SOURCE: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S2213453016300295

Genetic modification is a biological technique that effects alterations in the genetic machinery of all
kinds of living organisms. GMO is defined as follows by WHO (World Health Organization):
“Organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been
altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”. The definition
seeks to distinguish the direct manipulation of genetic material from the millennial-old practice of
improvement in the genetic stock of plants and animals by selective breeding. With DNA recombinant
technology, genes from one organism can be transferred into another, usually unrelated, organism.
Similarly, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and the European
Commission define a GMO as a product “not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”.
“GM foods” refer to foods produced from genetically modified plants or animals.

The genesis of DNA modification technology can be traced back to 1944, when scientists discovered
that genetic material can be transferred between different species. Several hallmark papers paved the
way to the modern science of molecular biology. In 1954, Watson and Crick discovered the
double helix structure of DNA, and the “central dogma” – DNA transcribed to messenger RNA,
translated to protein – was established. Nobel Laureate Marshall Nirenberg and others had deciphered
the genetic code by 1963. In 1973, Cohen et al. developed DNA recombination technology, showing
that genetically engineered DNA molecules can be transferred among different species.

In order to generate GM foods, researchers need to introduce the gene(s) coding for certain traits into a
plant cell, and then regenerate a plant through tissue culture. When and where the transferred gene is
expressed is usually inherent in the scheme to optimize the property of the product. Generally speaking,
there are three ways to modify genes in the cells.

The question of whether or not humans should eat food from genetically modifiedorganisms – and,
therefore, if they should develop and propagate them – is clearly not amenable to a simple “yes” or
“no”. Indeed, a wise answer comprehends a diverse array of scientific expertise, not only in files of
molecular biology, but also in agricultural economics, animal and microbial ecology, food technology,
and immunology – a breadth of expertise unlikely to be found in one person.
The arguments, pro and con, reverberate the whole history of human technological development,
pitting the clear advantages of intended consequence against the mucky possibilities of unintended
consequence. One needs to think only of the fossil-fueled industrial revolution versus global warming.
Or of that much-heralding replacement for fossil fuel, nuclear power generation, versus Tokushima.
Certainly, many of the risks of GM crops, noted above, are speculative, but they are scientifically
plausible, and offered in good faith. Ignoring them in a euphoria of immediate advantage is equally
unscientific.
Drawing from past experience it seems unlikely the technological momentum toward genetically
modified foods can be stopped dead in its tracks. Or should be. The immediate advantages are too
tangible to ignore or set aside out of fear of the unknown and unintended disadvantages.
With un-Hamlet-like indecisiveness, we suggest evaluating, gingerly, and always with keen (and
collective) circumspection toward the first signs of problems.
6. Benefits of GM foods
6.1. Agronomic benefits
1996–2012 saw an increase of more than 370 million tons of food crops. One-seventh of the increased yield is
attributed to GM crops in the U.S. To achieve an equal increase in yield as delivered by GM crops, it is
estimated that an addition of more than 300 million acres of conventional crops would have been
needed [20], [21]. These additional 300 million acres would necessarily be lands requiring more fertilizer or
irrigation, or carved out tropical forests. Such conversion of land would generate serious ecological
and environmental stress to the world. A report from Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot (17) arrived as similar
conclusions: for the period 1996–2013 they estimate that biotechnology was responsible for additional global
production of 138 million tons of soybeans, 274 million tons of corn, 21.7 million tons of cotton lint, and 8
million tons of canola. If those biotechnologies had not been available, to maintain equivalent production levels
would have required an increment of 11% of the arable land in the US, or 32% of the cereal area in the EU.

6.2. Economic benefits
From 2006 to 2012, the global increase in farm income from GM food had reached $116 billion, almost triple
that of previous 10 years [20], [21]. According to the estimation from James and Brookes, about 42% of the
economic gain was from the increased yield due to advanced genetics and resistance to pests and weeds. The
decreased costs of production (e.g. from reduced pesticide and herbicide usage) contributed the remaining 58%.

