Addressing Genetic Modification and its Solutions

Although there is no serious health problem or problems arising from the consumption of GMOs
there still future problems that may arise from genetically modifying plants and specifically livestock
and other animals for consumption. The research on the effects of genetically modified organisms in
our ecosystem and in our biodiversity is still limited. More research is needed to have more evidence
as to whether cultivation and altering the DNA of certain species will have a large impact on our
health and existing flora and fauna.

Several independent studies report adverse effects from GMO foods and products. There are many
scientists that speculate that genetically altered foods can trigger allergic, asthmatic, or inflammatory
reactions in some people. There is a fear that GMO foods may create new toxins that lead to
diseases and antibiotic resistance. There are animal lab tests and observations by farmers who feed
livestock genetically modified feed that indicate vital organ damage and extensive reproductive
problems.

The international agreements such as Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD), and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) address the
environmental aspects of GMOs. The Article 15 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CBD
2000) implies risk assessment to be in compliance with criteria of science and transparency using
already existing and recognized techniques. The characterization process should adopt a
multidisciplinary approach that
(i) analyses methodologies in statistics,
(ii) considers the individual components employed to produce the GMOs (such as
characteristics of the donor organism, vector, and inserted DNA),
(iii) evaluates the final result in its totality (characteristics of the organism with new traits,
information related to intended use, and characteristics of the potential receiving
environment), (iv) considers relevant information produced from both public and
private research institutes and from international agencies.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the year 2006 introduced an Annex III in the protocol of
Article 15 for scientifically sound and transparent risk assessment taking into account risk
assessment techniques. Such risk assessments shall be based at a minimum, on information provided
in Article 8, and other available scientific evidence in order to identify and evaluate the possible
adverse effects on human health and environment. The principles and methodology described in
Annex III of the protocol follows the proven, well-accepted risk assessment paradigm, including
identification of potential harmful characteristics of modified organisms that may have an adverse
effect. Risk are then to be evaluated based on a combined analysis of the likelihood of the identified
risks materializing and their consequences. The general principle of this protocol includes the
following:

(i) lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted
as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk;
(ii) risks should be considered in the context of risks posed by the non modified recipients
or parental organisms;(iii) risks should be assessed on a case-by-base basis.
In addition, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety evaluated the effectiveness of the protocol (COP-
MOP) for risk assessment in the Article 35 in the year of 2008 for the safe transfer, handling, and
use of living modified organisms (LMO) to protect the significant loss of biological diversity.

In order to assess whether a GMO will be safe for environment, most GMOs can reproduce,
multiply, and spread in the environment after they are released. The genetic modification could give
GM plants, animals, or microorganisms an advantage that would allow them to increase in numbers
and spread in the environment. The environmental risks from GMOs will vary, depending on the
characteristics of, and the interactions among, the organism, the trait introduced through the gene,
and the environment. The novelty of GMOs, the fact that like all plants they will continue to
reproduce after release, the complexity of natural environments and ecosystem processes, and the
unknown evolutionary fate of inserted genes, all need to be considered in predicting environmental
impacts. Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are
unknown consequences which could be the change in the organism’s/plants metabolism, growth
rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the
GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate.

In 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
called “Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations,’’ became the first intergovernmental document to
address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that environmental risk
assessments can be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approaches of
risk assessment for GMO have been widely accepted. However, the USA. has generally taken a
product-based approach of risk assessment and Europe adopted a process-based risk assessment
approach for GMO

4. Risk Management

Once a risk is assessed, it must be managed. The management of risk is an exclusively political
action, resulting in a decision regarding whether to accept or not the risk previously estimated. It can
take additional aspects (e.g., socioeconomic or ethical) into consideration and concerns methods
used to reduce the scientifically identified risk. Many frameworks of risk assessment methodology
separate risk assessment from risk management. Some frameworks, however, consider only certain
aspects of risk management (e.g., monitoring) as separate from risk assessment but other aspects of
risk management (e.g., consideration of risk mitigation options) to be part of risk assessment
methodology, since a final characterization of risks must take into account the effects of any
mitigation options that reduce risks. The important aspect is, of course, the iterative and interlinked
relationship between risk assessment and risk management.

Often decisions are made with incomplete information, and this leads to uncertainty. This
uncertainty needs to be handled to assess the impact it might have on a decision. Biosafety
regulatory frameworks should serve as mechanisms for ensuring the safe use of biotechnology
products without imposing unintended constraints to technology transfer.

The Article 16 of the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety is purely relevant to risk management of
GMO. The protocol establishes and maintains appropriate mechanisms and measures strategies to
regulate, manage, and control risks identified in the provision of risk assessment.
(i) The potential to harmonize national regulatory frameworks thus ensures appropriate
biosafety decision making based on scientific risk assessment. If properly implemented,
 the protocol has the potential to encourage innovation, development, technology
transfer, and capacity building in relation to biotechnology, while also achieving the goals
of conservation, sustainable agriculture, and equitable sharing of the technology’s
benefits.
(ii) To realize its potential, however, decisions concerning protocol implementation must be
carefully considered and should not place undue burdens on a technology that possesses
such great potential to contribute positively to sustainable agriculture and development
throughout the world.
(iii) A first-things-first approach where initial efforts focus on bringing all parties to the
protocol into compliance with it as quickly as possible. Developing further requirements
or fine-tuning obligations at this stage only worsens the degree of noncompliance already
in existence.
(iv) Therefore, capacity building should remain the primary area of focus under the Biosafety
Protocol to ensure the safe adoption of this technology. In this regard, material exists to
help national governments.
(v) The users and developers of agricultural biotechnology embrace their share of the duty
in the protocol implementation process and will continue to campaign for fair, science-
based regulations and assist with and contribute to effective capacity building.

Risk management process also forms a second focus of the economic/political component of the
GMO biosafety issue. Whereas a risk/benefit analysis concludes that risks exist with regard to a
GMO introduction or other activity, but are sufficiently outweighed by the benefits of that action, it
will probably still be required both practically and legally to take steps to manage the risk and to
ensure that damage will be minimized. Elements of currently used and proposed risk management
process include a variety of different kinds of activities. To a large extent, the specific protective
measures imposed on the GMO user will be determined based on scientific factors linked to specific
details of the GMO and the proposed use. These issues, too, turn on the ability of the decision
maker to rely on unbiased scientific experts who are able to analyze each proposal or application and
determine what controls are needed, and what the best available technologies and practices are.
The three important components was design for risk management. These components are impact
assessment, public awareness/participation, and the design of regulatory systems. These concepts, all
very important in this field, are critically important for GMO-related governance. It is not possible
to overstate the importance of the public’s contribution to effective decision making, as well as the
importance of public awareness, within the context of government decisions on matters and
activities affecting the environment .

