Facts and fiction of genetically engineered food

A Study on Genetically Engineered Foods: Need, Benefits, Risk, and Current Knowledge

Food requirements have always been a top priority, and with the exponential growth of the human population, there is an increasing need for large quantities of food. Traditional cultivation methods are not able to meet the current demand for food products. One significant challenge is the shortened shelf-life of naturally occurring food items, which directly contributes to food scarcity. Contaminating substances such as weeds and pests play a crucial role in this issue. In response, researchers have introduced genetically engineered (GE) food as a potential solution. These food products are typically created by adding or replacing genes in the DNA of naturally occurring foods. GE foods offer various advantages, including increased quality and quantity of food production, adaptability to various climatic conditions, modification of vitamin and mineral levels, and prolonged shelf life. They address the major concerns of global food scarcity and food security. However, the techniques used in the production of GE foods may not be universally acceptable due to the genetic alteration of animal genes into plants or vice versa. Additionally, their unique nature necessitates further long-term studies. This study delves into the procedures and growth stages of DNA sequencing, covering the benefits, risks, industrial relevance, current knowledge, and future challenges of GE foods. GE foods have the potential to extend the shelf life of food items, alleviate food shortages, and fulfill the current nutritional food demand.

The moderating role of perceived health risks on the acceptance of genetically modified food

The public perspective on genetically modified foods (GMFs) has been intensely debated and scrutinized. Often, discussions surrounding GMF tend to revolve solely around the potential health risks associated with their consumption. However, it is essential to acknowledge that public perceptions of genetically modified foods are multifaceted, encompassing environmental concerns, ethical considerations, and economic implications. This paper studies the factors predicting GMF acceptance employing the representative sample of the Czech population (N = 884, aged 18-90 years, M ± SD: 48.17 ± 17.72; 53.40% women, 18.04% with higher education). The research relies on the Behavioral Change Model and the Health Belief Model. We employ hierarchical ordinal regressions to study the effects of information, environmental concerns, perceived health risks, food habits, purchasing habits, and socio-demographics on GMF acceptance. The results suggest that the (un)willingness to purchase GMF is primarily driven by the health risks - the environmental concerns were largely unimportant. The impact of information provision on GMF acceptance proved positive, suggesting information and education to be the main channels of creating public acceptance. The intrinsic interest regarding information related to GMF had an adverse impact on the perception of GMF morality. The benefits of the GMF proved unrelated to the GMF acceptance, indicating the gap in the information campaign. The research provides valuable insights for policymakers, public health professionals, and market researchers to communicate the GMF agenda effectively to the general public.

The evil corporation master frame: The cases of vaccines and genetic modification

Employing a qualitative content analysis of online comments made on YouTube and letters to the editor published in US newspapers, we examine the deployment and neutralization of the evil corporation master frame in debates on two distinct biotechnologies, vaccines and genetically modified organisms. This study builds on previous research by outlining three diagnostic components of the evil corporation master frame: dishonesty, greed, and the contamination of authority. It also finds that supporters of vaccines and genetically modified organisms seek to neutralize the evil corporation master frame through aggressive, defensive, endurance, and redemptive framings. This study provides ideational detail for the ways that controversial biotechnology is constructed. The particularly vexing anti-vaccine movement is not dissimilar from other challenges to mainstream science as disparate movements draw on the same master frame. It also demonstrates how defenses of genetically modified organisms and vaccines tend to reify the anti-corporate stigma that sustains challenges to scientific authority.

NLR1 is a strong candidate for the Rm3 dominant green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) resistance trait in peach

The green peach aphid (GPA), Myzus persicae, is a polyphagous, sap-sucking aphid and a vector of many plant viruses. In peach, Prunus persica, three individual dominant GPA resistance loci have been genetically defined (Rm1-3), but knowledge of the underlying genes is limited. In this study, we focused on the Rm3 locus. Bulk segregant analysis (BSA) mapping in segregating progeny populations delimited Rm3 to an interval spanning 160 kb containing 21 genes on chromosome 1. RNA-seq data provided no evidence of candidate genes, but chromosomal structural variations were predicted around a nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat (NLR) gene (ppa000596m) within the Rm3 fine-mapping interval. Following bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library construction for a GPA-resistant peach cultivar and the sequencing of three target BAC clones, a chromosomal structural variation encompassing two novel TIR-NLR-class disease resistance (R) protein-coding genes was identified, and the expressed NLR gene (NLR1) was identified as a candidate for M. persicae resistance. Consistent with its proposed role in controlling GPA resistance, NLR1 was only expressed in the leaves of resistant peach phenotypes. A molecular marker that was designed based on the NLR1 sequence co-segregated with the GPA-resistant phenotype in four segregating populations, 162 peach cultivars, and 14 wild relatives, demonstrating the dominant inheritance of the Rm3 locus. Our findings can be exploited to facilitate future breeding for GPA-resistance in peach.

Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study

In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors' consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair.

Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops

A wide gap exists between the rapid acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops for cultivation by farmers in many countries and in the global markets for food and feed, and the often-limited acceptance by consumers. This review contrasts the advances of practical applications of agricultural biotechnology with the divergent paths-also affecting the development of virus resistant transgenic crops-of political and regulatory frameworks for GM crops and food in different parts of the world. These have also shaped the different opinions of consumers. Important factors influencing consumer's attitudes are the perception of risks and benefits, knowledge and trust, and personal values. Recent political and societal developments show a hardening of the negative environment for agricultural biotechnology in Europe, a growing discussion-including calls for labeling of GM food-in the USA, and a careful development in China towards a possible authorization of GM rice that takes the societal discussions into account. New breeding techniques address some consumers' concerns with transgenic crops, but it is not clear yet how consumers' attitudes towards them will develop. Discussions about agriculture would be more productive, if they would focus less on technologies, but on common aims and underlying values.

Do Sesamia nonagrioides (Lepidoptera; Noctuidae) gravid females discriminate between Bt or multivitamin corn varieties? Role of olfactory and visual cues

The Mediterranean corn borer, Sesamia nonagrioides Lefèbvre, is a key pest of corn and a main target of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in Northeast Spain. Trends for future biotechnology crops indicate that Bt, non-Bt, and stacked corn varieties with metabolic pathways for vitamin-increased traits could coexist in same region. Knowledge of the oviposition response of gravid females of S. nonagrioides to these different varieties could be extremely important for managing strategies aimed for delaying resistance development. In dual-choice assays, we examined the host preference of gravid females of S. nonagrioides for four corn varieties: a new transgenic corn with increased vitamin levels, its near isogenic counterpart (M37W), a Bt corn plant, and its near isogenic counterpart. Olfactory cues were the predominant ones when gravid females looked for a suitable host to lay eggs, and no synergistic effects were observed when both visual and olfactory cues were present. When the plant was visible, the females preferred the odors emitted by the nontransgenic to its multivitamin transgenic counterpart and when they only could detect the volatiles they also preferred the nontransgenic M37W variety to the Bt corn variety. If gravid females are less attracted to corn with an increased level of vitamins, this could impact insect resistance management and the value of refuge plants, if such traits are stacked with an insect resistance trait.

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems.

Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation

The regulation of genetically engineered crops, in Europe and within the legislation of the Cartagena biosafety protocol is built on false premises: The claim was (and unfortunately still is) that there is a basic difference between conventional and transgenic crops, this despite the fact that this has been rejected on scientifically solid grounds since many years. This contribution collects some major arguments for a fresh look at regulation of transgenic crops, they are in their molecular processes of creation not basically different from conventional crops, which are based in their breeding methods on natural, sometimes enhanced mutation. But the fascination and euphoria of the discoveries in molecular biology and the new perspectives in plant breeding in the sixties and seventies led to the wrong focus on transgenic plants alone. In a collective framing process the initial biosafety debates focused on the novelty of the process of transgenesis. When early debates on the risk assessment merged into legislative decisions, this wrong focus on transgenesis alone seemed uncontested. The process-focused view was also fostered by a conglomerate of concerned scientists and biotechnology companies, both with a vested interest to at least tolerate the rise of the safety threshold to secure research money and to discourage competitors of all kinds. Policy minded people and opponent activists without deeper insight in the molecular science agreed to those efforts without much resistance. It is interesting to realize, that the focus on processes was uncontested by a majority of regulators, this despite of serious early warnings from important authorities in science, mainly of US origin. It is time to change the regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops toward a more science based process-agnostic legislation. Although this article concentrates on the critique of the process-oriented regulation, including some details about the history behind, there should be no misunderstanding that there are other important factors responsible for the failure of this kind of process-oriented regulation, most importantly: the predominance of politics in the decision making processes combined with the lack of serious scientific debates on regulatory matters within the European Union and also in the Cartagena system, the obscure and much too complex decision making structures within the EU, and the active, professional, negative and intimidating role of fundamental opposition against GM crops on all levels dealing with flawed science, often declared as better parallel science published by 'independent' scientists.