6.3. Modification of the chemical composition in food

Some genetic modification is specifically targeted to enrich certain nutrients or substances having high
therapeutic and pro-health value, including vitamins A, C, E, unsaturated fatty acids, alimentary cellulose
and probiotics [22]. The aforementioned “Golden Rice” is a significant example. It ameliorates malnutrition in
an effective and economic way. Similarly, using this biotechnology, researchers can also alter the amino
acid composition of proteins as well as the content of carbohydrates. The former is exemplified by sweet lupine,
of which the content of methionine is enriched [23], [24]. The generation of Amflora, a modified potato variety,
is a good example for the latter scenario.
Enhanced nutritional value in transgenic products has been obtained by manipulating their composition of
carbohydrates. Let us consider further the example of Amflora. The bulk of polysaccharides in the potato-bulb
is formed by two types of starch: amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is useful only as food starch, while
amylopectin is widely used in the production of non-food starch, paper, and in textile processing. The synthesis
of starch requires various enzymes, which include a granule-bound starch synthase (GSBB), the primary
function of which involves the production of amylose. In the absence of GSBB, amylopectin is produced
exclusively. Exploiting this knowledge has led to methods to modify the composition of potato starch. The
transgenic process involves the introduction into potato bulbs of an additional copy of the GSBB-coding gene.
Counter intuitively, the extra gene in fact suppressed expression of GSBB, by a process know as “co-
suppression”, a.k.a. “gene silencing”. The resultant Amflora potato is with decreased amylose, but rich in
amylopectin [25].

6.4. Improvement in food processing

The GM technology can also be employed to facilitate food processing. A notable achievement is “Flavr Savr”
tomatoes. They were produced by the California company, Calgene, in 1992. The genetic alteration consists of
introduction of an antisense gene, which suppresses the enzyme polygalacturonase; the consequence is to slow
down the ripening of tomatoes and thus allow longer shelf life for the fruits. The composition in potato bulbs
has also been altered by gene editing. For instance, using a cyclodextrin glycosyltransferases gene from
bacteria, potatoes exhibit greater stability of brightness factors and, thus, a more attractive appearance [26].
Genetic modification is not limited to plants, but is also applied to animal products. Some researchers are
exploring transgenic fish with a view to enhancing the generation of growth hormones to accelerate growth and
body mass [27], [28], [29]. Very recently the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) has approved the
first genetically engineered animal, “AquAdvantagea” salmon – a fast-growing salmon – for human
consumption in the United States. The decision was made after two decades of regulatory limbo. Because the
fish grow to full size in 18 months, rather than 3 years, and with less demand for food resources per kilogram of
harvested fish, farming “AquaAdvantagea” may ease pressure caused by heavy fishing of wild populations.
Meanwhile, quite a few attempts have been made to generate milk with decreased content
of lactose or humanized bovine milk [29], [30].

6.5. Products for therapeutic purposes

Genetic engineering techniques enable the expression of viral or bacterial antigens in the edible portion of plant
cells [28], [31], [32]. In theory, thus, transgenic foods could serve as oral vaccines, capable of stimulating the
immune system, via mucosal immunity, to produce antibodies. A variety of crops (e.g. rice, maize, soybean and
potatoes) are under study as potential bearers of edible vaccines against different infections,
including Escherichia coli toxins, rabies virus, Helicobacter pylori bacteria, and type B viral
hepatitis [27], [28], [31], [32], [33], [34].
7. Potential risks of GM foods
The debates over GM foods focus mostly on uncertainties concerning the potential adverse effects of GM foods
on human health and environmental safety. The anxiety among consumers can be attributed to four sources: the
difficulty of the scientific community in explaining concisely to the lay public the biological techniques
involved; concerns about the improper dissemination of GM foods; and the ethical principles inherent in
traditional food processing; the misgivings with regards to the adequacy of evaluation of the GM
foods [22], [35], [36].

