See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355982756

Perception and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in Malaysia

Article in Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology · November 2021

DOI: 10.56532/mjsat.v1i4.29

CITATIONS READS

3 2,105

6 authors, including:

Sharmithaa Sanmugam Suweka Sivakumar

1 PUBLICATION 3 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tejaswini Gobalakrishnan Pratheep Sandrasaigaran

Manipal International University Mila University
1 PUBLICATION 3 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 273 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pratheep Sandrasaigaran on 08 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MJSAT 1 (4) 144-150

Malaysian Journal of Science

and
Advanced Technology

journal homepage: https://mjsat.com.my/

Perception and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in Malaysia

Sharmithaa Sanmugam, Suweka Sivakumar, Tejaswini Gobalakrishnan, Thatchaayinee Sarawanan, Pasan

Rashmi Abeweera and Pratheep Sandrasaigaran*

Department of Biotechnology, School of Biotechnology, Manipal International University, MIU Boulevard, Putra Nilai, 71800,
Negeri Sembilan

KEYWORDS ABSTRACT

Genetically modified organisms
(GMOs),
Genetically modified foods,
GMOs regulatory bodies,
GMO misconceptions
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 13 October 2021
Received in revised form
2 November 2021
Accepted 3 November 2021
Available online 4 November
2021
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified (GM) foods were
doubted for creating an adverse health problem for humans and animals besides causing
severe environmental impacts. However, such allegations were mostly made based on
inaccurate scientific data. Consequently, GM foods face blatant rejections from the public
member. On the other hand, there is a rising concern for sustainable food supply to the
increasing world population, and if no mitigation is taken, it may lead to severe malnutrition
problems in future. As GM foods can be an ideal solution for world hunger and
malnourishment problems, the misconceptions surrounding them must be first resolved.
Every country that approved GMOs and GM foods has set up regulatory bodies besides
enacting laws and ordinances to safeguard its citizens. In Malaysia, the Malaysian Biosafety
Act and other governing bodies such as National Biosafety Board (NBB) and Genetic
Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) have played a pivotal role in ensuring the
containment of GMOs and GM foods from accidental release to the environment. Despite
the well-regulated plot, Malaysians are still reluctant to accept GMOs and GM foods. Thus,
every stakeholder and media must play a crucial role to curb GMOs' negative image from
spreading to the public.

© 2021 The Authors. Published by Penteract Technology.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

1. INTRODUCTION ion in some species. Hence, the effort to increase the

The topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and
their related technologies have been an epitome of debate since
the commercialization of GM crops began in 1996 [1]. Even
though GM crops have added productivity, contributed to
global food security, improved the socio-economic of small-
scale farmers, and enhanced people's health in general [2],
scepticism over such technologies is still perceived. In 2016,
185.1 million hectares of agricultural land were used to
cultivate GM crops to feed the current population [3]. However,
by the year 2050, it was forecasted that the world population
would reach 9 billion inhabitants, and there would be a severe
food shortage besides increasing malnutrition among the people
of the third world countries especially [4]. This would also
affect many farming animals and may succumb to rapid extinct-
productivity of staple foods has been the main priority in many
countries. Conversely, agricultural land availability is
anticipated to decrease over time due to rapid commercial
expansions. As a result, humans may be forced to employ less
favourable locations to satisfy agrarian demands.
Although GM foods were expected to sustain the
nutritional needs of humans and farm animals, there are
growing fear, myths, and rejections among the majority world
populace due to misconceptions and the dissemination of
deluded information about GMOs and GM foods. Profoundly,
uncertainties arising from lack of knowledge and ignorance
were seen as the main hurdle to accepting GMOs and GM foods
among the public. For instance, consumers and social media
activism exacerbated concerns about GMOs' safety and environ

