Genetically modified (GM) foods (also called genetically-

engineered or transgenic food), hold great promise that they

may provide one of the solutions to help feed growing world
populations. But there are also potentially large, and often
not well understood, risks from GM technologies--to the
environment in general, and to biodiversity and the
functioning of ecosystems in particular.
Among the major successes cited for the genetic
modification of crops are the insertion of Bt genes (that
produce insect pathogens, derived from strains of the
bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis) into maize, potatoes,
and cotton to make these crops resistant to certain
insect pests, and of herbicide-tolerance genes that
allow GM crops to thrive despite being exposed to
certain herbicides. Rice has also been modified--in one
case so that beta-carotene (an anti-oxidant compound,
found in carrots and other yellow and orange
vegetables, that can be converted by our livers, along
with other carotenes, into vitamin A) was produced, and
in another, so as to reduce the concentrations of
glutelin, a rice protein that is undesirable for sake
brewing.
However, behind these and other successes of genetic
modification, lurk unexpected effects and potential
pitfalls. The decrease in glutelin levels in rice, for
example, was associated with an unintended increase
in levels of compounds called prolamines, which can
affect the nutritional quality of rice and increase its
potential to induce an allergic response. Modified
organisms can, in addition, escape from greenhouses
and fields and aquaculture cages into natural, or quasi-
natural, ecosystems, and disrupt their biodiversity.
GM foods may also damage biodiversity, for example,
by promoting greater use of certain pesticides
associated with GM crops that are particularly toxic to
many species, and by introducing exotic genes and
organisms into the environment that may disrupt natural
plant communities and other ecosystems. Others argue
that food production problems are generally not
biological in origin, but instead lie in such areas as lack
of market access, the burdens of developing countries
debts, or in poorly developed food processing and
transportation infrastructures, none of which GM
technologies would serve to address.
In addition, it is believed that most crops are presently
far from realizing their full genetic potential through the
process of hybridization, which may be achieved
without further genetic modification, and there are
concerns that GM technologies would lessen incentives
to develop such hybrids.

Genetically modified food has quietly become second
nature in the U.S., and it may surprise you just how many
foods you are eating that you never knew contained a
genetically modified ingredient.
Experts say 60% to 70% of processed foods on U.S.
grocery shelves have genetically modified ingredients. The
most common genetically modified foods are soybeans,
maize, cotton, and rapeseed oil. That means many foods
made in the U.S. containing field corn or high-fructose
corn syrup, such as many breakfastcereals, snack foods,
and the last soda you drank; foods made with soybeans
(including some baby foods); and foods made with
cottonseed and canola oils could likely have genetically
modified ingredients. These ingredients appear frequently
in animal feed as well.
If this shocks you, a new USDA-funded survey shows
you're not alone. Researchers from the Food Policy
Institute at Rutgers' Cook College found that only 52% of
Americans realized that genetically modified foods are
sold in grocery stores and only 26% believed that they
have ever eaten genetically modified foods -- a modest
6% increase since 2001.
But what exactly is genetically modified food? Is it safe to
eat? Why isn't it labeled in the U.S.? The European Union
and the U.S. are boxing it out.
The U.S. government's position: Genetically engineered
crops are safe, resist disease better, and can provide
much-needed food in starving nations.
The EU position: Keep it out. We prefer organic, which is
much healthier. The risk of genetically modified foods to
health and the environment outweigh the benefits. Only
the multinational biotech companies will benefit,
dominating the world food supply and squeezing out
traditional farmers.
The U.S. is the largest producer of genetically modified
crops.
More than a dozen countries around the world have
latched on to the technology, including Argentina, Canada,
China, Australia, India, and Mexico.
'Frankenfood' Fears
The term genetically modified food (also known as biotech
or genetically engineered food) refers to crop plants that
have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired
traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved
nutritional content. Experts say this science, like any other,
has no guarantees. Risks include:
Introducing allergens and toxins to food
Accidental contamination between genetically modified
and non-genetically modified foods
Antibiotic resistance
Adversely changing the nutrient content of a crop
Creation of "super" weeds and other environmental risks
Benefits include:
Increased pest and disease resistance
Drought tolerance
Increased food supply
Is Regulation Too Soft?
So you might ask, what's the big deal? The U.S. government wouldn't allow a product on the market without strict testing and
approval, right? It seems genetically modified foods are a bit of a scientific anomaly, a creature that U.S. regulation agencies
aren't quite sure how to efficiently manage.

