What Are GMOs and GM Foods?

A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is an organism that has had its DNA altered or modified in

some way through genetic engineering.

In most cases, GMOs have been altered with DNA from another organism, be it a bacterium, plant,

virus or animal; these organisms are sometimes referred to as "transgenic" organisms.

• Genetic engineering is the process of using technology to change thegenetic makeup of an

organism- be it an animal, plant or a bacterium.

What is a GMO?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living

organisms whose genetic material has been artificially

manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering.

This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and

virus genes that do not occur in nature or through

traditional crossbreeding methods.

Another definition is a genetically modified organism is one whose genetic material has been altered

using genetic engineering. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are commonly used in foods

and medicines. This has led to concern about the dangers they might cause to the environment and to

human health by eliminating, modifying or adding copies of specific genes often from other

organisms through modern molecular biology techniques.

Other names: Recombinant DNA (rDNA), Genetic engineering Gene splicing

Most GMOs have been engineered to withstand the direct application of herbicide and/or to produce
an insecticide. However, new technologies are now being used to artificially develop other traits in
plants, such as a resistance to browning in apples, and to create new organisms using synthetic
biology. Despite biotech industry promises, there is no evidence that any of the GMOs currently on
the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.
Some types of GMO’s are plants and crops, mammals, microbes, insects and aquatic life

Genetically modified food

According to the National Library of Medicine (part of the National Center for Biotechnology
Information, or NCBI), genetically engineered, or GM, foods are those that have had foreign genes
from other plants or animals inserted into their genetic codes. This has resulted in foods that are
consistently flavored, as well as resistant to disease and drought.

However, the NCBI also maintains a list of potential risks associated with GM foods, including
genetic alterations that can cause environmental harm.
Specifically, it's possible that modified organisms could be inbred with natural organisms, leading to
the possible extinction of the original organism.

Are GMOs safe?

Anti-GMO activists argue that GMOs can cause environmental damage and health problems for
consumers.
"Genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sickness, sterile and
dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals," according to the Institute
for Responsible Technology, a group of anti-GMO activists.

In the absence of credible independent long-term feeding studies, the safety of GMOs is unknown.
Increasingly, citizens are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO
experiment.

Sixty-four countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the
European Union, require genetically modified foods to be labeled. Canada does not require any GMO
labeling.

History
GMO foods are such an embedded part of our food system these days, but it’s not difficult to
think back to a time when food was simpler and healthier.
1935 – DNA Discovered
Russian scientist Andrei Nikolaevitch Belozersky isolates pure DNA.
Scientists first discovered that DNA can transfer between organisms in 1946.
1973 – Recombinant DNA Created
The idea for man-made DNA, or rDNA, comes from a grad student at Stanford University Medical
School. Professor Herbert Boyer and a few of his biologist colleagues run with it.
1975 – Asilomar Conference
A group of biologists get together with a few lawyers and doctors to create guidelines for the
safe use of genetically engineered DNA.
1980 – First GMO Patent Issued
A 1980 court case between a genetics engineer at General Electric and the U.S. Patent Office is settled
by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling, allowing for the first patent on a living organism. The GMO in
question is a bacterium with an appetite for crude oil, ready to gobble up spills.
1982 – FDA Approves First GMO
The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant.
GMOs have had specific changes introduced into genetic engineering techniques. These techniques
are much more precise than mutagenesis where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to
create a non- specific but stable change.
Humulin, insulin produced by genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, appears on the market.
1994 – GMO Hits Grocery Stores
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the Flavr Savr tomato for sale on grocery store
shelves. The delayed-ripening tomato has a longer shelf life than conventional tomatoes. Transgenic
Flavr Savr tomato was approved by the FDA for marketing in the US- the modification allowed the
tomato to delay ripening after picking.
1996 – GMO-Resistant Weeds
Weeds resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide used with many GMO crops, are detected in Australia.
Research shows that the super weeds are seven to 11 times more resistant to glyphosate than the
standard susceptible population.
1997 – Mandatory Labels
The European Union rules in favor of mandatory labeling on all GMO food products, including
animal feed.
1999 – GMO Food Crops Dominate
Over 100 million acres worldwide are planted with genetically engineered seeds. The marketplace
begins embracing GMO technology at an alarming rate.
2003 – GMO-Resistant Pests
In 2003, a Bt-toxin-resistant caterpillar-cum-moth, Helicoverpa zea, is found feasting on GMO Bt
cotton crops in the southern United States. In less than a decade, the bugs have adapted to the
genetically engineered toxin produced by the modified plants.
2011 – Bt Toxin in Humans
Research in eastern Quebec finds Bt toxins in the blood of pregnant women and shows evidence that
the toxin is passed to fetuses.
2012 – Farmer Wins Court Battle
French farmer Paul Francois sues Monsanto for chemical poisoning he claims was caused by its
pesticide Lasso, part of the Roundup Ready line of products. Francois wins and sets a new precedent
for future cases.
2014 – GMO Patent Expires
Monsanto’s patent on the Roundup Ready line of genetically engineered seeds will end in two years.
In 2009, Monsanto introduced Roundup 2 with a new patent set to make the first-generation seed
obsolete.

