to have their programme reviewed before they go ahead, have veterinary care programmes in place and staff that are qualified to care for live animals.

The UK Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has set out guidelines for research involving animals.

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the USA regulates genetic engineering with animals and their products under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). It helps monitor and maintain certain standards, including input from the public, when it comes to genetically engineering animals.

The 'new animal drug' provisions of the FFDCA focuses on whether the new animal drug is safe for the animal and if it is effective. If the drug is for a food-producing animal it also focuses on whether the resulting food is safe to eat.

No

Genetic engineering of animals is a relatively new practice and is mainly used in research. As a result regulations for its use in farming are minimal.

For regulations that have been put in place for the use of animals in research, it is often unclear how they would be applied to genetic engineering of farm animals and few guidelines refer to it directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is it ethical to genetically modify farm animals for agriculture?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetic engineering refers to the direct manipulation of an organism's genes to alter or enhance certain characteristics. The number of genetically modified animals used in agriculture has increased significantly in recent years. Researchers have genetically engineered a number of mammals, from laboratory animals to farm animals, as well as birds, fish and insects.

# data[].attributes.body
1. spider goat has a spider gene to make the milk have more protein to make silk

2. glow fish shows the level of pollution in rivers

# data[].attributes.body
1. may cause allergic reactions because of their altered DNA

2. GMOs are not always tested thoroughly.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Increase the yield from animals.

2. Fast growing

# data[].attributes.body
It can hurt people so it's not good. This means that people could die and that's not good.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Can help treat diseases in humans
2. Expression of desired physiological traits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

01Humans have grown GMOs as early as 12,000 BC through selective breeding of crops and livestock. 02Friedrich Miescher first isolated DNA in 1869. 03Francis Crick and James Watson discovered DNA's structure in 1953. 04Paul Berg combined genes from two different viruses for the first time in history in 1972.

Washington DC (Hagerstown MD), Virginia - From your IP address - Learn more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
interesting facts about gm humans - Google Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds. 01Humans have grown GMOs as early as 12,000 BC through selective breeding of crops and livestock. 02Friedrich Miescher first isolated DNA in 1869. 03Francis Crick and James Watson discovered DNA's structure in 1953.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Delaying or stopping ageing.

2. Making disease treatments less costly

# data[].attributes.body
1. It would create different societal classes around the world.
2. It does not eliminate the risk of a mistake happening.

# data[].attributes.body
coconuts with no shells would help people eat them easier and make it so people can eat them better and more efficient

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- makes them easier to eat and take less labor to eat them

Con- coconut is less protected from animals, bugs, and weather.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is a bad idea because It would cost alot of money to do really anything, since it is genetic there still could be lots of problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are some challenging ethical questions that scientists, philosophers, and even politicians face throughout their careers. One of the most difficult subjects that will require decisions in the near future is the scientific processes that allow for human genetic engineering. Should we develop technologies that allow us to alter the genetic codes of future generations?

The world's leading gene-editing experts meet annually (and sometimes more often) with attorneys, ethicists, and even members of the general public to get their take on this subject. It isn't a technology that is new by any means. The first tools that permitted the editing of genes were invented in 1975. It is the recent developments in this field that make it seem that ideas from the science-fiction genre have a chance to become reality.

In April 2015, Chinese scientists announced experiments that would remove the genes of inheritable disease from human embryos. This work damaged the cells so that they could not develop into babies, but the results spoke for themselves. The elimination of the unwanted genes from the germline could 100% eliminate diseases by a single mutation like Tay-Sachs, Huntington's disease, or cystic fibrosis.

That's why we must start examining the advantages and disadvantages of human genetic engineering today. It will not be long before this technology is available for use.

List of the Advantages of Human Genetic Engineering

1. Genetic engineering could further human lifespans.
It usually takes multiple generations to generate evolutionary movement within a species. As the environment changes, so must the physical traits of humans. Genetic engineering gives us a faster path forward that we can use to ensure the survival of our species. Altering our cells through this practice to make them more resilient to the natural aging process could extend our lifespan to levels previously thought to be impossible. We can feel better as we age too if we take care of our bodies, especially if we can program resilience against particularly dangerous diseases.

2. We could rid of hereditary disease.
There are numerous diseases that require a genetic predisposition for their existence. That means a person's risk for developing cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and other problems can be reduced because of this technology. When they exist on a single mutation, then we could eliminate them immediately before it impacts the development of a baby's system. Even smaller issues, such as eczema, could be resolved because of this proactive intervention. It could lead to treatments for people who are born without them as well.