4.1. Role of Impact Assessment Processes

Within the concept of risk management, the mechanism of impact assessment plays a crucial role.
Although extending well beyond the scope and detail of many environmental impact assessment
(EIA) procedures, the assessments mandated under national biosafety-related legislation, and
especially under the Cartagena Protocol, provide a clear foundation on which at least some of a
country’s various decision making, permitting, labeling, and other processes relating to GMOs could
be based. Unfortunately, although the need for risk assessment is undisputed, the particular
parameters of that investigation are difficult to quantify in the biosafety area, given the fact that
GMO introductions are a relatively new innovation. In this connection, it is important to note that
the development of agreed risk management measures would provide a real benefit for both the
GMOs proponents, the communities, and the ecosystems that would be most affected by the
identified risks.

4.2. Public Awareness/Access to Information

Public access to information is an important cornerstone of public participation and is one of the
tools that could help to realize the benefits and avoid the risks of modern biotechnology. This
concept is well recognized in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, and in the recently adopted
Åarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making, and access to
justice in environmental matters .

4.3. Transparency and Capacity

Simple “transparency”and “access” to relevant documents, however, may not be sufficient in the
case of biosafety issues. Arguably, the concept of access to information must include, in some way,
access to the tools and expertise with which to understand that information. While merely providing
access to the data will be sufficient in many developed countries that are home to highly specialized
and active NGOs, even here the balance of expertise weighs heavily on the side of the GMO
proponents, often the companies or institutions that developed the GMOs .

4.4. Labelling, Standards, and Certification

Beyond the public’s access to governmental documents and processes, however, there are other
mechanisms by which public awareness and access to information can be encouraged, including
product labeling, food safety standards, and general consumer protection laws, all of which are
designed to foster awareness and communicate public preferences to the commercial proponents of
GMOs in a way that will get their attention. These mechanisms can be effective if they are accurate,
specific, and clearly expressed in understandable language, unbiased, and based on full disclosure of
the relevant facts by the GMO proponents. In California, a major referendum requiring disclosures
of toxic and carcinogenic substances in public places and consumer goods was basically invalidated
by regulations that allowed those disclosures to be made in generic terms.

4.5. Confidential Information

One of the key concerns in this regard relates to the proponent’s need to maintain some information
as “confidential.” While the basic realities of modern business clearly underscore the need for
confidentiality, it is also true that confidentiality provisions are often used as a means of avoiding
disclosures. In the face of increasing recognition that activities, including especially species
introduction, in one country may have serious impacts on neighbouring countries, labelling and
other access to information is increasingly addressed at international and regional levels .

4.6. Direct Public Participation and Awareness Mechanisms

With regard to direct public participation in biosafety-related decision making, a small number of
countries, including Denmark, The Netherlands, and New Zealand, are also taking a leading role in
developing mechanisms for public awareness. These countries’ legislative provisions require
relatively broad-based stakeholder processes addressing certain aspects of modern biotechnology,
including the release of GMOs. Such processes help the governments and regulatory agencies to
gauge public opinion, generate dialogue, gather useful information, and develop awareness within
their populations on modern biotechnology .

4.7. Design of Regulatory Systems for GMO Development and Use

In many different fields of endeavour, technological capacity to act has moved significantly faster
than has the governmental ability to oversee and regulate it. As a consequence, many concerns
relating to the risk of GMOs are directed more closely to the apparent lack of societal and
governmental restraints on GMO developers and users, rather than to addressing particular scientific
issues. This suggests that a third key element of the risk-management process involves a
reconsideration of regulatory mechanisms and systems for governmental oversight of GMO
development and use .

4.8. Sociocultural Impacts

It is in the area of sociocultural impacts that the controversy over GMOs and biosafety takes on its
most complex aspect. On one hand, food production, food security, and livelihood improvement
are all critical elements of sustainable development, to which GMOs and other products of modern
biotechnology are often cited as important contributions. On the other hand, the introduction of
GMOs can affect humans, (as well as animals and ecosystems), particularly at the community level,
in many ways beyond direct physical sustenance, not all of which are beneficial [52]. The
environmental questions surrounding biotechnology need to be addressed, yet the technology as a
whole offers great promise of environmental, social, and economic benefits that should not be
inhibited unnecessarily. A number of concerns should be addressed through sociocultural
assessment of the impact (sociocultural risks and benefits) of GMOs. These include the biodiversity
impacts of extending GMO introductions into marginal areas (which are often centres of diversity
not only of wild species but also of traditional agricultural species) and into protected areas and their
buffer zones .
Ways to Manage Risks

Management and mitigation of risk allows feedback for validation of the initial assessment. Risks can
vary depending on several factors including nature of the GMO, its intended use, and the
environment receiving the GMO. Therefore, they should be assessed and managed on a case-by-
case basis. The purpose of case-by-case practice is to treat every release as unique, since every GMO
represents different genetic characteristics. Prior consent from the authorities is advisable in order to
perform deliberate release, and field trials before the GMO may be commercialized. This is
particularly important for genetically engineered microorganisms that have the potential to survive,
persist, and spread in the environment to which they may gain access. As cited by the European
food safety authority, the following points should be addressed when appropriate:
(i) the potential for survival and persistence in the receiving environment and any selective
advantage that may be offered: in case of selective advantage, its nature should be
identified along with any potential for negative effects;
(ii) the potential for gene transfer;
(iii) the potential for negative effects or consequences based on interactions with indigenous
microorganisms;
(iv) possible effects on humans, animals, and plants;
(v) possible effects or (nonreversible) perturbations on biogeochemical processes.

These points may be assessed by a combination of laboratory studies, micro- and mesocosm
experiments, and small-scale field releases to identify hazards and to quantify actual levels of
exposure. However, extrapolation of assessment from one context to another, that is, from
laboratory research to small-scale field trials and finally to commercial scale is not recommended.
Small-scale trials involve a lesser number of GMOs and may provide valuable information related to
concerns like survival and persistence, competitive fitness, and some ecological implications of
release. Commercial release, on the other hand, involves a higher number of GMOs to be released in
different, complex ecosystems and needs to be carefully carried out over time and at different sites
to reveal impact on relationships between species and ecosystem interactions.

