journal article·2022-03-10Open access

Myths and Realities about Genetically Modified Food: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

Angelo Vega Rodríguez, Cristina Rodríguez-Oramas, Esther Sanjuán Velázquez, Arturo Hardisson de la Torre, Carmen Rubio Armendáriz, Conrado Carrascosa Iruzubieta

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 6

Abstract

The development and consumption of genetically modified (GM) crops are surrounded by controversy. According to proponents, only molecular biology approaches and genetic engineering tools are realistic food shortage solutions for the world’s ever-growing population. The main purpose of this study is to review the impact of GM products on human, animal, and environmental health. People still reject GM crops not only because of safety concerns, but also for moral reasons. Toxicity, allergies, and possible horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to the environment or to other species have been associated with the marketing of GM products. Moreover, the scarce data available about the long-term implications of using GM crops is another opponent concern. Nevertheless, science has evidenced no harm from GM crops use to date but has, instead, reported several benefits that result from their commercialization, such as economic, environmental, and health benefits for the general public. Legislation and policies about GM product labeling standards are being discussed. To overcome emerging food security challenges, considering quality scientific information is essential rather than leaving the issue and merely moving toward moral discussion. Hence, a risk–benefit analysis is necessary.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Genetically Modified Organisms Research · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Biotechnology and Related Fields

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Animal Pathology and Production, Bromatology and Food Technology, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35413 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Toxicology, Legal and Forensic Medicine and Parasitology, Pharmacy Faculty, University of La Laguna, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain

References (100+)