"I predict we will abolish suffering throughout the living world," David Pearce commented. "Our descendants will be animated by gradients of genetically pre-programmed wellbeing that are orders of magnitude richer than today's peak experiences."

3. Every child would have a chance to be born healthy.
There are several diseases that we can already detect during the fetal development process. Human genetic engineering can stop illness or disease before the child is born. Parents face a difficult choice when their doctor tells them that their child could face chronic pain, a lifetime of disabilities, or other health issues. Knowing that your baby would suffer for a few months only to die means you're taking a gamble on their quality of life. The technology behind the engineering process could eliminate this issue, virtually guaranteeing that every child could be born healthy. Anything disease that comes from a potential carrier would slowly work its way out of the human experience.

4. Food requirements could be changed through human genetic engineering.
Humans need specific foods to ensure their survival. You must receive a particular nutrient profile to ensure that you maintain healthy energy levels. This technology could help us to solve the looming food insecurity problems as our population grows because we could engineer profiles that have fewer food requirements. We could reduce our destruction of natural habitats, stop overgrazing, and even make the items we eat healthier because of how the food interacts at a cellular level.

5. This technology could eliminate fertility issues for couples.
Human genetic engineering could also make it possible for couples to have children when they would struggle at it naturally. We wouldn't need to worry about infertility because any sperm and egg combination could be edited to match the profile of the parents. This technology would make it possible to maintain population levels without going overboard on family size. It is a necessary advantage to consider since the average fertility rate in the top 30 developed countries has declined by 50% in just 60 years. If a country does not have a birth rate of 2.1 per family, then population shrinkage occurs. At 1.7, the United Kingdom is already there.

6. Human genetic editing could lead to medical advancements.
The processes behind human genetic editing would undoubtedly encourage advances in medical research over time. We would get the opportunity to share genetic material that could prevent disease, cure illnesses, or eliminate the risk of certain cancers. There would be new avenues of research to consider because of our knowledge of human systems. This advantage could be the next wave of medicine that equals or exceeds the impact of antibiotics.

Since 2015, there have been HIV therapy trials that became possible because of gene editing. When researchers destroyed the gene for CCR5, then they could raise a person's resistance to the virus. The goal is to create a functional cure that could apply to sickle cell disease and other benefits.

7. There could be mental health benefits to consider with human genetic engineering.
Babies are not forced to go through a genetic lottery when this technology becomes available. It would become possible to work on mental health issues just as much as physical concerns with human genetic engineering. That means we could reduce the prevalence of schizophrenia, depression, and similar challenging diagnoses thanks to the pre-birth preparations that would occur.

These changes could even become heritable under the right gene editing conditions. It could weed out mutations in the mitochondria, create replacement therapies, and open an entirely new world of scientific discovery over time.

List of the Disadvantages of Human Genetic Engineering

1. It would change how we would need to approach population control.
Disease is one of the most effective methods of population control for the human race. If we use genetic engineering to extend the lifespan of everyone, then this influence would change our global culture. A longer life isn't always practical. We might open the doors to having more children, require higher levels of medical care for a longer time, and increase the economic costs of each family unit. There could be problems with job availability, economic disparity, and a lack of agricultural space to support everyone.

2. There will always be ethical questions to consider.
Anyone who believes in the concept of God or a supernatural creator will have some level of ethical concern about the idea of humans genetically editing future generations. There could be some who would see the work as being blasphemous, which could eventually lead to higher levels of violence against specific groups. We already see this disadvantage to some extent in the abortion debate because of the implication that the choices being made are tantamount to playing God. Allowing for genetic editing would take this conversation to a whole new level.

"The only thing we can try to do is to influence the direction scientists are taking," commented Yuval Noah Harari. "Since we might soon be able to engineer our desires too, perhaps the real questions facing us is not 'What do we want to become?', but 'What do want to want?'"

3. It would create different societal classes around the world.
New technologies are always expensive. Only the households that could afford to take advantage of this service would perform gene editing on their children. That means the initial population surge from human gene editing would involve the wealthiest people. It would create a severe divide between those with money and the people without it. We could find ourselves living in a world where different classifications of genetic purity could lead to individualized approaches to health care, employment, and education. It would become the next step for those with wealth to safeguard their societal status.

