Final Report

Introduction to Biology (BIO 103)

Prepared for:
Dr. Nayeema Bulbul

Faculty Member

Department of Life Sciences

North South University

Prepared by:
M Abu Saleh Chowdhury

ID # 072 407 030

Section: 11

Date of Submission: December 6, 2010

[GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS]

 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

OVERVIEW: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS ................................................................... 4

What is Genetically Modified Food? .......................................................................................... 4

Development of GM Foods ......................................................................................................... 4

Method of Modification .............................................................................................................. 5

Some Examples of GM Foods & Their Properties ..................................................................... 7

REASONS BEHIND EMERGING GM FOOD PRODUCTION .................................................. 8

ADVANTAGES OF GM FOODS.................................................................................................. 9

DISADVANTAGES OF GM FOODS ......................................................................................... 11

Environmental hazards .............................................................................................................. 11

Human health risks .................................................................................................................... 12

Economic concerns ................................................................................................................... 13

REGULATIONS OF GM FOODS ............................................................................................... 14

CURRENT SCENARIO & ISSUES ............................................................................................ 16

Current Scenario Worldwide ..................................................................................................... 16

Bans on GM Foods Worldwide ................................................................................................. 18

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 20

2|Page
INTRODUCTION

Genetically Modified Foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news since its gaining
popularity and substantial attention by the researchers and the policy makers. European
environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM
foods for months, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn
pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the
forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S. In response to the upswelling of public concern,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open meetings in Chicago,
Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions and begin the process of
establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods

In the last 11 years, the global production of genetically modified (GM) crops has increased
dramatically. Yet more than 95 percent of the area devoted to GM crops is located in only four
countries: the United States, Argentina, Canada, and China. During the same period, a group of
countries with consumer opposition to GM food, led by the European Union (EU) and Japan,
have implemented stringent policies regulating the approval and import of GM crops and the
marketing of GM food. In the context of increased international agricultural trade, the
regulations of those importers and the lack of demand for GM food in those countries have likely
limited the expansion of agricultural biotechnology to many developing countries.

For several years, a number of Asian countries have been actively developing programs of
research on agricultural biotechnology, focusing on GM crops with potentially beneficial
agronomic traits. Some of these countries have developed bio-safety regulatory frameworks, but
until now only a few have approved one or more GM crops. Recent studies have shown that the
introduction of Bt cotton (GM cotton resistant to insects) in India and China has generated
revenue gains for farmers overall. But those two countries approved only the large-scale
production of GM cotton, in part because unlike other GM crops, the main products of cotton are
not used for food and thus are not subject to food safety approval, traceability, and labeling
regulations or GM-free private standards in major importing countries. In particular, neither
Japan nor the EU directly regulates textile products derived from GM cotton.

3|Page
However, the background of GM foods tells us that despite having noteworthy advantages, GM
foods have still not been able to end the debate over its production and use. This report gives an
overview of GM foods and attempts to point out the pros and cons along with its penetration and
prospect in Bangladesh.

OVERVIEW: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

What is Genetically Modified Food?

Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms.
Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic
engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis (mutation
breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but
stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective
breeding (plant breeding and animal breeding), and somaclonal variation.

Development of GM Foods

GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods
are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. Animal products have
also been developed, although as of July 2010 none are currently on the market. In 2006 a pig
was controversially engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a
roundworm gene. Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are
able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content
of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%.

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was a tomato (called
FlavrSavr), which was modified to ripen without softening, by Calgene, later a subsidiary of
Monsanto. Calgene took the initiative to obtain FDA approval for its release in 1994 without any
special labeling, although legally no such approval was required. It was welcomed by consumers
who purchased the fruit at a substantial premium over the price of regular tomatoes. However,

4|Page
production problems and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety
prevented the product from becoming profitable. A tomato produced using similar technology to
the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the
summer of 1996. The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which
proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods.
Currently, there are a number of food species in which a genetically modified version exists.

Method of Modification

Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. In the process of cisgenesis,
genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred. In the
process of transgenesis, genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal
gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for
any reason. To do this artificially may require attaching genes to a virus or just physically
inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe, or with
very small particles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene
transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the
ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.

Genetic modification is possible only because the genes of all organisms are made of the same
chemical—DNA. This means that DNA from two different organisms can be cut and joined
together. Restriction enzymes cut DNA at specific sequences to create ―sticky ends,‖ which, by
virtue of their complementary base sequences, will tend to stick to other ends generated by the
same enzyme. DNA ligase is used to re-join the DNA backbone when sticky ends pair up.