Scientist Involved
• In 1972 Paul Berg used restriction enzymes and DNA ligases to create the first
recombinant DNA molecules.
• The process of transfering genes from one organism to another, was first accomplished
by Herbert Boyer andStanley Cohen in 1972.
• The first genetically modified animal was a mouse created in 1974 by Rudolf Jaenisch.

Herbert Wayne "Herb" Boyer (born July 10, 1936) is a researcher and
entrepreneur in biotechnology. Along with Stanley N. Cohen and Paul Berg he
discovered a method to coax bacteria into producing foreign proteins, thereby
jump starting the field of genetic engineering. By 1969, he performed studies on a
couple of restriction enzymes of the E.coli bacterium with especially useful
properties. He is recipient of the 1990 National Medal of Science, co-recipient of
the 1996 Lemelson–MIT Prize, and a co-founder of Genentech. He was professor at the University of
California, San Francisco (UCSF) and later served as Vice President of Genentech from 1976 until his
retirement in 1991.

Stanley Norman Cohen(born February 17, 1935 in Perth Amboy, New

Jersey,United States) is an Americangeneticist and the Kwoh-Ting Li Professor in
the Stanford University School of Medicine.[Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer
were the first scientists to transplant genes from one living organism to another, a fundamental
discovery for genetic engineering. Thousands of products have been developed on the basis of their
work, including human growth hormone andhepatitis B vaccine. According to microbiologist Hugh
McDevitt, "Cohen's DNA cloning technology has helped biologists in virtually every field". Without
it, "the face of biomedicine and biotechnology would look totally different."

Rudolf Jaenisch(born 22 April 1942) is a Professor of Biology at

MITand a founding member of the Whitehead Institute for
Biomedical Research. He is a pioneer of transgenic science, in which
an animal’s genetic makeup is altered. Jaenisch has focused on
creating genetically modified mice to study cancer and neurological
diseases.

Paul Berg (born June 30, 1926) is an American biochemist and professor
emeritus at Stanford University. He was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry in 1980, along with Walter Gilbert and Frederick Sanger. The
award recognized their contributions to basic research involving nucleic
acids. Berg received his undergraduate education at Penn State University,
where he majored in biochemistry. He received his Ph.D. in biochemistry
from Case Western Reserve University in 1952. Berg worked as a professor
at Washington University School of Medicine and Stanford University School of Medicine, in
addition to serving as the director of the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine.
In addition to the Nobel Prize, Berg was presented with the National Medal of Science in 1983
and the National Library of Medicine Medal in 1986. Berg is a member of the Board of
Sponsors for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Impact of the GMO

The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on either side. One of
the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is the potential for
environmental harm. What exactly are the environmental risks to consider in regards to GMOs?
First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath Organization
(WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are
usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. With these changes come
some potentially problematic environmental challenges.

Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with
GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target
organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely
important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by
modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from
GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work
as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees.

Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by these
agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA changes in GM
plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be effective, but their toxic
legacies will remain.
Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into consideration. Evidence also
suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even larger ecological shifts, meaning that
there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are
modified to be resistant to some modern agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in
natural settings, where GMOs, of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human
modified, plants to become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems.
Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put
at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop fashion, many heritage seeds
are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed flowers and, therefore, less nectar for
pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are
integral to healthy soil for plants to grow without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are
left in the soil of GM crops. Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO
foods, meaning that soil is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing
process. A cycle of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is
then created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow GM
foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This exposes different
bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems.

All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s DNA may end up
in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms from insects to larger pests.
Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the air into the environment. Once a plant
is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger
ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than
simply potentially harming our health.

Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as well. It goes
without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we interact with nature can
cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food we are consuming, and the way
modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment, is one effective way of consciously
interacting with the natural world.

Future of the GMO

New genetic-engineering technologies like CRISPR are being sensationalized as “silver bullets” to
address food-system challenges, from pollution to hunger. Similar promises were made about the first
generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. Unfortunately, among other
problems, most of these GMO crops led to massive increases in the use of toxic herbicides like
glyphosate, a probable carcinogen. Before we embrace the next generation of GMOs, we need to
understand their health, environmental, and social-justice effects. Unfortunately, the synthetic-biology
industry is racing forward, fueled by hype and venture capital, with little regard for the possible
consequences.
Food products made with new GMO techniques include the meatless Impossible Burger, the GMO
Arctic Apple, and vanilla flavoring derived from genetically engineered yeast. Some of these products
are rapidly making their way onto our plates ahead of full safety assessments, regulations, and proper
labeling (indeed, many of them are being marketed as “sustainable”). But the early evidence suggests
that they may contribute more problems than solutions.
Consider the Impossible Burger. FDA documents revealed that its key ingredient—the genetically
engineered “heme” protein, which turns the burger red—may be an allergen, and also that there were
46 unexpected and unassessed proteins found in the product. The FDA stated that the studies
submitted by Impossible Foods “do not establish the safety” of its product—and yet the company
continues to sell these burgers across the country.

Evolva’s vanillin, from genetically engineered yeast fed with sugar and raised in vats, is being
marketed as “natural and sustainable.” Evolva can do this because the term “natural” is legally
undefined, allowing its product to compete with truly natural, plant-based vanilla, sustainably grown
by 200,000 small farmers in rain forests in the Global South. As Alejandrino Garcia Castaño, a third-
generation Mexican vanilla farmer, argues: “To put a ‘natural’ label on synthetic-biology products is a
dishonest act”—one that “will hurt small-scale farmers who cultivate the real plant, while caring for
real people and real forests.”

Political– Law, Mandates, R.A Worldwide

International Regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms: U.S., Europe, China and Japan

Fifteen years ago, a survey conducted on college students compared consumer acceptance of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Japan, Norway, Taiwan and the U.S., concluding
that Americans were more willing to consume foods containing GMOs than were their
international counterparts. Most survey participants would have liked to have mandatory
labeling of GMOs and were willing to pay extra for non-GMO food. Since the regulation of
GMOs was first established in the early 1990s globally, countries have gone through initial
formation, gradual modification and evolution of their own rules. Below is an overview of GMO
regulations in the U.S., European Union (EU), China and Japan, a topic that is regularly
debated by politicians, consumers, media and scientists.

U.S.: Mandatory-Labeling Voices Are Rising

On March 16, 2016, the U.S. Senate blocked a bill to nullify the mandatory labeling of GMOs at
the state or local level, indicating that the debate on whether to label GMOs voluntarily or
mandatorily had not ended yet. Several states required mandatory labeling of GMOs before
this bill, including Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and others. Vermont passed its legislation 2
years ago, and mandatory labeling is set to go into effect this summer. Connecticut passed
legislation on mandatory labeling of infant formula containing GMOs in 2013, Maine approved
legislation of mandatory labeling on foods containing 0.9 percent GMOs and several other
states have also expressed interest in implementing mandatory GMO labeling.