"I've always been suspicious of the assumption that great intelligence would be an unqualified benefit - that the madness that so often accompanies it can be cavalierly dismissed," said Andrew M. Ryan. "So, I asked the question: suppose there was an entire subpopulation of extreme geniuses, well beyond anything that would occur naturally. What would that really look like?"

4. It would reduce the amount of genetic diversity in the world.
If we start eliminating the potential diseases and illnesses that are currently part of our genome, then the amount of genetic diversity in the human race would slowly fade. Human genetic editing could help to delay the fade that would undoubtedly result over time, but it would not erase it entirely. After a handful of generations with this technology, the human genome might degrade to the point where it would be almost impossible to create offspring unless a parent without this evolutionary trait decides to have children with a partner from the same perspective.

5. It does not eliminate the risk of a mistake happening.
There will always be the disadvantage of a mistake occurring when dealing with human genetic engineering. We are not a perfect people, no matter how smart the scientist happens to be. We have a general understanding of what our core makeup happens to be, but there is also the possibility that we don't have all of the pieces to the puzzle as of yet. Small changes to a growing baby could have a disruptive effect that we might be unable to predict with our current resources. Changing the genetic profile to eliminate disease might create miscarriages, birth defects, or a greater risk of stillbirth. That's why a careful approach to this subject is absolutely necessary.

6. This technology would eventually allow for trait selection.
Most people concur that the primary benefit of human genetic engineering is to create a process where every baby is healthy at birth. Once we reach this goal, then what is the next step? It would likely be the selection of specific traits that future generations would want their children to have. You might get the opportunity to choose hair color, eye color, or even gender. You would know what the child would look like at every age before they were born. Then we would need to create systems that would help to keep those with genetic advantages equal to the children who were born "naturally" because they didn't have enough wealth.

7. There could be unintended side effects that we do not know about today.
One of the reasons why there is a ban on human cloning activities is because animals that come from this technological effort suffer from a variety of severe health problems. The birth rate when genetic modification is involved can be less than 1 in 100 embryos for some species. There are concerns for the health of the mother when there are changes to the genetic profile as well, including the option that the woman's immune system might attack the growing fetus. It could even change the manner of gene expression in the body so that more harm than good occurs through this process.

8. This process could become the foundation of new weapons technologies.
One of the frightening concerns about human genetic engineering is that military forces, terrorists, and others could develop biological weapons from it. You could produce weapons that seek out specific genetic profiles while leaving the rest of the general population untouched. This disadvantage could result in a surge of unhealthy nationalism, healthcare spending, and global death as each nation works to protect its own best interests. There is even the possibility that the organisms produced because of human genetic editing could reproduce much faster than normal, allowing for a new arms race to occur.

9. It could increase the risk of allergies.
We already know that food allergens can transfer from one crop to another because of genetic engineering efforts. That means women who are pregnant and eating GMO foods could endanger their offspring by altering gene expression. One of the greatest concerns about human genetic editing is that many scientists fear that this process is a one-and-done effort. That means you would be unable to change the alterations you make after completing the work. We have a symbiotic relationship with the world around us, a structure that Neil Tyson deGrasse describes as everything being "made from stardust."

Making immediate evolutionary changes could have a devastating effect on ourselves and the entire planet because the allergic reactions may develop spontaneously.
Conclusion
The advantages and disadvantages of human genetic engineering allow us to explore the possibility of improving our species without waiting for evolution to do it for us. That means the potential results are extremely compelling. We could provide future generations with several benefits that are not possible today with this technology.

It is also essential to remember that there is no system of genetic modification that will provide consistent results every time. The potential for an error occurring is massive. If scientists can ever crack the code so that it becomes an efficient process, then we'll still need to deal with opportunity issues that would make this option more available to the wealthy than anyone else.

The advantages are convincing and hopeful. The disadvantages can be downright terrifying. That is why if we ever get to the point where genetic alterations to humans is possible, we must proceed with caution to limit the potential issues that may develop with this technology.

Author Biography
Keith Miller has over 25 years experience as a CEO and serial entrepreneur. As an entreprenuer, he has founded several multi-million dollar companies. As a writer, Keith's work has been mentioned in CIO Magazine, Workable, BizTech, and The Charlotte Observer. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our content editing team a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Human Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are some challenging ethical questions that scientists, philosophers, and even politicians face throughout their careers. One of the most difficult subjects that will require decisions in the near future is the scientific processes that allow for human genetic engineering. Should we develop technologies that allow us to alter the genetic codes of future generations?