*Corresponding author:
E-mail address: Pratheep Sandrasaigaran <pratheep.sandrasaigaran@miu.edu.my>.
2785-8901/ © 2021 The Authors. Published by Penteract Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
 Sandrasaigaran, P., et al./ Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology
-mental sustainability, as did misconceptions aired by
mainstream media. However, in reality, many nations and
governments have devised the most stringent safety testing
procedures for GMOs and GM foods to ensure public safety and
environmental sustainability [5].
Therefore, this review is intended to shed light on the
endless myths and controversies revolving around GMOs
besides reviewing the current status on regulatory affairs of
GMOs in Malaysia and worldwide. This article also discusses
the perception and acceptance of GMOs and GM foods among
Malaysians in general and examines the necessary measures it
can be taken to change the negative perceptions towards GE
products.
2. THE POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS OF GM FOODS TO
HUMAN
The health risks that genetically modified (GM) foods may
possess on humans are generally intrinsic, with hypothesized
allergic reactions potentially occur due to the toxic and genetic
hazard exposures. Several cases were reported for allergic
reactions with the contact to the Bt crops and their related
products in the past. However, it was hard to conclude whether
such bio-controls (Bt toxin) can significantly induce allergic
reactions in humans.
The Bt crops were engineered by incorporating genes
from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), bacterial toxic that enable the
genetically modified crops to protect themselves from pests
(Figure 1). These genes were described to cause no significant
setbacks in humans or animals health. Besides, they were also
reported as advantageous to humans in many ways [6].
However, in a Bt pesticide spraying study and Asian gypsy
moth control program, some individuals developed skin
allergies and allergic rhinitis symptoms [7], [8]. Nevertheless,
with no follow up to both incidences and lack of epidemiology
studies, the link between Bt pesticide and the onset of allergic
in a human was not proven. Thus, questions raised whether the
symptoms observed in some minority groups were caused by
the Bt-induced hypersensitivity or due to the seasonal
aeroallergens [8].
Thus, to evaluate these uncertainties, a bio-surveillance
study was later conducted with farmworkers. The assessments
were made before and after the exposure to Bt pesticides spray.
Molecular genetic analysis and experimental findings
confirmed that the Bt organisms were isolated from
farmworkers, and some individuals had indeed developed skin
irritations with elevated IgE antibodies noticed in their blood
[8]. The IgE antibody plays a significant role in mediating
allergic reactions in humans [9]. Thus, this had shown that there
is a possibility of acquiring allergic reaction in humans with the
consumption (contacting) of GM foods, especially those
engineered with the Bt gene though further findings are required
to strengthen such allegations.
On the other hand, it is greatly assumed that GM foods
could also possess toxicity to humans and animals, as 'new
genes' in the modified organisms may potentially contribute to
such occurrences. The presence of these new enzymes (that was
not initially found in the crops unless they were genetically
engineered) could potentially reduce the enzymatic substrates
or contribute to the build-up of enzymatic products [10]. On top
of that, these 'unnatural metabolites' in the genetically modified
crops could also potentially promote modification in the crop's
145
natural metabolic pathway, hence, lead to unexpected toxin
accumulations [11]. So far, no findings have proven that GM
crops had induced toxicity in humans, as the above mentioned
scenarios were merely anticipated from risk assessment studies
of introducing transgene in crops and some outcomes from the
animal modelling experiments [12]. Furthermore, the
conventionally grown crops were indeed reported as possessing
more threat to humans than the GE crops themselves as some
of their naturally secreting chemicals could become lethal to
humans if consumed in a large amount. These chemicals in crop
plants were initially intended to protect them against pathogens
and herbivores. For instance, steroidal glycoalkaloids in green
potato skin could cause gastrointestinal discomfort, vomiting
and diarrhoea. On the other hand, almonds and apricot kernel's
cyanogenic glycosides could cause cyanide poisoning in
humans if consumed in large quantities [13], [14].
These findings implicate that the genetically engineered
(GE) products could potentially pose a hazard to humans and
animals (Figure 2), though the severity of impact is not known
for now. Extensive research and congruent data are still
required to prove such assertions.
3. GMOS AND ITS SAFETY REGULATION
WORLDWIDE
Though no studies have proven that GM foods may pose
severe health risks to humans, regulating such foods is indeed
necessary to prevent adverse incidences. In the United States,
GE products (including GM foods) were structured under the
Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,
established in 1986. This framework was instituted to overview
the genetically modified organism (GMO), living modified
organism (LMO) and GM foods in the same manner that the
agricultural products were produced by the conventional
breeding method. Three federal agencies were tasked to govern
activities related to GE products were the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) [15], [16].
The FDA may play a significant role in regulating food