Plasmids, short loops of DNA found naturally in bacteria, are used to genetically modify
bacteria. The plasmid is cut open with a restriction enzyme and mixed with the target gene,
which has been similarly cut. DNA ligase is used to stitch the gene of interest into the plasmid.
This ―recombinant‖ plasmid is then mixed with bacteria, which, under appropriate conditions,
take it up. The bacterial cells are genetically modified and can be cultured,isolated, subcultured,
and, if appropriate, grown in fermenters on an industrial scale (such as in chymosin production).

5|Page
During culturing, the plasmid is replicated at each cycle of cell division,so that the final bacterial
culture contains many copies of the plasmid and its inserted gene.

Figure 1: Genetic Modification

To genetically modify plants or animals, the plasmid is extracted from the bacteria, and the
cloned gene is excised with a restriction enzyme. The gene can then be introduced into individual
plant and animal cells. For animals, this is usually done by injection of many millions of copies
of the gene into the nucleus of a fertilized egg: in about 1% of cases the cloned gene will
integrate into the zygote's chromosomes and, on cell division, be passed on to each cell in the
embryo.

For plants, there are various ways of introducing the gene into cells. A common method is to link
the gene to a plasmid of the bacterium Agrobacterium, a naturally occurring plant pathogen.
When plant cells are exposed to and infected by a non-virulent strain of the bacterium, the
plasmid transfers to the plant cells, and its DNA integrates with that of the host cells. Genes of
interest can be spliced into this plasmid, which is then used as a vector to carry the genes into
plant cells. The cells are then cultured to produce a callus (an undifferentiated cell mass), which,

6|Page
when grown on appropriate culture media, produces roots and shoots and develops into a plant,
each cell of which is derived from a single parent cell and so contains the inserted gene.

Some Examples of GM Foods & Their Properties

Food Properties of the genetically modified variety Modification Percent

Modified
in world
Soybeans Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides Herbicide resistant gene 77%
taken from bacteria inserted
into soybean
Corn, field Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. New genes, some from the 26%
Insect resistance via producing Bt proteins, some bacterium Bacillus
previously used as pesticides in organic crop thuringiensis,
production. Vitamin-enriched corn derived from added/transferred into plant
South African white corn variety M37W has bright genome.
orange kernels, with 169x increase in beta carotene,
6x the vitamin C and 2x folate.[17]
Cotton Pest-resistant cotton Bt crystal protein gene 49%
(cottonseed added/transferred into plant
oil) genome
Alfalfa Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides New genes -
added/transferred into plant
genome.
Hawaiian Variety is resistant to the papaya ringspot virus.[18] New gene added/transferred -
papaya into plant genome
Tomatoes Variety in which the production of the enzyme A reverse copy (an antisense Small
polygalacturonase (PG) is suppressed, retarding fruit gene) of the gene quantities
softening after harvesting.[19] responsible for the grown in
production of PG enzyme China
added into plant genome
Rapeseed Resistance to herbicides (glyphosate or glufosinate), New genes 21%
(Canola) high laurate canola[20] added/transferred into plant
genome
Sugar cane Resistance to certain pesticides, high sucrose content. New genes -
added/transferred into plant
genome
Sugar beet Resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate herbicides New genes 9%
added/transferred into plant
genome
Rice Genetically modified to contain high amounts of "Golden rice" Three new -
Vitamin A (beta-carotene) genes implanted: two from
daffodils and the third from
a bacterium
Squash Resistance to watermelon, cucumber and zucchini Contains coat protein genes -
(Zucchini) yellow mosaic viruses[22][23] of viruses.
Sweet Resistance to virus[24] Contains coat protein genes Small
Peppers of the virus. quantities
grown in
China
Figure 2: Examples of GM Foods an Their Properties

7|Page
REASONS BEHIND EMERGING GM FOOD PRODUCTION

GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to
the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower
price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed
developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on
innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop
protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop
protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or
viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Figure 3: Global Area (Million Hectres) of Biotech Crops, 1996-2004, by Country

Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production
from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional

8|Page
insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently
produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific
situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high.

Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause
disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such
viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying
resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops
has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

ADVANTAGES OF GM FOODS

Pest resistance: Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial
loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of
chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with
pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive
use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment.
Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides
and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market.

Herbicide tolerance: For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means
such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to
destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process that requires care so that the herbicide
doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be
resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing
the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans
genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®. A farmer grows
these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple
applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off.

9|Page
Disease resistance: There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant
biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases.