Generally, potential risks by use of GMOs can be mitigated using risk-management strategies that
may make some proposed activities acceptable. This can be achieved, for example, using
confinement strategies and monitoring.

Contained Use of GMOs

The term “contained use” covers any activity involving GMOs in which measures are taken to limit
contact between them and people or the environment. It relates to the actual process of genetic
modification, and also to the use, storage, transport, and destruction of GMOs. Containment of
GMOs can be physical or biological. Physical containment includes barriers designed to prevent
organisms from escaping the laboratory and be accidentally released. This may involve the use of
specially built laboratories, sterilization procedures, restriction of access, and so forth. Biological
containment involves designing the organism in such a manner that they cannot grow out of the
laboratory.
Monitoring the Fate of GMOs Released in the Environment

An important aspect in the process of GMO risk management is the postrelease monitoring phase
initiating from the moment of environmental release. Regular inspections are necessary for effective
monitoring, using a diversity of analyses over an extensive period of time. Monitoring will have two
focuses:
(1) possible effects of the GMO identified in the formal risk assessment procedure and
(2) identification of the occurrence of adverse unforeseen effects of the GMO or its use that were
not anticipated in the environmental risk assessment.

The establishment of monitoring procedures may be difficult, but such monitoring is essential not
only to understand the effectiveness of the introduced organism but also to detect unexpected
spread. In general, the procedures involve development or application of already existing techniques
for identifying the organism in environmental samples. These procedures have been developed and
are, in most cases, well accepted .

The scientific knowledge and experiences gained from monitoring will in turn inform the risk
assessment process. Thus, the results of monitoring provide opportunities to update risk assessment
continually in the light of any new knowledge.

Biosafety regulatory frameworks of GMO should serve as mechanisms for ensuring the safe use of
biotechnology products without imposing unintended constraints to technology transfer. To be able
to judge the sensitive balance between these aspects of GMO risk management, measuring the costs
of biosafety regulation and the potential impacts on biotechnology research and development is
crucial. A necessary first step to answering questions about the causes and consequences of the
process of regulatory approval for new biotech crops is to understand the operation of the
regulatory system and the size and structure of the costs of compliance. It seems that the compliance
costs incurred by biotechnology developers are quite high, and the regulatory burden of novel
biotech crops might be out of balance. Reflections on trends, challenges, and issues on risk
assessment and management in a developing country context were presented. Biosafety regulatory
frameworks were reviewed in relation to the development process, challenges, and trends in its
formulation, especially in the context of risk assessment and management. The choice of a biosafety
regime in the context of developing countries is influenced not only by the science-based approach
in risk analysis but also by the social, political, and environmental governance mechanisms and
experience gained in relation to practice and conventions within a particular country.

The regulatory systems designed to deal with GMO should reduce the amount of risk and create the
social adaptive capacity necessary to cope with the risks associated with new technologies. There are
many different ways to achieve these goals. However, the three separate methods for addressing
these challenges are biosafety protocols, a moratorium, and insurance.

Currently, Austria, UK, and Germany have moratoriums, while the EU has a de facto moratorium
effected from June, 1999 until 2003. Such moratoriums delay the introduction of GMO that could
reduce the amount of ecological degradation produced by GM. However, moratoriums offer a
number of benefits. A delay could provide the opportunity to develop institutions to effectively
evaluate and monitor GMO. It would also allow science to better assess the potential indirect
impacts of existing GM, such as the evolution of Bt resistance. Furthermore, a moratorium may
provide the time needed to allow a richer public debate to address how to fairly balance the risks and
benefits of GMO. Given the uncertainty surrounding both the likelihood and degree of potential
impacts of GMO risks, it is sensible for society to purchase insurance against these risks [59].
However, due to the unknown and variable nature of risks, private insurance is virtually impossible,
which forces the public to play this role. Taxes on the use of transgenic products could function as a
type of social insurance, as long as such a tax was invested in ecological conservation and
restoration, to mitigate against any disruption caused by GMO.

Precautionary Approach

When there is a risk, two or more outcomes are possible, which one will occur is unknown but at
least one of them is undesired. It is within this context that the precautionary approach from
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration can be introduced.

Precautionary approach is premised on the notion of reducing, if not eliminating, risks to human
health and the environment. It acknowledges the complexity and variability of the natural
environment and embodies certain humility about scientific procedures and knowledge. It prioritizes
the rights of those who stand to be affected by an activity, rather than those who stand to benefit
from it. It involves scrutiny of all available alternatives and an examination of justifications and
benefits as well as risks and costs. In short, a precautionary approach involves the adoption of long-
term, holistic, and inclusive perspectives in environmental protection.

Precautionary approach or precautionary principle is the borderline between science and policy or
science and governance, in modern parlance. It is often divided into three components: (1) the lack
of scientific certainty, (2) a risk of irreversible or serious damage, and (3) an obligation for states to
take measures accordingly. The precautionary principle aims to replace uncertainty to ensure safety
until other measures or solutions can be implemented. Within a policy that strives to achieve
sustainable development over a long period, the precautionary principle seems to be indispensable.
As the precautionary principle intends to protect the environment beyond current scientific
knowledge, its implementation may not be justified or questioned on the basis of current scientific
data alone.

The virtue of precautionary principle is the avoidance of risks that are impossible to assess. Its vice
is that these risks, which may not even exist, can only be avoided by refusing to improve quality,
being product quality or the quality of life. It has been justified by academics and pressure groups
for imposing restrictions on the use of genetic modification technology claiming that the lost species
and ecosystems can never be recovered for future generations. On the other hand, the development-
focused environmentalists note that future generations may not come into being to appreciate these
ecosystems without effective action on development imperatives.

Article 11 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety requires parties to comply with information
requirements set in Annex II, according to which states have provided information facility in the
protocol, the biosafety clearing house, a risk assessment report according to guidelines established in
AnnexIII.

Article 17 stated that the unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures of the
living modified organisms that likely have significant adverse effect on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity take into account risk to human health.
Article 18 of the Caratagena Protocol addressing handling transport, packaging, and identification of
transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment must identify
the organisms as LMOs. The objective of this article is to make sure that the LMOs are handled and
moved safely to avoid adverse effects on biological biodiversity and human health.

The precautionary principle of the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety in Articles 5 and 6 mainly
contained the advance information agreement and the risk assessment requirement. The inclusion of
precautionary principle in the agreement to some academics contains its strongest enunciation and
has been regarded “operationalization” in the body of environmental treaty. The catalyst for the
application of precautionary measures in this agreement is the risk assessment. If the risk assessment
shows unacceptable level of risk, then the GMO in question could be opposed to introduce in the
environment.