safety-related matters. Besides, the FDA is also responsible for
ensuring public health safety related to biological products
(including the GE products), the safety of human and veterinary
medications, medical devices, and cosmetics. On the other
hand, the EPA is responsible for protecting human health and
the environment. The primary role of EPA is in establishing the
acceptable tolerance for toxins and contaminants (including the
GE products) in animal feed, human food, and water. The
USDA is responsible for regulating food, agriculture, natural
resources, rural development, and nutrition [16].
These three agencies may work as separate entity or in
collaboration, for instance, in regulating the Bt maize’s safety,
the USDA may function to regulate the Bt maize’s pest
characteristics and other environmental adverse effects.
Alternatively, the EPA will be responsible in ensuring no
reasonable risk presented to humans or the environment in the
Bt maize expressed pesticides [16].
In the European Union (EU), the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) plays a central role in GMO, LMO and GM
food regulations. The EFSA, with the scientific agencies of its
member states, is tasked to provide scientific advice about the
GE products cultivation, importation, or processing while the
 Sandrasaigaran, P., et al./ Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology
Fig. 1. Genetically modified corn (Bt corn) with transformed cry gene is toxic to insects. Bt protein from the plant will
collapse the cells lining the insects’ guts and subsequently kill the insects. The Bt protein act as natural insecticide but create
no harm to humans and animal when consumed.
decision for approval is depends on the European Commission
and the member states [17].
Worldwide, different regulatory systems were being
employed when comes to GMOs and GE products. However,
all regulatory were fundamentally concerned with the safety to
humans, animals, and the environment. Canada, for instants, the
approval and regulation of the GE products were different
compared to the US or EU. The health Canada and Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) treat the ‘novel’ foods and
‘novel’ plant the same, irrespective of the breeding method,
whether it was done through conventional or modern
biotechnology [18].
Besides that, regardless of the regulatory system being
practised, the GM foods being marketed for public consumption
must be appropriately labelled to provide legitimate
information to the consumers. The policy on food labelling can
be voluntary if the foods containing no GE products. Otherwise,
mandatory labelling is required for foods containing GE
products. Many countries have set threshold tolerance for GE
content that could present in foods, so mandatory labelling is
implemented. Canada, the US, and Japan allow 5% of the GE
tolerance threshold in GM foods, while New Zealand,
Australia, Brazil, China, and South Africa only allow 1% of the
GE tolerance threshold. The EU, on the other hand, allows only
0.9% of the GE tolerance threshold [19]. Another method used
to regulate the GMOs and GM foods were the product
traceability; the ability to track back the GMO batches and their
history from the seed production to its supply chain and sale.
The identity preservation (IP) system, a formalized policy,
traces the GMOs and GM crops from the seed production to the
processing chain [20]. Such a traceability system is crucial as it
traces back any unintended gene spillage of accidental releases
of GM products to the environment.
4. DETECTION OF GM PRODUCTS IN FOODS
The detection of the GE products and their transgene can
be made through either DNA-based, protein-based, or trait-
based.
Fundamentally, the DNA-based of GM products detection
relies on identifying specific recombinant genes (foreign DNA
146
Fig 2. Three potential intrinsic side effects of Bt protein
induced toxin to humans.
sequence) or genetic control elements that were usually
integrated into the GM crops. This can be done via the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a technique used to amplify
a specific targeted DNA that may only be present in the GE
products [21], [22]. The subsequent to PCR and identification
of GE products can be made using either gel electrophoresis or
DNA hybridization techniques. Genetic control elements are
universally incorporated and found in many GE products, such
as the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P-35S) and
the Agrobacterium tumefaciens nos terminator (nos3’) [22].
Hence, targeting this gene amplification using the PCR enable
the detection of GE products in GM crops. The advantage of
PCR in the GE product identification is the technique’s
detection limit, whereby the detection can be made even with a
single target molecule in a heterogeneous DNA mixture [23].
Several variations of PCR techniques were developed in recent
years to detect GMOs, including the development of
conventional PCR, multiplex PCR (mPCR), and quantitative
PCR (qPCR) [21], [22].
On the other hand, the Immunoassay method also can be
employed to detect and quantifies foreign proteins presented in
transgenic plants and other GMOs [24], [25]. The mechanism
in the Immunoassay generally depends on the reaction
specificity that occurs between antigens and antibodies. Thus,
the technique's success usually relies on the availability of
specific antibody in the market besides taking an account for
the antigen-antibody affinity [23]. The Immunoassay technique
is advantageous compared to other methods used to identify GE
 Sandrasaigaran, P., et al./ Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology 147