American consumers have been increasingly expressing their concerns and demanding
mandatory GMO labeling. Throughout 2015, the U.S. has been driving the launches of GMO-
free claims worldwide; the U.S. accounted for 43 percent of global launches, even ahead of the
EU at 4 percent. While in the EU, GMO labeling is mandatory, in the U.S., it is currently
voluntary. In the past, there has been limited consumer resistance to GMOs in the U.S. But
recently, dairy companies, as well as nondairy drink manufacturers using plant-source protein,
have been expressing strong interest in non-GMO labeling because for those more “natural”
brands, their identity as “natural” and organic is usually closely linked with GMO-free
certification.

According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 70–80 percent of processed food that
Americans consume daily contains genetically engineered plants. A survey with 1,000
participants in 2014 concluded that 63 percent of Americans support the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration’s current policy of voluntary labeling on GMOs, consistent with prior survey
results. If GMO labeling becomes mandatory, as is the current situation in the EU, Japan and
New Zealand, the U.S. food industry would be hugely impacted; most foods with GMOs may
have to be eliminated from the shelf due to consumer aversions. Because non-GMO
ingredientsare more expensive than their genetically modified counterparts, companies
switching to non-GMO ingredients would increase the prices of these food products, which
would eventually result in rising food costs for consumers.

EU: Currently and Historically Restrictive

Unlike the U.S., a major exporter of GMOs and leader in the biotechnology field, Europe remains
conservative on GMOs. GMOs in the EU are regulated at two authoritative levels: The European
Commission (EC) and European Food Safety Authority issue harmonized rules on GMOs; EU
member states have individual rules and regulatory agencies within their territory. Companies hoping
to sell and market their GMO-containing foods in a certain European country must apply for approval
at the country level first; if approved, the company can proceed by notifying other countries via the
EC. If there is any objection from other member states, additional evaluations will be conducted by
the EC. A draft proposal is then submitted from the EC and voted on by representatives from EU
member states. If vetoed, the proposal must be submitted to the EC for another round of votes.

The EU’s cautionary attitude on GMOs is due to several different economic, political and societal
reasons. Economically, limiting the sale of GMOs protects domestic agricultural business by setting a
higher trade barrier for large GMO exporters. In European politics, environmental and often “anti-
GMO” groups have been taking a larger role in policymaking at regional, state or even European
levels. Finally, the rising consumer demand for “natural” or “organic,” which is often manipulated by
social media, has led to a culture of distrust of GMOs. Some environmental groups and lobbies are
reported to be active in attacking GMOs, trying to protect their own claims of being “natural” and
“healthy.” Politicians, like those who passed a bill to ban foods directly containing GMOs from
school lunches in Taiwan, are often very sensitive to the opinions of their electorates. They carefully
avoid any public rejections of these controversial issues, trying to stay aligned with their electorates
for the benefit of their political careers. The impact of the EU’s restrictive policy on GMOs not only
increases costs for manufacturers but also delays the development of modern biotechnology. Further,
other countries considering the EU as a potential export market must wait and see, hoping to mirror
policies from these large countries/regions with whom they heavily trade. Some of these “wait-and-
see” countries choose to follow the EU as a model, whereas others may choose to mirror the U.S., a
representative of a GMO “soft”-regulating country, to maximize benefits from exporting their crops.
China: Tightening Rules, but Implementation Is Uncertain
With the passing and implementation of the updated Food Safety Law in October 2015, China will
now probably be clustered on the stricter side of GMO labeling. The new law in China specifically
includes an article on GM food that requires mandatory GMO labeling. Those who violate the
labeling requirements will be punished with fines or even suspension of their license. However,
specific rules on how to label GMOs with regard to the font size and other detailed requirements have
still not been announced. China is also well aware of the variances in other countries on GMO
labeling: The U.S. represents countries requiring only voluntary labeling; most European countries
require mandatory labeling once the GMOs exceed a certain threshold in a product; Japan requires
mandatory labeling only on certain processed foods.
Surveys conducted from 2007 to 2008, and in 2010, showed that the majority of Chinese consumers
are not opposed to purchasing GM foods. Most Chinese people have heard about GMOs, but
consumer awareness is not high. Consumers with higher income or greater knowledge of GMOs are
more willing to purchase them. However, in one specific case in Hunan, China, in 2012,
fearmongering, rather than scientific media coverage of a Golden Rice experiment, fueled a long-
lasting debate about GMO safety in China and resulted in unnecessary worries, concerns and even
fear among Chinese consumers.