Thus, the precautionary principle is not panacea, and it will not change world overnight, but it can
make a difference in the protection of human health and environment by providing the guidance to
policy makers when considering threats posed by GMOs.

Conclusion
The use of genetically modified organisms is important in order to meet increasing demands and
improve existing conditions prevalent in our environment. We are at an anxious juncture where, on
one hand, we are faced with unprecedented threats to human health and environment, while on the
other hand we have opportunities to change the way things are done. Regulations concerning use of
GMOs need a broader basis for decision. Post release impacts of GMOs can follow preventive and
precautionary measures based on risk assessment and management. Monitoring and detection
methods are vital for risk assessment and management to control the negative environmental and
health impacts. The international biosafety regulatory frameworks are sufficiently stringent in order
to protect against genuine ascertainable risks, as well as the ability of decision makers to discern the
appropriateness of data necessary to adequately conduct a risk assessment, which all have
considerable consequences. Consideration of social, economic, and ethical issues needs to be taken
care of. Application of the precautionary approach provides avenues for future development and use
of genetic engineering.
9. Future Prospective of GMO

Regulation of GMO deals with a transscientific problem, that is, the resolution of the problems is
beyond the competence of the scientific system. Public perception and acceptance are dependent on
trust and whether the products or processes benefit them as citizens and consumers. To take proper
accounts of uncertainties and public concern would help to capture the benefits, minimize the risk,
and provide goals for future development and use of genetic engineering. Judgment about risks
should not be based on the method modification (classical or modern) but on the quality of the final
product. What does the GMO contain, is it safe, and not how was the GMO made? Encouragement
of new monitoring and detection methods and tools is therefore vital for assessment, control of
environmental, and health impacts as well as collection of ecological knowledge of relevance to
future releases.
GMO in plants

Productivity of GM Crops

GM seed companies promised to raise productivity and profitability levels for farmers around the
world (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1999). GM seed companies had expected GM crops to be adopted by
farmers because the traits they were incorporating provided direct operational benefits for farmers
that could be linked to increased profits for farmers (Hatfield et al., 2014). The proponents of GM
crops have argued that the application of GM technology would fundamentally improve the
efficiency, resiliency, and profitability of farming (Apel, 2010). In addition GM seed companies
argue that the adoption of GM crops helps to reduce the application of pesticides, which has a direct
impact on the sustainability of the cropping systems (Lal, 2004) as well as profitability for farmers
(Morse, Mannion, & Evans, 2011). Some have even suggested that the production of GM crops
creates a halo effect for nearby non-GM crops by reducing pest pressures within regions that are
primarily sown to GM crops (Mannion & Morse, 2013).

There is an expectation widely held by those in agriculture that GM seeds increase yields, or at least
protect yield potential. GM crops with resistance to insects and herbicides can substantially simplify
crop management and reduce crop losses, leading to increased yields (Pray, Jikun Huang, Hu, &
Rozelle, 2002; Pray, Nagarajan, Huang, Hu, & Ramaswami, 2011; Nickson, 2005). GM varieties of
soybean, cotton, and maize produced 20%, 15%, and 7% higher yield, respectively, than non-GM
varieties (Mannion & Morse, 2013). The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) noticed a significant relationship between increased crop yields
and increased adoption of herbicide- and pesticide-tolerant GM crop seeds, and the USDA reported
significantly increased yields when farmers adopted herbicide-tolerant cotton and Bt cotton (USDA,
2009). India cultivated a record 11.6 million hectares of Bt cotton planted by 7.7 million small
farmers in 2014, with an adoption rate of 95%, up from 11.0 million hectares in 2013. The increase
from 50,000 hectares in 2002 to 11.6 million hectares in 2014 represents an unprecedented 230-fold
increase in 13 years (James, 2014). This rapid adoption has been attributed to the increased yields
farmers in this region experienced because of the efficacy of the GM seeds on cotton bollworm and
the additional income farmers received as a result (James, 2014; Morse & Mannion, 2009). Similarly,
the benefits that were obtained by resource-poor cotton farmers in South Africa have led many
smallholders in South Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa to accept GM cotton (Hillocks,
2009). Similar benefits were also obtained by resource-poor farmers growing Bt maize in the
Philippines (James, 2010).

Tillage Systems

The adoption of no tillage and minimum tillage practices in agriculture started in the 1980s. In fact,
the largest extension of both no tillage and conservation tillage and the concomitant declines in soil
erosion significantly predates the release of the first HT varieties of maize and soybean in 1996
(National Research Council [NRC], 2010). However, farmers in the United States who adopted HT
crops were more likely to practice conservation tillage and vice versa (NRC, 2010.) There was an
increase in HT crops and conservation tillage in the United States during the period of rapid GM
crop adoption from 1997–2002 (Fernandez-Cornejo, Hallahan, Nehring, Wechsler, & Grube, 2012).
Soybeans genetically engineered with HT traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GM
crop in the United States, followed by HT cotton. Adoption of HT soybeans increased from 17% of
U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68% in 2001 and 93% in 2010. Plantings of HT cotton expanded
from about 10% of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56% in 2001 and 78% in 2010 (Fernandez-Cornejo et al.,
2012). Some argue that the adoption of GM HT varieties resulted in farmers’ deciding to use
conservation tillage, or farmers who were practicing conservation tillage may have adopted GM HT
crops more readily (Mauro & McLachlan, 2008). Adoption of HT soybean has a positive and highly
significant impact on the adoption of conservation tillage in the United States (Carpenter, 2010).
Technologies that promote conservation tillage practices decrease soil erosion in the long term and
fundamentally promote soil conservation (Montogomery, 2007), while reducing nutrient and carbon
loss (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014; Giller, Witter, Corbeels, & Pablo, 2009; Mannion & Morse, 2013;
Powlson et al., 2014). Adopting HT soybean has decreased the number of tillage operations between
25% and 58% in the United States and in Argentina (Carpenter, 2010). The introduction of HT
soybean has been cited as an important factor in the rapid increase of no tillage practices in
Argentina, and the adoption of no tillage practices in this region has allowed for wheat to be double
cropped with soybean which has led to a fundamental increase in farm productivity (Trigo, Cap,
Malach, & Villareal, 2009). Substantial growth in no tillage production linked to the adoption of GM
HT crops has also been noted in Canada. Several authors have reported a positive correlation
between the adoption of GM HT canola and the adoption of zero-tillage systems in western Canada
(Phillips, 2003; Beckie et al., 2006; Kleter et al., 2007). The no tillage canola production area in
western Canada increased from 0.8 million hectares to 2.6 million hectares from 1996 to 2005. This
area covers about half the total canola area in Canada (Qaim & Traxler, 2005). In addition, tillage
passes among farmers growing HT canola in Canada dropped by more than 70% in this same period
(Smyth, Gusta, Belcher, Phillips, & Castle, 2011). Fields planted with HT crops in this region require
less tillage between crops to manage weeds (Fawcett & Towery, 2003; Nickson, 2005).