products as it only requires simple preparation steps, is highly Table 1. Methods commonly used to detect GE products, its
specific, and the result can be analysed qualitatively and advantages, and disadvantages.
quantitatively. Some of the immunoassay techniques for Method Advantage Disadvantage
detecting GE products include western blot, lateral flow sticks
and the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) [23]. Polymerase Chain Very sensitive and Expensive and
Reaction (PCR) precise. require
On the other hand, the trait-based characterization of GE Lower detection specialized
products is based on the phenotypic assay that tests the presence limits. equipment.
or absence of herbicides resistance in GM crops [23]. This assay Qualitative and Required
is usually conducted by germinating the seeds in a solid quantitative trained
medium containing the specific herbicide. If the seeds could detection of target personnel to run
germinate on a medium containing herbicide, they may possess DNA sequence. the test.
an herbicide resistance gene on which subsequent tests may be
required for further confirmation. The advantage of herbicide Enzyme-Linked Fast and less Cannot detect
bioassay is, it is cheap and accurate to test GM crops such as Immunosorbent expensive. denatured
the Roundup Ready soybean, maize, cotton and oilseed rape, Assay (ELISA) Quantitative protein.
and Liberty Link maize [23]. The comparison between DNA- detection of Require
based, protein-based, and trait-based detection methods of protein levels. specialized
GMOs is shown in Table 1. equipment
5. GOVERNANCE OF GMOS AND GM CROPS IN and trained
personnel.
MALAYSIA Cannot identify
The GM foods in Malaysia has been approved for the regulation a specific GM
under the Malaysian Biosafety Act for the food, feed, and product.
processing (FFP) with stringent policies were applied to prevent
Lateral flow stick Fast. Cannot quantify
any accidental spillage or unintended release of GMOs to the
Qualitative protein.
environment [26]. To-date, there were already 44 events for
detection of Cannot identify
GM crops developed using techniques such as microparticle
presence or a specific GM
bombardment of plant cells or tissue, Agrobacterium
absence of product.
tumefaciens mediated plant transformation, and Whiskers-
targeted protein,
mediated plant transformation (Table 2) [27]. However, these
GM crops were mostly not intended for commercial purposes Herbicide Cheap. Only viable
but primarily for research and development (R&D) [26], [27]. bioassays High accuracy. seeds can be
Thus, research involving GMOs or GM crops in Malaysia were Able to identify tested.
firmly controlled, and it is always bound to biosafety GM crops with the Processed
containment. There are four Biosafety Containment Level particular trait in products cannot
(BSL) specified according to the international mechanisms to samples of viable be tested.
pathogenic organisms. The Malaysian Biosafety Act also seed/ grain.
requires that any institutions participating in the GMOs
research must be obliged to establish an institutional biosafety
committee (IBC) within the institute. The IBC functions to through the amendments to the Food Regulations under the
provide guidance, besides acting as a regulatory body at the Food Act 1983 to enforce the labelling of GMO products and
institution level to monitor GMOs' research activities [26]. foods. This regulation came into enforcement in July 2014, was
The Malaysian Biosafety Act (2009) and Biosafety intended to provide information to the consumers associated
Regulation (2010) was effectively enacted to protect humans, with GM foods and their related substances in the food.
plants, animals, and environment by controlling the release, However, such regulation on food labelling was exempted if the
importation and contained use of GMOs and the release of its GMO content were less than 3% of the food ingredients [26].
product. Under the Malaysian Biosafety Act, the National Labelling is also essential for GMO product traceability as it
Biosafety Board (NBB) was established and granted authority helps in tracing GE products in the foods and animal feeds at
to release GM crops in Malaysia. The NBB was chaired by the all stages of their placing on the market.
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Natural Resources and 6. THE PERCEPTION AND FEAR OF GM FOODS IN
Environment, and the representatives’ members were from MALAYSIA
ministries, subject matter experts and experienced individuals
in the relevant disciplines. Besides that, the Genetic The public acceptance of GM foods in Malaysia shows
Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) was also underwhelming responses in common. A study conducted by
established, whose representative members were from Amin et al., (2013) emphasizes that Malaysians, in general, are
government agencies, higher learning institutes, research cautious about GM products and foods despite perceiving
bodies, private sectors, and other non-governmental benefits, risks and moral aspects at a moderate level [28].
organizations. The GMAC was responsible for making Besides that, other studies were also confirmed on the varying
decisions about the importation and trade of GM crops. Genetic attitudes of Malaysian towards GMOs and GM foods, were
Modification Advisory Committee is also committed to review mainly due to the lacking affirmations from credible
the concerns from relevant government agencies and the public government and religious authorities in ensuring the safety and
[26]. Likewise, a new regulation was also enacted in Malaysia Halal, lacking confidence in the regulatory bodies, and the con-
 Sandrasaigaran, P., et al./ Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology 148