Cold tolerance: Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold
water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene,
these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings.

Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance: As the world population grows and more land is utilized for
housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously
unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high
salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable
places.

Nutrition: Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on
a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain
adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically
engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated.
For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world
countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences
have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene
(vitamin A). Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a non-profit organization,
the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it.
Plans were underway to develop golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the
grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the
vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not
come to market at all.

Pharmaceuticals: Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require
special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working
to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes. These vaccines will be much easier to ship,
store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.

10 | P a g e
Phytoremediation: Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution
continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been
genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil.

DISADVANTAGES OF GM FOODS

Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations

and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and
criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the
government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a
strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican and the Prince of Wales have expressed their
opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards,
human health risks, and economic concerns.

Environmental hazards

Unintended harm to other organisms: In 1999, a laboratory study was published in Nature
showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars.
Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t.
corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat
the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field
conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many
species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only
kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined
by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government
research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have
been flawed. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are
defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these
studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.

Reduced effectiveness of pesticides: Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed

resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will
11 | P a g e
become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own
pesticides.

Gene transfer to non-target species: Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide
tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes
from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well.
Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The
possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by
Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have
harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds
from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their
unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two
away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.

Human health risks

Allergenicity: Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to
peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a
new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a
gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected
allergic reactions. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of
harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire
new importance, which I shall discuss later.
Unknown effects on human health: There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes
into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article
published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats. This study
claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats
fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed
and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a
snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created
this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these
potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption.

12 | P a g e
On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do
not present a risk to human health.

Economic concerns

Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech
companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic
engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big
concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant
varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not
be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It
is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of
the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations.

Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily
grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to
combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These
plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not
germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be
financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each
year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In
an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide
gene technology.

13 | P a g e
REGULATIONS OF GM FOODS

Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the
effects of and approve new varieties of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and
economic climate within a region or country, different governments are responding in different
ways.

In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that health testing of GM foods
will be mandatory as of April 2001. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese
supermarkets are offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to
show a strong preference for unmodified fruits and vegetables.

India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods because no GM crops are
grown in India and no products are commercially available in supermarkets yet. India is,
however, very supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India will decide
that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because Indian agriculture will need to adopt
drastic new measures to counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding
population.

Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense
of Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM
crops,. Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the
country because they fear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace
with other grain-exporting countries.

In Europe, anti-GM food protestors have been especially active. In the last few years Europe has
experienced two major foods scares: bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in
Great Britain and dioxin-tainted foods originating from Belgium. These food scares have
undermined consumer confidence about the European food supply, and citizens are disinclined to
trust government information about GM foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now
requires mandatory food labeling of GM foods in stores, and the European Commission (EC) has
established a 1% threshold for contamination of unmodified foods with GM food products.

14 | P a g e
In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different
government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA
evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to
grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for
regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM
crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for
their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops
that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops,
crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption.
The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products
and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold
at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes
is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially
equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.

The EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides that could potentially cause harm to
human health and the environment, and establishes tolerance and residue levels for pesticides.
There are strict limits on the amount of pesticides that may be applied to crops during growth
and production, as well as the amount that remains in the food after processing. Growers using
pesticides must have a license for each pesticide and must follow the directions on the label to
accord with the EPA's safety standards. Government inspectors may periodically visit farms and
conduct investigations to ensure compliance. Violation of government regulations may result in
steep fines, loss of license and even jail sentences.

The USDA has many internal divisions that share responsibility for assessing GM foods. Among
these divisions are APHIS, the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field
tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service which performs in-
house GM food research, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. The USDA is concerned with potential
hazards of the plant itself. Does it harbor insect pests? Is it a noxious weed? Will it cause harm to
indigenous species if it escapes from farmer's fields? The USDA has the power to impose
quarantines on problem regions to prevent movement of suspected plants, restrict import or

15 | P a g e
export of suspected plants, and can even destroy plants cultivated in violation of USDA
regulations. Many GM plants do not require USDA permits from APHIS. A GM plant does not
require a permit if it meets these 6 criteria:

1) the plant is not a noxious weed;

2) the genetic material introduced into the GM plant is stably integrated into the plant's own
genome;
3) the function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease;
4) the GM plant is not toxic to non-target organisms;
5) the introduced gene will not cause the creation of new plant viruses; and
6) the GM plant cannot contain genetic material from animal or human pathogens.