To weigh the plusses and minuses of genetically engineered plants,
one must evaluate a combination of environmental, economic,
scientific, and food safety issues. In the following chart, we've
coded an issue or argument as involving concerns about:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS [ ENV ]
ECONOMIC IMPACTS [ ECON ]
SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGES [ SC ]
FOOD-SAFETY [ FS ]
From the chart, it quickly becomes apparent that the issues
are intertwined, making for murky public policy discussions. The
table points out the value of case-by-case analysis of specific
transgenic plant strategies.
The links to the left and in brackets below open
a pop-up window with expanded topic descriptions
PROS Common Counter-Arguments
Development of pest-tolerant plants can increase productivity while
reducing pesticide use.
[ ENV ] [ ECON ]
Not enough is known about whether pesticides built into plants are safe
for human consumption.
[ FS ] [ SC ]
With plant engineering, it's sometimes possible to develop pest-tolerant
plants that safely target specific pests and are safe for human
consumption while reducing pesticide use. ( eg., Bt corn)
[ ENV ] [ FS ]
Not enough is known about what other organisms might be harmed by a
particular transgene.
[ ENV ] [ SC ]
While pesticides can lead to the creation of pest-resistant super-
pests, pest-tolerant transgenic plants have been shown to reduce the
incidence of pesticide resistance.
[ ENV ] [ ECON ]
Not enough is known about whether pesticides built into plants are safe
for human consumption.
[ FS ] [ SC ]
Engineered plants have the potential to rapidly improve crop
productivity.
[ ECON ]
Claims are overblown. Traditional breeding has increased production
many-fold without the need for genetic engineering of crops with
unknown food safety.
[ ECON ] [ FS ]
Potential improvements in nutritive value of plants, eg. golden
rice could safely and inexpensively improve health in poor countries.
[ ECON ] [ FS ]
Claims are overblown. Success in producing plants with significantly
improved nutritive value has yet to be seen.
[ SC ]
Potential to produce medicines inexpensively.
[ ECON ]
Risk of accidental ingestion of medicines if raised in food crops.
[ FS ]
Potential to improve food safety by removing allergens from plant
products.
[ FS ]
Claims are overblown. Success in producing plants with significantly
reduced allergenicity has yet to be seen.
[ SC ]


CONS Common Counter-Arguments
The development of highly productive crops with improved nutritive
value could make Third World farmers dependent on international seed
companies.
[ ECON ]
There are ways to avoid this problem such as developing transgenic
plants from local varieties.
[ ECON ]
If genes for pharmaceutical products are raised in food crops, they pose
a risk of accidental ingestion.
[ FS ]
Scientists can use non-edible plants for bio-pharma to avoid this
problem.
[ SC ]
Potential to inadvertently introduce allergens into foods.
[ FS ]
Scientific measures can be taken to avoid this.
[ SC ]
There's a risk that genetically engineered genes could be introduced
into wild plants, reducing biodiversity and creating super-weeds while
reducing pesticide use.
[ ENV ]
The risk of gene flow into wild plants is the same for transgenic plants
as for traditionally-bred plants.
[ SC ]
Not enough is known about whether genetically engineered plants are
safe for human consumption.
[ FS ] [ SC ]
Because transgenic food plants are carefully designed to include select
genes to produce proteins of known function from other plants, the risks
are minimal.
[ FS ] [ SC ]
In the U.S., foods are not labeled to show whether they contain
genetically engineered plants.
[ FS ]
Because the introduced genes and their protein products are GRAS
(generally recognized as safe) food labeling is not necessary.
[ FS ]