Reductions in tillage and pesticide application have great benefits because they minimize inputs of
fossil fuels in farming systems and in doing so, they reduce the carbon footprint of crop production
(Baker, Ochsner, Venterea, & Griffis, 2007). The mitigation of soil erosion is important with respect
to environmental conservation and the conservation of productivity potential. The adoption of no
tillage practices would also save on the use of diesel fuel, and it enriches carbon sequestration in soils
(Brookes & Barfoot, 2014). Brookes and Barfoot (2008) suggested that the fuel reduction because of
GM crop cultivation resulted in a carbon dioxide emissions savings of 1215 × 106 Kg. This
corresponds to taking more than 500,000 cars off the road. In addition, a further 13.5 × 109 Kg of
carbon dioxide could be saved through carbon sequestration, which is equivalent to taking 6 million
cars off the road. The impact of GM crops on the carbon flows in agriculture may be considered as
a positive impact of GM crops on the environment (Knox et al., 2006).

Herbicide Tolerance and Pest Management

Herbicide tolerance (HT) in GM crops is achieved by the introduction of novel genes. The control
of weeds by physical means or by using selective herbicides is time-consuming and expensive (Roller
& Harlander, 1998). The most widely adopted HT crops are glyphosate tolerant (Dill, CaJabob, &
Padgette, 2008) colloquially (and commercially for Monsanto) known as “Roundup Ready” crops.
Herbicide tolerant GM crops have provided farmers with operational benefits. The main benefits
associated with HT canola, for example, were easier and better weed control (Mauro & McLachlan,
2008). The development of GM HT canola varieties has also been linked to incremental gains in
weed control and canola yield (Harker, Blackshaw, Kirkland, Derksen, & Wall, 2000). Despite all of
the weed management options available in traditional canola, significant incentives remained for the
development of HT canola. The most apparent incentives were special weed problems such as false
cleavers (Galium aparine) and stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and the lack of low-cost herbicide
treatments for perennials such as quackgrass (Agropyron repens) and Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvense). Mixtures of herbicides can control many of the common annual and perennial weeds in
western Canada but they are expensive and not necessarily reliable (Blackshaw & Harker, 1992). In
addition, some tank-mixtures led to significant canola injury and yield loss (Harker, Blackshaw, &
Kirkland, 1995). Thus, canola producers welcomed the prospect of applying a single nonselective
herbicide for all weed problems with little concern for specific weed spectrums, growth stages, tank
mixture interactions (i.e., antagonism or crop injury) and/or extensive consultations. Two major GM
HT canola options are widely used in western Canada. Canola tolerant to glufosinate was the first
transgenic crop to be registered in Canada (Oelck et al., 1995). Canola tolerant to glyphosate
(Roundup Ready) followed shortly thereafter. The GM HT canola offers the possibility of improved
weed management in canola via a broader spectrum of weed control and/or greater efficacy on
specific weeds (Harker et al., 2000). The greatest gains in yield attributed to the adoption of GM HT
crops has been for soybean in the United States and Argentina and for GM HT canola in Canada
(Brookes & Barfoot, 2008).

The reduction of pesticide applications is a major direct benefit of GM crop cultivation: reducing
farmers’ exposure to chemicals (Hossain et al., 2004; Huang, Hu, Rozelle, & Pray, 2005) and
lowering pesticide residues in food and feed crops, while also releasing less chemicals into the
environment and potentially increasing on-farm diversity in insects and pollinators (Nickson, 2005).
Additionally, improved pest management can reduce the level of mycotoxins in food and feed crops
(Wu, 2006). Insect resistance in GM crops has been conferred by transferring the gene for toxin
creation from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into crops like maize. This toxin is naturally
occurring in Bt and is presently used as a traditional insecticide in agriculture, including certified
organic agriculture, and is considered safe to use on food and feed crops (Roh, Choi, Li, Jin, & Je,
2007). GM crops that produce this toxin have been shown to require little or no additional pesticide
application even when pest pressure is high (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013). As of the end of the 21st
century, insect resistant GM crops were available via three systems (Bt variants). Monsanto and Dow
Agrosciences have developed SmartStax maize, which has three pest management attributes,
including protection against both above-ground and below-ground insect pests, and herbicide
tolerance, which facilitates weed control (Monsanto, 2009). SmartStax maize GM varieties were first
approved for release in the United States in 2009 and combine traits that were originally intended to
be used individually in GM crops (Mannion & Morse, 2013). Significant reductions in pesticide use
is reported by adoption of Bt maize in Canada, South Africa, and Spain, as well as Bt cotton, notably
in China (Pemsl, Waibel, & Gutierrez, 2005), India (Qiam, 2003), Australia, and the United States
(Mannion & Morse, 2013).
Human Health
GM crops may have a positive influence on human health by reducing exposure to insecticides
(Brimner, Gallivan, & Stephenson, 2005; Knox, Vadakuttu, Gordon, Lardner, & Hicks, 2006) and
by substantially altering herbicide use patterns toward glyphosate, which is considered to be a
relatively benign herbicide in this respect (Munkvold, Hellmich, & Rice, 1999). However these
claims are mostly based on assumption rather than real experimental data. There is generally a lack
of public studies on the potential human health impacts of the consumption of food or feed derived
from GM crops (Domingo, 2016; Wolt et al., 2010) and any public work that has been done to date
has garnered skepticism and criticism, including, for example, the work by Seralini et al. (2013).
However, the GM crops that are commercialized pass regulatory approval as being safe for human
consumption by august competent authorities including the Food and Drug Administration in the
United States and the European Food Safety Authority in Europe. Improvement of GM crops that
will have a direct influence on health such as decreased allergens (Chu et al., 2008), superior levels of
protein and carbohydrates (Newell-McGloughlin, 2008), greater levels of essential amino acids,
essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals including, multivitamin corn (Naqvi et al., 2009; Zhu et
al., 2008), and maximum zeaxanthin corn (Naqvi et al., 2011) hold much promise but have yet to be
commercialized. Malnutrition is very common in developing countries where poor people rely
heavily on a single food sources such as rice for their diet (Gómez-Galera et al., 2010). Nevertheless,
rice does not contain sufficient quantities of all essential nutrients to prevent malnutrition and GM
crops may offer means for supplying more nutritional benefits through single food sources such as
rice (White & Broadley, 2009). This not only supports people to get the nutrition they require, but
also plays a potential role in fighting malnutrition in developing nations (Sakakibara & Saito, 2006;
Sauter, Poletti, Zhang, & Gruissem, 2006). Golden rice is one the most known examples of a bio-
fortified GM crop (Potrykus, 2010). Vitamin A deficiency renders susceptibility to blindness and
affects between 250,000 and 500,000 children annually and is very common in parts of Africa and
Asia (Golden Rice Project, 2009). A crop like Golden rice could help to overcome the problem of
vitamin A deficiency by at least 50% at moderate expense (Stein, Sachdev, & Qaim, 2008), yet its
adoption has been hampered by activist campaigns (Potrykus, 2012).