The current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket No. 92N-0139) and
states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation. Companies
working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to
follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation. Consumer interest groups wish this
process to be mandatory, so that all GM food products, whole foods or otherwise, must be
approved by the FDA before being released for commercialization. The FDA counters that the
agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to carry out exhaustive health and
safety studies of every proposed GM food product. Moreover, the FDA policy as it exists today
does not allow for this type of intervention.

CURRENT SCENARIO & ISSUES

Current Scenario Worldwide

Between 1997 and 2009, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a
factor of 80, from 17,000 km2 (4.2 million acres) to 1,340,000 km2 (331 million acres).

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid
growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2009 the largest increase in crop
area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (214,000 km2 in 2009 versus 158,000 km2 in

16 | P a g e
2008.) There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since
2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) In 2009 84,000 km2
of GM cotton were harvested in India.

Figure 4: Rapid Growth in Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops Continues in the US

In India, GM cotton yields in Andhra Pradesh were no better than non-GM cotton in 2002, the
first year of commercial GM cotton planting. This was because there was a severe drought in
Andhra Pradesh that year and the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was
not well suited to extreme drought. Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu had an average
42% increase in yield with GM cotton in the same year. Drought resistant variants were
developed and, with the substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2009 87% of Indian
cotton was GM. Though disputed the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in
India to the individual farmer have been documented.

In 2009, countries that grew 95% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (46%),
Brazil (16%), Argentina (15%), India (6%), Canada (6%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South
Africa (2%). The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in
the U.S. contain a GM ingredient. In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the
plant itself, is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate
herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have
indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

17 | P a g e
In the US, by 2009/2010, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and
95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried
herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect
protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period
2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and
maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.

Bans on GM Foods Worldwide

1. In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's
World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.
2. In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine
and allowed the importation of GM maize. However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture
Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying
"We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue
to produce non-GM foods."
3. In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in
Venezuela.
4. In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of
genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU.
5. On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the
U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly
caused by cross-pollination with conventional crops.
6. On February 9, 2010, Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, imposed a moratorium
on the cultivation of GMF "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and
confidence". His decision was made after protest from several groups responding to
regulatory approval of the cultivation of Bt brinjal, a GM eggplant in October, 2009.

18 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

While it is evident that there is a food supply issue, the question is whether GM can solve world
hunger problems, or even if that would be the best way to address the issue. Several scientists
argue that in order to meet the demand for food in the developing world, a second Green
Revolution with increased use of GM crops is needed. Others argue that there is more than
enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution
and politics, not production. Recently some critics and environmentalists have changed their
minds on the issue with respect to the need for additional food supplies. Further, it has been
widely noted that there are those who consider over-population the real issue here, and that food
production is adequate for any reasonable population size.

―Genetic modification is analogous to nuclear power: nobody loves it, but climate change has
made its adoption imperative,‖ says economist Paul Collier of Oxford University. "Declining
genetic modification makes a complicated issue more complex. Genetic modification offers both
faster crop adaptation and a biological, rather than chemical, approach to yield increases."

On the other hand, many believe that GM food has not been a success and that we should devote
our efforts and money into another solution. ―We need biodiversity intensification that works
with nature’s nutrient and water cycles, not against them,‖ says Vandana Shiva, the founder of
Navdanya, the movement of 500,000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India, argues that
GMF’s have not increased yields. Recently, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, published a report called ―Failure to
Yield‖, in which he stated that in a nearly 20 year record, genetically engineered crops have not
increased yields substantially of food and livestock feed crops in the United States.

Some claim that genetically modified food help farmers produce, despite the odds or any
environmental barriers. ―While new technology must be tested before it is commercially
released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all,‖ says Per Pinstrup-Andersen,
professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Per Pinstrup-Anderson
argues, ―Misguided anti-science ideology and failure by governments to prioritize agricultural
and rural development in developing countries brought us the food crisis.‖ He clearly states the

19 | P a g e
challenge we face is not the challenge of whether we have enough resources to produce, but
whether we will change our behavior.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Gruere, Guillaume & Bouet, Antoine & Mevel, Simon, (2007). Genetically modified food
and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
IFPRI discussion papers 740, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
2. Jones, L. (1999). Genetically Modified Foods. British Medical Journal. Retrieved December
6, 2010 from http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7183/581.full.
3. Whitman, D. B. (2000). Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? CSA. Retrieved
December 6, 2010 from http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php.
4. World Health Organization. 20 Question about Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved
December 6, 2010 from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
5. Wikipedia. Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved December 6, 2010 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food.

20 | P a g e