# data[].attributes.body
This article is important because it shows that the salmons can have such a big difference just by some genetic engineering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption (Published 2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The F.D.A. approval clears the way for the first genetically altered animal to enter the American food supply, despite strong opposition.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is important because this tells that

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
This article is important because they tell us about why GMOs are bad. We can see that some people have very strong feelings about GMOs and how they want to make it go away

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

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

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

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

1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rise of GMO Crops

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

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

Dinner, Dissected

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

Cheese

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

Corn

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

Cotton

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

Papaya

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

Rapeseed

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

Soy

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

Squash

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

Sugar beets*

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

Wine

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

*No modified proteins remain in the final product.

The Future Of GMOs: Gene Editing

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
This article is important because it tells us about the real life examples of GMOs that you are very familiar of.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic Literacy Project

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

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

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

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

Wild banana

The first bananas may have been cultivated at least 7,000 years ago - and possibly as early as 10,000 years ago - in what is now Papua New Guinea. They were also grown in Southeast Asia. Modern bananas came from two wild varieties, Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana, which had large, hard seeds, like the ones in this photo.

Modern banana

The hybrid produced the delicious modern banana, with its handy, graspable shape and peelable covering. Compared to its ancestor, the fruit has much smaller seeds, tastes better, and is packed with nutrients.

Modern eggplant

But selective breeding has gotten rid of the spines and given us the larger, familiar, oblong purple vegetable you find in most grocery stores.

Wild carrot

The earliest known carrots were grown in the 10th century in Persia and Asia Minor. These were thought to originally be purple or white with a thin, forked root - like those shown here - but they lost their purple pigment and became a yellow color.

Modern carrot

Shutterstock

Farmers domesticated these thin, white roots, which had a strong flavor and annual biennial flower, into these large, tasty orange roots that are an annual winter crop.

Modern corn

Flickr/Rosana Prada

Today, corn is 1,000 times larger than it was 9,000 years ago and much easier to peel and grow. Also, 6.6% of it is made up of sugar, compared with just 1.9% in natural corn, according to Kennedy. About half of these changes occurred since the 15th century, when European settlers started cultivating the crop.

Wild peach

Peaches used to be small, cherry-like fruits with little flesh. They were first domesticated around 4,000 BC by the ancient Chinese and tasted earthy and slightly salty, "like a lentil," according to Kennedy.

Modern peach

But after thousands of years of farmers selectively breeding them, peaches are now 64 times larger, 27% juicier, and 4% sweeter.

So next time someone tells you we shouldn't be eating food that's been genetically modified, you can tell them we already are.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
This article is important because it tells us everything about what GMOs actually are. They tell us the important processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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