Show source-provided references
1. Climate Change and Global Food Systems: Potential Impacts on Food Security and Undernutrition10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044356 ↗
2. Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead10.1073/pnas.0912953109 ↗
3. Solutions for a cultivated planet10.1038/nature10452 ↗
4. UN News (2020, February 26). Over 820 Million People Suffering from Hunger; New UN Report Reveals Stubborn Realities of ‘Immense’ Global Challenge. UN News. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1042411.
5. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X ↗
6. UN News (2020, February 26). World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100. UN News. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html.
7. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields10.1038/s41586-019-1679-0 ↗
8. Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any Difference from Food?10.3389/fpls.2019.01592 ↗
9. Sharma, R., Nguyen, T., and Grote, U. (2018). Changing Consumption Patterns—Drivers and the Environmental Impact. Sustainability, 10.10.3390/su10114190 ↗
10. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.05.006 ↗
11. Development and commercialization of reduced lignin alfalfa10.1016/j.copbio.2018.09.003 ↗
12. Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing10.1002/fes3.161 ↗
13. Animal feeding studies for nutritional and safety assessments of feeds from genetically modified plants: A review10.1007/s00003-012-0777-9 ↗
14. ISAAA (2020, April 15). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years. ISAAA Briefs | Brief 53. Available online: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/53/download/isaaa-brief-53-2017.pdf.
15. The application of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing machinery in food and agricultural science: Current status, future perspectives, and associated challenges10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.02.006 ↗
16. Liu, Q., Yang, F., Zhang, J., Liu, H., Rahman, S., Islam, S., Ma, W., and She, M. (2021). Application of CRISPR/Cas9 in Crop Quality Improvement. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 22.10.3390/ijms22084206 ↗
17. Global consensus—Need of the hour for genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling10.1057/jcb.2010.24 ↗
18. GMO risk assessment around the world: Some examples10.1016/j.tifs.2008.07.007 ↗
19. Codex Alimentarius (2022, January 28). Biotechnology | CODEXALIMENTARIUS FAO-WHO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/thematic-areas/biotechnology/en/.
20. OECD (2022, January 28). Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology, Concepts and Principles. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/science/biotrack/41036698.pdf.
21. Codex Alimentarius (2022, January 28). Home | CODEXALIMENTARIUS FAO-WHO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/home/en/.
22. Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information10.3945/an.115.008870 ↗
23. Food Labels, Information, and Trade in GMOs
24. Storey, D. (2022, January 28). Mandatory GMO Labeling: Pros and Cons. Available online: https://www.tracegains.com/blog/mandatory-gmo-labeling-pros-and-cons.
25. The European Parliament (1997). Regulation EC No 258/1997 of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L043, 1–7.
26. Codex Alimentarius (2022, January 28). Report of the Thirty Fifth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling [Internet]. 2007 [Cited March 20 2020]. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FShared%2BDocuments%252FArchive%252FMeetings%252FCCFL%252Fccfl35%252Ffl35_08e.pdf.
27. The EU regulatory framework on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)10.1007/s11248-019-00149-y ↗
28. EFSA (2021, June 09). Topics | GMO. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/gmo#eu-framework.
29. The European Parliament (2001). Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L106, 1–39.
30. The European Parliament (2003). Regulation10.1016/S1351-4210(03)00718-2 ↗
31. (EC) 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L268, 1-23.
32. The European Parliament (2003). Regulation10.1016/S1351-4210(03)00718-2 ↗
33. (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L268, 24.
34. The European Parliament (2015). Directive
35. (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (codification). Off. J. Eur. Communities, L241, 1-15.
36. Governing GMOs in the USA: Science, law and public health10.1002/jsfa.7523 ↗
37. An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223 ↗
38. The Genetics of Maize Evolution10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092425 ↗
39. Domestication and Breeding of Tomatoes: What have We Gained and What Can We Gain in the Future?10.1093/aob/mcm150 ↗
40. Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: Attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge10.1057/s41599-019-0328-4 ↗
41. Genetically modified foods and allergy
42. Of Society, Nature, and Health: How Perceptions of Specific Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Foods Shape Public Rejection10.1080/17524032.2019.1710227 ↗
43. Horizontal gene transfer of the algal nuclear gene psbO to the photosynthetic sea slug Elysia chlorotica10.1073/pnas.0804968105 ↗
44. Genetic Literacy Project (2022, January 28). Do GMOs Encourage Monoculture Cropping and Reduce Biodiversity? 2022 [Cited January 15 2022]. Available online: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/do-gmos-encourage-monoculture-cropping-and-reduce-biodiversity/.
45. European Commission (2020, March 10). Special Eurobarometer 341/Wave 73.1—TNS Opinion & Social. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf.
46. The Mellman Group (2022, January 28). The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Available online: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/%20wwwpewtrustsorg/news/press_releases/food_and_biotechnology/%20pifbpublicsentimentgmfoods2005pdf.pdf.
47. The Moral Difference between Intragenic and Transgenic Modification of Plants10.1007/s10806-005-6164-0 ↗
48. Ankeny, R., and Bray, H. (2018). Genetically Modified Food, Oxford Handbooks Online.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372263.013.40 ↗
49. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis10.1038/sj.embor.7400769 ↗
50. Genetically Modified Foods, Cancer, and Diet: Myths and Reality10.3747/co.20.1283 ↗
51. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, The National Academies Press.
52. Need for an “Integrated Safety Assessment” of GMOs, Linking Food Safety and Environmental Considerations10.1021/jf0511650 ↗
53. Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04576.x ↗
54. Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations10.1126/science.3576198 ↗
55. Impact on environment, ecosystem, diversity and health from culturing and using GMOs as feed and food10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.033 ↗