Environmental Benefits

For currently commercialized GM crops the environmental benefits as previously pointed out are
primarily linked to reductions in pesticide use and to reductions in tillage (Christou & Twyman,
2004; Wesseler, Scatasta, & El Hadji, 2011). Reductions in pesticide use can lead to a greater
conservation of beneficial insects and help to protect other non-target species (Aktar, Sengupta, &
Chowdhury, 2009). Reduced tillage helps to mitigate soil erosion and environmental pollution
(Wesseler et al., 2011; Brookes & Barfoot, 2008) and can lead to indirect environmental benefits
including reductions in water pollution via pesticide and fertilizer runoff (Christos & Ilias, 2011). It
has been claimed that growing Bt maize could help to significantly reduce the use of chemical
pesticides and lower the cost of production to some extent (Gewin, 2003). The deregulation process
for GM crops includes the assessment of potential environmental risks including unintentional
effects that could result from the insertion of the new gene (Prakash, Sonika, Ranjana, & Tiwary,
2011). Development of GM technology to introduce genes conferring tolerance to abiotic stresses
such as drought or inundation, extremes of heat or cold, salinity, aluminum, and heavy metals are
likely to enable marginal land to become more productive and may facilitate the remediation of
polluted soils (Czako, Feng, He, Liang, & Marton, 2005; Uchida et al., 2005). The multiplication of
GM crop varieties carrying such traits may increase farmers’ capacities to cope with these and other
environmental problems (Dunwell & Ford, 2005; Sexton & Zilberman, 2011). Therefore, GM
technology may hold out further hope of increasing the productivity of agricultural land with even
less environmental impact (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2004).

Some proponents of GM crops have argued that because they increase productivity they facilitate
more sustainable farming practices and can lead to “greener” agriculture. Mannion and Morse
(2013), for example, argue that GM crops require less energy investment in farming because the
reduced application of insecticide lowers energy input levels, thereby reducing the carbon footprint.
It has been suggested by other authors that the adoption of GM crops may have the potential to
reduce inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Bennett, Ismael, Morse, & Shankar, 2004;
Bennett, Phipps, Strange, & Grey, 2004). Others note that higher crop yields facilitated by GM
crops could offset greenhouse gas emissions at scales similar to those attributed to wind and solar
energy (Wise et al., 2009). Greenhouse gas emissions from intensive agriculture are also offset by the
conservation of non-farmed lands. While untilled forest soils and savannas, for example, act as
carbon stores, farmed land is often a carbon source (Burney, Davis, & Lobell, 2010).

The Economy

GM crops are sold into a market and are subject to the market in terms of providing a realized value
proposition for farmers and value through the food chain in terms of reduced costs of production
(Lucht, 2015). Currently the GM crops on the market are targeted to farmers and have a value
proposition based on economic benefits to farmers via operational benefits (Mauro, McLachlan, &
Van Acker, 2009). Due to higher yield and lower production cost of GM crops, farmers will get
more economic return and produce more food at affordable prices, which can potentially provide
benefits to consumers including the poor (Lucht, 2015; Lemaux, 2009). The most significant
economic benefits attributed to GM crop cultivation have been higher gross margins due to lower
costs of pest management for farmers (Klümper & Qaim, 2014; Qaim, 2010). GM varieties have
provided a financial benefit for many farmers (Andreasen, 2014). In some regions, GM crops have
led to reduced labor costs for farmers (Bennett et al., 2005). Whether GM crops have helped to
better feed the poor and alleviate global poverty is not yet proven (Yuan et al., 2011).

CONS OF GMO FARMING

The intensive cultivation of GM crops has raised a wide range of concerns with respect to food
safety, environmental effects and socioeconomic issues. The major cons are explored for cross-
pollination, pest resistance, human health, the environment, the economy, and productivity.

Cross-Pollination

The out crossing of GM crops to non-GM crops or related wild type species and the adventitious
mixing of GM and non-GM crops has led to a variety of issues. Because of the asynchrony of the
deregulation of GM crops around the world, the unintended presence of GM crops in food and feed
trade channels can cause serious trade and economic issues. One example is “LibertyLink” rice, a
GM variety of rice developed by Bayer Crop Science, traces of which were found in commercial
food streams even before it was deregulated for production in the United States. The economic
impact on U.S. rice farmers and millers when rice exports from the United States were halted
amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars (Bloomberg News, 2011). A more recent example is
Agrisure Viptera corn, which was approved for cultivation in the United States in 2009 but had not
yet been deregulated in China. Exports of U.S. corn to China contained levels of Viptera corn, and
China closed its borders to U.S. corn imports for a period. The National Grain and Feed
Association (NGFA) had encouraged Syngenta to stop selling Viptera because of losses U.S. farmers
were facing, and there is an ongoing class-action lawsuit in the United States against Syngenta (U.S.
District Court, 2017). Concerns over the safety of GM food have played a role in decisions by
Chinese officials to move away from GM production. Cross-pollination can result in difficulty in
maintaining the GM-free status of organic crops and threaten markets for organic farmers
(Ellstrand, Prentice, & Hancock, 1999; Van Acker, McLean, & Martin, 2007). The EU has adopted a
GM and non-GM crop coexistence directive that has allowed nation-states to enact coexistence
legislation that aims to mitigate economic issues related to adventitious presence of GM crops in
non-GM crops (Van Acker et al., 2007).