The application of GMOs in agriculture and in food production for a better nutrition: two different scientific points of view

This commentary is a face-to-face debate between two almost opposite positions regarding the application of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production. Seven questions on the potential benefits of the application of genetic engineering in agriculture and on the potentially adverse impacts on the environment and human health were posed to two scientists: one who is sceptical about the use of GMOs in Agriculture, and one who views GMOs as an important tool for quantitatively and qualitatively improving food production.

Do genetically modified crops affect animal reproduction? A review of the ongoing debate

In the past few years, genetically modified (GM) crops aimed at producing food/feed that became part of the regular agriculture in many areas of the world. However, we are uncertain whether GM food and feed can exert potential adverse effects on humans or animals. Of importance, the reproductive toxicology of GM crops has been studied using a number of methods, and by feeding GM crops to a number species of animals to ensure the safety assessment of GM food and feed. It appears that there are no adverse effects of GM crops on many species of animals in acute and short-term feeding studies, but serious debates of effects of long-term and multigenerational feeding studies remain. The aims of this review are to focus on the latest (last 3 to 4 years) findings and debates on reproduction of male and female animals after feeding daily diets containing the GM crops, and to present the possible mechanism(s) to explain their influences.

Bioremediation and tolerance of humans to heavy metals through microbial processes: a potential role for probiotics?

The food and water we consume are often contaminated with a range of chemicals and heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, and mercury, that are associated with numerous diseases. Although heavy-metal exposure and contamination are not a recent phenomenon, the concentration of metals and the exposure to populations remain major issues despite efforts at remediation. The ability to prevent and manage this problem is still a subject of much debate, with many technologies ineffective and others too expensive for practical large-scale use, especially for developing nations where major pollution occurs. This has led researchers to seek alternative solutions for decontaminating environmental sites and humans themselves. A number of environmental microorganisms have long been known for their ability to bind metals, but less well appreciated are human gastrointestinal bacteria. Species such as Lactobacillus, present in the human mouth, gut, and vagina and in fermented foods, have the ability to bind and detoxify some of these substances. This review examines the current understanding of detoxication mechanisms of lactobacilli and how, in the future, humans and animals might benefit from these organisms in remediating environmental contamination of food.

Commercializing genetically modified crops under EU regulations: objectives and barriers

Agriculture faces serious problems in feeding 9 billion people by 2050: production must be increased and ecosystem services maintained under conditions for growing crops that are predicted to worsen in many parts of the world. A proposed solution is sustainable intensification of agriculture, whereby yields are increased on land that is currently cultivated, so sparing land to deliver other ecosystem services. Genetically modified (GM) crops are already contributing to sustainable intensification through higher yields and lower environmental impacts, and have potential to deliver further significant improvements. Despite their widespread successful use elsewhere, the European Union (EU) has been slow to introduce GM crops: decisions on applications to import GM commodities are lengthy, and decision-making on applications to cultivate GM crops has virtually ceased. Delayed import approvals result in economic losses, particularly in the EU itself as a result of higher commodity prices. Failure to grant cultivation approvals costs EU farmers opportunities to reduce inputs, and results in loss of agricultural research and development from the EU to countries such as the United States and China. Delayed decision-making in the EU ostensibly results from scientific uncertainty about the effects of using GM crops; however, scientific uncertainty may be a means to justify a political decision to restrict cultivation of GM crops in the EU. The problems associated with delayed decision-making will not improve until there is clarity about the EU's agricultural policy objectives, and whether the use of GM crops will be permitted to contribute to achieving those objectives.

Approaches for gene targeting and targeted gene expression in plants

Transgenic science and technology are fundamental to state-of-the-art plant molecular genetics and crop improvement. The new generation of technology endeavors to introduce genes 'stably' into 'site-specific' locations and in 'single copy' without the integration of extraneous vector 'backbone' sequences or selectable markers and with a 'predictable and consistent' expression. Several similar strategies and technologies, which can push the development of 'smart' genetically modified plants with desirable attributes, as well as enhance their consumer acceptability, are discussed in this review.