56. Devos, Y., Demont, M., Dillen, K., Reheul, D., Kaiser, M., and Sanvido, O. (2009). Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-GM Crops in the European Union: A Review. Sustain. Agric., 203–228.10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_14 ↗
57. The Commission of the European Communities (2003). Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (notified under document number C(2003) 2624). Off. J. Eur. Communities, L189, 36–47.
58. Assessment of gene flow using tetraploid genotypes of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)10.1071/AR03156 ↗
59. European Commission (2020, April 06). Coexistence with Conventional and Organic Agriculture [Internet]. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/agriculture_coexistence_en.
60. Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation10.1007/s11248-007-9103-1 ↗
61. Baltazar, B.M., Castro Espinoza, L., Espinoza-Banda, A., de la Fuente-Martínez, J.M., Garzón-Tiznado, J.A., González-García, J., Gutiérrez, M.A., Guzmán Rodríguez, J.L., Heredia Díaz, O., and Horak, M.J. (2015). Pollen-mediated gene flow in maize: Implications for isolation requirements and coexistence in México, the center of origin of maize. PLoS ONE, 10.10.1371/journal.pone.0131549 ↗
62. Effectiveness of border areas in confining the spread of transgenic Brassica napus pollen10.4141/P99-117 ↗
63. Pollen-mediated gene flow in Chinese commercial fields of glufosinate-resistant canola (Brassica napus)10.1007/s11434-008-0305-6 ↗
64. Rizov, I., and Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2021, December 01). Best Practice Documents for Coexistence of Genetically Modified Soybean Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming, EUR 26780 EN, 2015. ISBN 978-92-79-39542-0. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304038768_Best_Practice_Document_for_the_coexistence_of_genetically_modified_soybean_crops_with_conventional_and_organic_farming.
65. Pollen-mediated gene flow in the cultivation of transgenic cotton under experimental field conditions in Spain10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.045 ↗
66. Pollen-mediated gene flow in California cotton depends on pollinator activity10.2135/cropsci2004.0463 ↗
67. Fitzpatrick, S., Reisen, P., and McCaslin, M. (2003, January 21–25). Pollen-mediated gene flow in alfalfa: A three-year summary of field research. Proceedings of the 2003 Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Virtual Meeting.
68. Bushman, F. (2002). Lateral DNA Transfer, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
69. Risks from GMOs due to Horizontal Gene Transfer10.1051/ebr:2008017 ↗
70. Marri, P., Hao, W., and Golding, G. (2007). The role of laterally transferred genes in adaptive evolution. BMC Evol. Biol., 7.10.1186/1471-2148-7-S1-S8 ↗
71. Shuffling bacterial metabolomes10.1186/gb-2006-7-2-204 ↗
72. Fate of transgenic plant DNA in the environment10.1051/ebr:2007037 ↗
73. The ecology of transfer of mobile genetic elements10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb01008.x ↗
74. The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals: A collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material10.1007/s002170000248 ↗
75. World Health Organization (2020, March 16). WHO | Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods [Internet]. Available online: https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-geneically-modified-food/en/.
76. 2S Albumin Storage Proteins: What Makes them Food Allergens?10.2174/1874091X00802010016 ↗
77. Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002 ↗
78. A review of animal models used to evaluate potential allergenicity of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)10.1016/j.ddmod.2016.11.001 ↗
79. Safety Assessment of Food and Feed from GM Crops in Europe: Evaluating EFSA’s Alternative Framework for the Rat 90-day Feeding Study10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01492 ↗
80. Van-Haver, E., De Schrijver, A., Devos, Y., Lievens, S., Renckens, S., and Moens, W. (2020, March 22). The Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops for Food and Feed Use. Guidance Notes from the Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology and Biosafety Council in Belgium [Internet]. Available online: http://www.biosafety.be/NF/NFMenu.html.
81. Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants
82. Review of animal models designed to predict the potential allergenicity of novel proteins in genetically modified crops10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.09.018 ↗
83. Unintended Effects in Genetically Modified Food/Feed Safety: A Way Forward10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.03.005 ↗
84. Case studies on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Potential risk scenarios and associated health indicators10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.033 ↗
85. The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2 ↗
86. Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature10.1080/10408390601177670 ↗
87. Dietary safety assessment of genetically modified rice EH rich in β-carotene10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.05.019 ↗
88. Assessment of GE food safety using ‘-omics’ techniques and long-term animal feeding studies10.1016/j.nbt.2012.12.001 ↗
89. EFSA (2021, August 21). Glyphosate: EU Regulators Begin Review of Renewal Assessments [Internet]. European Food Safety Authority., Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-eu-regulators-begin-review-renewal-assessments.
90. Review: Genetically modified plants for the promotion of human health10.1007/s10529-006-9194-4 ↗
91. Genetically Engineered Crops: Importance of Diversified Integrated Pest Management for Agricultural Sustainability10.3389/fbioe.2019.00024 ↗
92. The challenges of delivering genetically modified crops with nutritional enhancement traits10.1038/s41477-019-0430-z ↗
93. The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato10.3733/ca.v054n04p6 ↗
94. Regulatory assessment of the FLAVR SAVR tomato10.1016/0924-2244(94)90197-X ↗
95. Transformation of a marker-free and vector-free antisense ACC oxidase gene cassette into melon via the pollen-tube pathway10.1007/s10529-010-0398-2 ↗
96. Banana MaMADS Transcription Factors Are Necessary for Fruit Ripening and Molecular Tools to Promote Shelf-Life and Food Security10.1104/pp.15.01866 ↗
97. FAO (2020, March 17). Plant Production and Protection Division: Integrated Pest Management [Internet]. Available online: http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/ipm.
98. Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–201410.1080/21645698.2016.1176817 ↗
99. Why Regulators Lost Track and Control of Pesticide Risks: Lessons from the Case of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides and Genetically Engineered-Crop Technology10.1007/s40572-018-0207-y ↗
100. Structural and functional analysis of a cloned delta endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis berliner 171510.1111/j.1432-1033.1986.tb10443.x ↗