GM crops have also been criticized for promoting the development of pesticide resistant pests
(Dale, Clarke, & Fontes, 2002). The development of resistant pests is most due to the overuse of a
limited range of pesticides and overreliance on one pesticide. This would be especially true for
glyphosate because prior to the development of Roundup Ready crops glyphosate use was very
limited and since the advent of Roundup Ready crops there has been an explosion of glyphosate-
resistant weed species (Owen, 2009). The development of resistant pests via cross-pollination to
wild types (weeds) is often cited as a major issue (Friedrich & Kassam, 2012) but it is much less of a
concern because it is very unlikely (Owen et al., 2011; Ellstrand, 2003). There are, however, issues
when genes transfer from GM to non-GM crops creating unexpected herbicide resistant volunteer
crops, which can create challenges and costs for farmers (Van Acker, Brule-Babel, & Friesen, 2004;
Owen, 2008; Mallory-Smith & Zapiola, 2008).

Some critics of GM crops express concerns about how certain GM traits may provide substantive
advantages to wild type species if the traits are successfully transferred to these wild types. This is
not the case for GM HT traits, which would offer no advantage in non-cropped areas where the
herbicides are not used, but could be an issue for traits such as drought tolerance (Buiatti, Christou,
& Pastore, 2013). This situation would be detrimental because the GM crops would grow faster and
reproduce more often, allowing them to become invasive (FAO, 2015). This has sometime been
referred to as genetic pollution (Reichman et al., 2006). There are also some concerns that insects
may develop resistance to the pesticides after ingesting GM pollen (Christou, Capell, Kohli,
Gatehouse, & Gatehouse, 2006). The potential impact of genetic pollution of this type is unclear but
could have dramatic effects on the ecosystem (Stewart et al., 2003).

Pest Resistance
Repeated use of a single pesticide over time leads to the development of resistance in populations of
the target species. The extensive use of a limited number of pesticides facilitated by GM crops does
accelerate the evolution of resistant pest populations (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013). Resistance
evolution is a function of selection pressure from use of the pesticide and as such it is not directly a
function of GM HT crops for example, but GM HT crops have accelerated the development of
glyphosate resistant weeds because they have promoted a tremendous increase in the use of
glyphosate (Owen, 2009). Farmers have had to adjust to this new problem and in some cases this
had added costs for farmers (Mauro, McLachlan, & Van Acker, 2009; Mannion & Morse, 2013). The
management of GM HT volunteers has also produced challenges for some farmers. These are not
resistant weeds as they are not wild type species, but for farmers they are herbicide resistant weeds in
an operational sense (Knispel, McLachlan, & Van Acker, 2008; Liu et al., 2015). Pink bollworm has
become resistant to the first generation GM Bt cotton in India (Bagla, 2010). Similar pest resistance
was also later identified in Australia, China, Spain, and the United States (Tabashnik et al., 2013). In
2012, army worms were found resistant to Dupont-Dow’s Bt corn in Florida (Kaskey, 2012), and
the European corn borer is also capable of developing resistance to Bt maize (Christou et al., 2006).

Human Health
Although the deregulation of GM crops includes extensive assessments of possible human health
impacts by competent authorities there are still many who hold concerns about the potential risks to
human health of GM crops. For some this is related to whether transgenesis itself causes unintended
consequences (Domingo, 2016), while for others it is concerns around the traits that are possible
using GM (Herman, 2003). Some criticize the use of antibiotic resistance as markers in the
transgenesis procedure and that this can facilitate antibiotic resistance development in pathogens
that are a threat to human health (Key, Ma, & Drake, 2008). Many critics of GM crops express
concerns about allergenicity (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005). Genetic modification often adds or mixes
proteins that were not native to the original plant, which might cause new allergic reactions in the
human body (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005). Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to
bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material
unfavorably influences human health, but the probability of this occurring is remote. Other concerns
include the possibility of GM crops somehow inducing mutations in human genes (Ezeonu, Tagbo,
Anike, Oje, & Onwurah, 2012) or other unintended consequences (Yanagisawa, 2004; Lemaux,
2009; Gay & Gillespie, 2005; Wesseler, Scatasta, & El Hadji, 2011) but commentary by these authors
is speculative and is not based on experimentation with current GM crops.

Environment
For currently commercialized GM crops the potential environmental impacts are mostly related to
how these crops impact farming systems. Some argue that because crops like Roundup Ready
soybean greatly simplify weed management they facilitate simple farming systems including
monocultures (Dunwell & Ford, 2005). The negative impact of monocultures on the environment is
well documented and so this might be considered an indirect environmental effect of GM crops
(Nazarko, Van Acker, & Entz, 2005; Buiatti, Christou, & Pastore, 2013). Other concerns that have
been raised regarding GM crops include the effects of transgenic on the natural landscape,
significance of gene flow, impact on non-target organisms, progression of pest resistance, and
impacts on biodiversity (Prakash et al., 2011). Again, many of these concerns may be more a
function of the impacts of simple and broad-scale farming practices facilitated by GM crops rather
than GM crops per se. However, there has been considerable concern over the environmental
impact of Bt GM crops highlighted by studies that showed the potential impact on monarch
butterfly populations (Dively et al., 2004). This begged questions then about what other broader
effects there may be on nontarget organisms both direct and indirect (Daniell, 2002). In addition,
there may be indirect effects associated with how GM crops facilitate the evolution of pesticide
resistant pests in that the follow-on control of these pest populations may require the use of more
pesticides and often older chemistries that may be more toxic to the environment in the end
(Nazarko et al., 2005).
The Economy

Bringing a GM crop to market can be both expensive and time consuming, and agricultural bio-
technology companies can only develop products that will provide a return on their investment
(Ramaswami, Pray, & Lalitha, 2012). For these companies, patent infringement is a big issue. The
price of GM seeds is high and it may not be affordable to small farmers (Ramaswami et al., 2012;
Qaim, 2009). A considerable range of problems has been associated with GM crops, including debt
and increased dependence on multinational seed companies, but these can also be combined with
other agricultural technologies to some extent (Kloppenburg, 1990; Finger et al., 2011). The majority
of seed sales for the world’s major crops are controlled by a few seed companies. The issues of
private industry control and their intellectual property rights over seeds have been considered
problematic for many farmers and in particular small farmers and vulnerable farmers (Fischer,
Ekener-Petersen, Rydhmer, & Edvardsson Björnberg, 2015; Mosher & Hurburgh, 2010). In
addition, efforts by GM seed companies to protect their patented seeds through court actions have
created financial and social challenges for many farmers (Marvier & Van Acker, 2005; Semal, 2007).
There is considerable debate about the extent to which GM crops bring additional value to small
and vulnerable farmers with strong opinions on both sides (Park, McFarlane, Phipps, & Ceddia,
2011; Brookes & Barfoot, 2010; James, 2010; Smale et al., 2009; Subramanian & Qaim, 2010). As the
reliance on GM seeds extends, concerns grow about control over the food supply via seed
ownership and the impacts on the diversity of seed sources, which can impact the resilience of
farming systems across a region (Key et al., 2008). The risk of GM crops to the world economy can
be significant. Global food production is dominated by a few seed companies, and they have
increased the dependence of developing countries on industrialized nations (Van Acker, Cici,
Michael, Ryan, & Sachs, 2015).