China’s GMO regulations dates back to the early 1990s, covering each process of genetic engineering
from research and development to premarket testing of the use of GM products. By the end of 2000,
China had approved about three-fourths of the 443 applications for the biosafety review of GMOs
from research institutes and producers of GMOs. In 2002, China started to require that all food
products containing GMOs receive a safety assessment and go through an approval process, in
addition to being labeled accordingly. However, these labeling requirements were not fully executed,
and there was criticism from Chinese academic researchers in the early 2000s regarding the loopholes
in the GMO laws and regulations that were not well coordinated between different authoritative
agencies. With the increasing need for GMO regulation brought by biotechnology development and
rising consumer demands for mandatory labeling, China made the aforementioned updates to its
GMO regulations in October 2015. However, it remains unknown whether and how these updates will
be implemented. Meanwhile, there is also a need for the Chinese government to better communicate
with consumers and the media so that the public will be better informed and educated about the
science on such controversial issues.

Japan: A Pragmatic Approach to GMOs

In Japan, GMOs in food are regulated under the Cartagena Protocol. The Japanese government
divides GMO regulation authorities into different units. For all GMOs, whether in food, animal feed
or other products, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology oversees
experimental trials in laboratories for R&D purposes. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (MAFF) and the Ministry of Environment are responsible for assessing environmental
safety and impacts on biodiversity caused by GMO cultivation. The Ministry of Health, Labor and
Welfare (MHLW) assesses the safety of GMOs in foods, whereas MAFF assesses the safety of GMOs
in animal feed. After a GMO application is submitted to MHLW (for food) or MAFF (for animal
feed), the relevant ministry requests evaluations from the Cabinet Office, the Food Safety
Commission and the investigation group for the GMO. After evaluations are completed, results are
announced so that the public can exchange information with the authorities.

GMO labeling in Japan depends on whether the food directly contains GMOs. If GMOs are present in
the final product, GM content to be labeled exceeds 5 percent15 of total weight, and if a GM
ingredient is among the top three ingredients, then labeling is mandatory. Phrases such as “genetically
modified” or “genetically modified organisms not segregated” must be used. Otherwise, for foods not
preserving DNA characteristics of the original crop after processing, or other qualified foods, it is
voluntary if they want to be labeled as “not genetically modified.”

Compared with the EU and U.S., Japan seems to take a more middle-of-the-road stance on GMOs.
The number of GMO approvals in Japan falls short of the U.S. mark but is ahead of the EU’s. The
comparison is the same for the approval time frame of the GMO crops applying to be sold in these
countries: U.S. approval is the fastest, followed by Japan and then the EU.

Conclusion
Worldwide, countries have established GMO regulationsbased on their own economic, political and
societal reasons. Vigani et al. established a GMO index to score different countries and show country-
by-country restrictiveness of GMO regulation. The score is generated from six main parameters of
GMO regulation: approval process, risk assessment, labeling, traceability, coexistence and
membership in international agreements. The EU and Japan lean toward the more rigorous side for
GMO regulation, whereas the U.S. represents the less-preventive side of the scale. There is also a
third group of countries that weigh the benefits of GMOs (lower production costs) and the risk of
losing export markets restrictive to GMOs. Countries with very dissimilar GMO regulations trade
significantly less. The authors of the index urge a harmonized approach for the convenience of
business and reduction of costs spent to comply with regulations in bilateral trade.

See sources:

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

https://www.livescience.com/32648-whats-genetic-engineering.html

https://www.slideshare.net/manojsiddartha/gmos-ppt

https://www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/
https://organicpowersuperfoods.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/gmo-timeline-a-history-of-genetically-

modified-foods/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetic_engineering

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-environmental-impact-of-gmos/

http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB03686.pdf

https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/junejuly2016/international-regulations-on-

genetically-modified-organisms-us-europe-china-and-japan/
 NEW ERA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ACCOUNTANCY

Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMO)

Term Paper
Presented by:
Ronalie I. Cortez
2 BSA – 3
Submitted to:
Prof. Chastine G. Cardenas