Table 2: GM crops approved for food, feed, and processing in Malaysia

Crop Trade Name Method of Trait Introduction GM Trait

Optimum® Gly canola Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
Argentine Canola
(Brassica napus ) Conventional breeding - cross hybridization and Glufosinate herbicide tolerance , Male
InVigor™ Canola
selection involving transgenic donor(s) sterility , Fertility restoration

Moonshade™

Moonlite™
Moonaqua™
Carnation (Dianthus Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Sulfonylurea herbicide tolerance ,
Moonvista™
caryophyllus ) transformation Modified flower color
Moonique™
Moonpearl™
Moonberry™
Moonvelvet™
Not available (Event Name: Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
GHB119) Lepidopteran insect resistance
Cotton (Gossypium GlyTol™ Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
hirsutum L. ) Fibermax™ Liberty Link™ transformation Glufosinate herbicide tolerance
Not available (Event Name: Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
T304-40) Lepidopteran insect resistance
Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Modified alpha amylase , Mannose
Enogen™
transformation metabolism
Agrobacterium tumefaci ens mediated plant Multiple insect resistance , Mannose
Agrisure® Duracade™
transformation metabolism
Agrobacterium tumefacien s mediated plant Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
Herculex™ RW
transformation Coleopteran insect resistance
Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
Agrisure™ CB/LL Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue
Lepidopteran insect resistance
Enlist™ Maize Whiskers-mediated plant transformation 2,4-D herbicide tolerance
Roundup Ready™ Maize,
Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
Agrisure™GT
Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Lepidopteran insect resistance , Mannose
Agrisure™ Viptera
transformation metabolism
Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Coleopteran insect resistance , Mannose
Agrisure™ RW
transformation metabolism
Glyphosate herbicide tolerance ,
YieldGard™, MaizeGard™ Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Lepidopteran insect resistance , Antibiotic
resistance
Maize (Zea mays L. ) YieldGard™ Rootworm RW, Coleopteran insect resistance , Antibiotic
Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue
MaxGard™ resistance

Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant

Roundup Ready™ Maize Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
transformation
YieldGard™ VT™ Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Glyphosate herbicide tolerance ,
Rootworm™ RR2 transformation Coleopteran insect resistance
Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant
YieldGard™ VT Pro™ Lepidopteran insect resistance
transformation
Not available (Event Name: Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
MZHG0JG) transformation Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
Not available (Event Name: Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant
Coleopteran insect resistance , Multiple
MZIR098) transformation
insect resistance

Roundup Ready™ 2 Maize Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Glyphosate herbicide tolerance

Chemically mediated introduction into protoplasts and Glufosinate herbicide tolerance , Antibiotic
Liberty Link™ Maize
regeneration resistance
Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
Herculex™ I, Herculex™ CB Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue
Lepidopteran insect resistance
 Sandrasaigaran, P., et al./ Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology 149

Crop Trade Name Method of Trait Introduction GM Trait

Potato (Solanum Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Lowered Free Asparagine , Reduced Black
Innate® Cultivate
tuberosum L. ) transformation Spot , Lowered Reducing Sugars
Liberty Link® soybean
Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Glufosinate herbicide tolerance
(Event Name: A2704-12)

Liberty Link® soybean

Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Glufosinate herbicide tolerance
(Event Name: A5547-127)
Cultivance Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Sulfonylurea herbicide tolerance
Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
Not available (Event Name: Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant
Glyphosate herbicide tolerance , 2,4-D
DAS44406-6) transformation
herbicide tolerance
Not available (Event Name: Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Glufosinate herbicide tolerance , 2,4-D
DAS68416-4) transformation herbicide tolerance
Soybean (Glycine max
Not available (Event Name: Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
L. )
DAS81419) transformation Lepidopteran insect resistance
Sulfonylurea herbicide tolerance ,
Treus™, Plenish™ Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue
Modified oil/fatty acid
Not available (Event Name: Glyphosate herbicide tolerance ,
Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue
FG72 (FGØ72-2, FGØ72-3)) Isoxaflutole herbicide tolerance

Roundup Ready™ soybean Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
Genuity® Roundup Ready 2 Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant
Glyphosate herbicide tolerance
Yield™ transformation
Herbicide-tolerant Soybean Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated plant Glufosinate herbicide tolerance ,
line transformation Mesotrione Herbicide Tolerance