7.1. Health risks associated with GM foods

Three major health risks potentially associated with GM foods are: toxicity, allergenicity and genetic hazards.
These arise from three potential sources, the inserted gene and their expressed proteins per se, secondary
or pleiotropic effects of the products of gene expression, and the possible disruption of natural genes in the
manipulated organism [10].
“Starlink” maize provides an example of a food hazard caused directly by the expression of the inserted
gene [29], [35], [37], [38], [39]. The modified plant was engineered with genetic information
from Bacillus thuringinesis in order to endow the plant with resistance to certain insects. The inserted gene
encodes a protein, called Cry9c, with pesticidal properties, but with an unintended, strong allergenicity. Several
cases have been reported of allergic reaction in consumers after consuming the “Starlink” maize.
Modification on the expression level of natural components of the manipulated organism can also exacerbate
allergy. One example is the production of soybeans enriched in the amino acid methionine. The enhanced
synthesis of this amino acid is the result of a gene isolated from Brazil nuts. As a consequence, some consumers
allergenically sensitized to these nuts have allergic reactions to the transgenic soybean.
Secondary and pleiotropic effects are much less straightforward to recognize than direct effects of the gene or
its products. The modified gene may encode an enzyme involved in otherwise natural metabolic pathways of
the modified organisms. Such changes might alter the levels of other metabolites, including toxic ones, at some
“metabolic distance” from actual metabolic perturbation. Connecting the causative dots presupposes an intimate
understanding of the biochemical and regulatory pathways – which may be beyond current comprehension.
Another scenario of potential risk is that the inserted gene might disrupt the integrity of existing genomic
information in the plant, leading to inactivation, or other modulation, of endogenous genes. Again, such a
disruption might be envisioned to activate (or deactivate) metabolic processes involving product or toxins, or
their detoxification – in any case by events far removed from the known and intended effect of the inserted
gene, and thus confounding our ability to draw a causal connection between the inserted gene and the alleged
effect.
7.2. Ecological risks associated with GM food

7.2.1. Selection of resistance
Currently, the majority of GM foods are aimed at endowing the altered plant two desirable properties – pest-
resistance or herbicide-resistance. Insect-resistant crops are typically designed to express insecticidal crystal
proteins (CRY), naturally produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Herbicide-tolerant crops
are designed to express enzymes that protect against herbicides (primarily the glyphosate Roundup™), often by
their ability to degrade the herbicide. The strategy is clever: the human-applied herbicide kills the weeds, but
does not harm the crop-plant.
The use of these two technologies greatly reduces immediate input costs incurred by farmers – the battle against
weeds becomes much less labor-intensive, and the battle again insects requires much less expensive and toxic
pesticides. But, in the long-term, can these strategies really out-fox Nature, in her ineluctable progress toward
selecting better-adapted species? When heartier weeds and insects evolve, what then? It seems almost inevitable
that, in a few years, insects and weeds will respond to the human-made pressures in their habitats by evolving
ways to nullify our clever design of transgenic crops [10].

7.2.2. Disruption of the food web

Another issue is the possibility that the insect-resistant plants might increase the number of minor pests while
reducing the major type of pest. The scenario here is that the pest population might shift from those put-off by
the engineered plants to other, undaunted species. This shift, in turn, might unleash a pervasive disruption of the
entire food chain, with new predators of the new insect species, and so on up to the top of the chain [10]. Or the
disruption might work in the other direction, whereby residues of herbicide or insect resistant plants might
generate negative effects on organisms (e.g. bacteria, fungi, etc.) found in surrounding soil [40].

7.2.3. Resistance to antibiotics
Development of resistance to antibiotics is a scourge well known to medical science, and is traceable to the
over-use of therapeutic antibiotics in medicine and agriculture. In the processes of genetic modification,
antibiotics are also frequently employed, typically as selection markers, to distinguish successfully transformed
bacteria from those in which the transfecting genes did not take hold. Thus, the machinations to genetically
modify an organism carries the risk of transferring the genes of antibiotics resistance into the benign bacteria
comprising the microflora of human and animal gastrointestinal tracts, or, worse yet, to pathogenic bacteria
harbored by the consumer of GM a food, because bacteria, good and bad, are quite capable of shuttling useful
genes – like those that protect them from nasty antibiotics – around by horizontal transfer between
species [29], [41], [42], [43].