Productivity
Justification for GM crops on the basis of the need to feed the world is often used by proponents of
the technology, but the connection between GM crops and feeding the world is not direct. GM
crops are used by farmers and are sold primarily on the basis of their direct operational benefits to
farmers, including the facilitation of production and/or more production (Mauro et al., 2009).
Farmers realize these benefits in terms of cost savings or increased production or both and are
looking to increase their margins by using the technology. Companies producing GM seeds can be
very successful if they are able to capture a greater share of a seed market because they supply
farmers with operational benefits such as simplified weed management (Blackshaw & Harker, 1992)
even if there are no productivity gains. In addition, the traits in GM crops on the market as of the
early part of the 21st century are not yield traits per se but are yield potential protection traits that
may or may not result in greater productivity.

Conclusions

Genetic modification via recombinant DNA technology is compelling because it does provide a
means for bringing truly novel traits into crops and the adoption of GM crops has been rapid in a
range of countries around the world. Only a very limited number of traits have been incorporated to
date into GM crops, the two primary traits being herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance.
Nonetheless, farmers who have adopted GM crops have benefited from the operational benefits
they provide, and current GM crops have facilitated the adoption of more sustainable farming
practices, in particular, reduced tillage. The ongoing asynchronous approvals of GM crops around
the world mean that there will always be issues related to the adventitious presence of GM crops in
crop shipments and trade disruptions. Pollen mediated gene flow from crop to crop and seed
admixtures are challenges of GM crop farming and agricultural marketing as a result. The adoption
of GM HT crops has also accelerated the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds, which has created
additional operational challenges and costs for farmers. The GM crops commercialized to date have
all been deregulated and deemed to be safe to the environment and safe in terms of human health by
competent authorities around the world, including the European Food Safety Association. There
remain, however, critics of the technology who point to a lack of public research on the potential
risks of GM and GM crops. GM crops will continue to be developed because they provide real
operational benefits for farmers, who are the ones who purchase the seeds. The novelty of the
technology and its potential to bring almost any trait into crops mean that there needs to remain
dedicated diligence on the part of regulators to ensure that no GM crops are deregulated that may in
fact pose risks to human health or the environment, but there will also remain the promise of the
value of novel inventions that bring benefits to consumers and the environment. The same will be
true for the next wave of new breeding technologies, which include gene editing technologies such
as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) (Cong et al., 2013). These
new technologies have even greater potential for modifying crops than GM technology and they
avoid some of the characteristics of GM technology that have underpinned criticisms including, for
example, the presence of foreign DNA.

Solutions

contamination: There are ways to reduce the likelihood of contamination, but certainly the
possibility exists. Europe adopted a 0.9% level as a limit for acceptable contamination.

labeling & packaging on foods: This is certainly a contentious topic for many in the public. First
the public’s view on labeling is very dependent on how the question is asked. If you look at the chart
below you see that the majority of the public would be in favor of mandatory labeling foods
produced with genetic engineering; however, it is interesting to note that almost the same amount of
people are in favor of “mandatory labeling of foods contain DNA (which of course is everything).

Although there is not a consensus about how much labeling would cost, there are costs to consider
other than merely slapping a label on a package. Food segregation from farm to grocery could be a
significant cost as well as any regulatory and testing system that would be needed for the label to be
meaningful. There would have to be a system to document the crop from field to processor as it is
impossible to determine whether sugar came from non-gmo sugarcane or GMO sugar beets once it
has been processed because there is no protein or DNA. You would have similar problems with a
host of other non-protein containing products such as high fructose corn syrup or corn, soybean or
cottonseed oil. Similarly, if labeling of animal products were mandated there would have to be a
system to verify that animals did not consume GMOs. The current initiatives by states to mandate
labeling are confusing as states have different criteria. For example, Vermont excludes cheese and
other animal products like meat, milk and ice cream. Over 90% of the cheese in the US is made
using genetically modified microbes to produce chymosin (rennin) to replace the old practice
obtaining chymosin from calf stomachs. Most animals are fed genetically modified corn or soybeans.
Update or legislate new laws on GMO regulation
The marketing of GM food is a result of the development in plant breeding and
biotechnology.

Scientific advancements have left the governments all over the world to follow up with
relevant rules and regulations.

EU regulation on GMOs, in particular, has been unable to keep up with new discoveries in
the field of biotechnology. As a result, a significant degree of legal uncertainty makes the
law itself unclear and ineffective

Laws should promote sustainability without stifling innovation

Today, the laws, definitions, and regulatory approaches to crops derived from
biotechnology vary considerably between different countries.

In this respect, the central question here is how to find a common ground between
scientific and socio-economic considerations relevant to the regulation of biotechnologies,
and how the law should treat genetic engineering afterwards.

If we want to realise potential synergies between genetic engineering and environmental

governance, regulation on GMOs must accommodate both scientific and public risk
perspectives on biotechnology.
A good example of such a potential synergy would be the example of laws and regulations
which would facilitate achieving sustainability in agriculture and would promote a high
level of health and environmental protection without stifling innovation.

Open up access to GMO seeds that companies produce

User agreements with half of today’s leading GMO seed producers prohibit the use of independent
research on the final product. This helps to protect the royalties that the companies earn when
farmers are able to harvest a yield through the use of their seeds. Since the seeds are considered
company property, even the unintended growing of a GMO crop can result in the need to pay a
royalty.

In the pros and cons of GMOs, we find that there is just as much disinformation as there are facts.
They may be able to feed a hungry world, but they may also cause digestive issues in doing so. What
really needs to be addresses is how GMO seeds are treated. Farmers shouldn’t need to purchase
seeds every year or fear a lawsuit because another farmer planted GMO crops that spread to their
fields. This would allow us to benefit from the efforts of everyone in the agricultural field.