cerns on the intellectual property protection [29]–[31].
Worldwide, GMOs' perception was commonly considered as
artificial food, monsters of laboratory or foods that were
environment unfriendly. As a result, this instils fear in public
and GM foods are generally perceived to bring potential risk to
health, environment, and nature [32]. This sums up that the
public failed to realize the benefits of GM foods and often
misconstrued with the religious, customs and beliefs [33].
The fear of GM foods, thus, needed to be lessened, and
government agencies, scientists and the educational institution
must step forward to play their roles. Information pertaining the
GMOs were often gathered from the internet, press, and
televisions. Hence, electronic media must play a pivotal role in
changing the negative perception of GMOs. This is, however,
not easy and could be very challenging. The scientist and
communities, on the other hand, may play a much-advanced
role, providing open access to scientific journals and knowledge
portals. Besides, organizing open forums and conferences to
mitigate the impact of GMOs on humans and the environment
would clarify the public on its actual effect. These holistic
approaches may see the limelight, thus easing the myth and
controversy surrounding GMOs and GM crops [32].
7. CONCLUSION
There is a consensus that GM foods are hazardous to
humans and animal health besides being harmful to the
environment. These are mainly due to the lack of information
supplied to the consumers on the benefit of GMOs and GM
crops, leading to many misconceptions and the total rejection
of GM foods. With the growing world population, food
producers struggle to cope with the increasing demand for food
supply. This can consequently lead to a food shortage and
stemming to world hunger unless the public accepts GM crops.
The approval of GM foods in any country, including Malaysia,
is structured by stringent regulatory bodies. This is to ensure
that no mishaps happen. Even though some reports stated the
adverse effect of consuming GM foods, such allegations were
not strongly supported by data and science. As such,
government bodies, media and scientists must work in hand to
combat myths and misconceptions surrounding GM foods and
clear the undesirably allegation about GMOs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This review was prepared collaboratively by students
enrolled in the module SBB 2124 Genetic Engineering (March
2021) at Manipal International University, School of
Biotechnology, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan. The authors declare no
conflicts of interest while preparing this article.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Holst-Jensen, “Testing for genetically modified organisms (GMOs):
Past, present and future perspectives,” Biotechnol. Adv., vol. 27, no. 6,
pp. 1071–1082, Nov. 2009.
[2] T. F. Teferra, “Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods?
Why and why not? A review,” Food Sci. Nutr., vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 5324–
5331, Sep. 2021.
[3] R. R. Aldemita and R. A. Hautea, “Biotech crop planting resumes high
adoption in 2016,” GM Crops Food, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2018.
[4] A. M. Husaini and M. Sohail, “Time to Redefine Organic Agriculture:
Can’t GM Crops Be Certified as Organics?,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 9, p.
423, Apr. 2018.
[5] J. Davison and K. Ammann, “New GMO regulations for old: Determining
a new future for EU crop biotechnology,” GM Crops Food, vol. 8, no. 1,
pp. 13–34, Jan. 2017.
[6] S. J. Smyth, “The human health benefits from GM crops,” Plant
Biotechnol. J., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 887–888, Apr. 2020.
[7] M. Green, M. Heumann, R. Sokolow, L. R. Foster, R. Bryant, and M.
Skeels, “Public Health Implications of the Microbial Pesticide Bacillus
 Sandrasaigaran, P., et al./ Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology 150

thuringiensis: An Epidemiological Study,” Am. J. Public Health, vol. 80, The Malaysian Consumers,” J. Bisnis, Manajemen, dan Perbank., vol. 6,
no. 7, pp. 1985–86, 1990. no. 1, pp. 56–62, 2020.
[8] I. L. Bernstein et al., “Immune responses in farm workers after exposure [30] L. Amin, M. A. K. Azad, M. H. Gausmian, and F. Zulkifli, “Determinants
to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides.,” Environ. Health Perspect., vol. 107, of Public Attitudes to Genetically Modified Salmon,” PLoS One, vol. 9,
no. 7, pp. 575–582, Jul. 1999. no. 1, p. e86174, Jan. 2014.
[9] B. Sutton, A. Davies, H. Bax, and S. Karagiannis, “IgE Antibodies: From [31] K. Ismail et al., “Problems on Commercialization of Genetically Modified
Structure to Function and Clinical Translation,” Antibodies, vol. 8, no. 1, Crops in Malaysia,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 40, pp. 353–357,
p. 19, Feb. 2019. 2012.
[10] A. S. Bawa and K. R. Anilakumar, “Genetically modified foods: safety, [32] P. Rzymski and A. Królczyk, “Attitudes toward genetically modified
risks and public concerns—a review,” J. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 50, no. organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?,” Food Secur., vol. 8, no.
6, pp. 1035–1046, Dec. 2013. 3, pp. 689–697, Jun. 2016.
[11] M. Antoniou and J. Fagan, “GMO myths and truths: An evidence-based [33] P. Aerni, “Resistance to agricultural biotechnology: The importance of
examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically distinguishing between weak and strong public attitudes,” Biotechnol. J.,
modified crops,” 2012. vol. 8, no. 10, p. n/a-n/a, Jul. 2013.
[12] C. Verma, “A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on
Human Health,” Open Nutraceuticals J., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3–11, Feb. 2011.
[13] D. Schrenk et al., “Risk assessment of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in
particular in potatoes and potato‐derived products,” EFSA J., vol. 18, no.
8, Aug. 2020.
[14] N. Chaouali et al., “Potential Toxic Levels of Cyanide in Almonds (
Prunus amygdalus ), Apricot Kernels ( Prunus armeniaca ), and Almond
Syrup,” ISRN Toxicol., vol. 2013, pp. 1–6, Sep. 2013.
[15] U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Coordinated framework
for regulation of biotechnology; announcement of policy; notice for
public comment.,” Fed. Regist., vol. 51, no. 123, pp. 23302–50, Jun. 1986.
[16] N.A, “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products:
Final Version of the 2017 Update to the Coordinated Framework for the
Regulation of Biotechnology,” 2017.
[17] K. Grob, “The role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in a
better European regulation of food contact materials – some proposals,”
Food Addit. Contam. Part A, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 1895–1902, Dec. 2019.
[18] S. Charlebois, M. Juhasz, J. Music, and J. Vézeau, “A review of Canadian
and international food safety systems: Issues and recommendations for
the future,” Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 5043–
5066, Sep. 2021.
[19] P. A. Giraldo, H. Shinozuka, G. C. Spangenberg, N. O. I. Cogan, and K.
F. Smith, “Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any
Difference From Food?,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 10, Dec. 2019.
[20] H. J. M. Aarts, J.-P. P. van Rie, and E. J. Kok, “Traceability of genetically
modified organisms,” Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 69–77,
Jan. 2002.
[21] P. Chhalliyil, H. Ilves, S. A. Kazakov, S. J. Howard, B. H. Johnston, and
J. Fagan, “A Real-Time Quantitative PCR Method Specific for Detection
and Quantification of the First Commercialized Genome-Edited Plant,”
Foods, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 1245, Sep. 2020.
[22] P. Safaei, E. M. Aghaee, G. J. Khaniki, S. A. K. Afshari, and S. Rezaie,
“A simple and accurate PCR method for detection of genetically modified
rice,” J. Environ. Heal. Sci. Eng., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 847–851, Dec. 2019.
[23] L. Tripathi, “Techniques for detecting genetically modified crops and
products,” African J. Food, Agric. Nutr. Dev., vol. 4, no. 13, Nov. 2011.
[24] S. Kamle, D. Li, A. Ojha, and A. Kumar, “Development of an Enzyme-
Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Detection of GM Proteins in
Transgenic Crops/Produce,” in Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1902,
Humana Press, New York, NY, 2019, pp. 159–166.
[25] H. Gao, L. Wen, W. Hua, J. Tian, and Y. Lin, “Highly sensitive
immunosensing platform for one-step detection of genetically modified
crops,” Sci. Rep., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 16117, Dec. 2019.
[26] J. Andrew, N. W. Ismail, and M. Djama, “An overview of genetically
modified crop governance, issues and challenges in Malaysia,” J. Sci.
Food Agric., vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 12–17, Jan. 2018.
[27] N.A, “GM Approval Database | GMO Database | GM Crop Approvals -
ISAAA.org,” 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/. [Accessed: 29-Oct-2021].
[28] L. Amin, J. Md Jahi, and A. R. Md Nor, “Stakeholders’ Attitude to
Genetically Modified Foods and Medicine,” Sci. World J., vol. 2013, pp.
1–14, 2013.
[29] A. M. Z. Azlin, R. Jamaluddin, R. Baki, M. S. K. Enio, and J. H. Abdullah,
“Awareness and Acceptance Of Genetic Modified Food ( GMF ) Among

View publication stats