Pros
Better Pest and Disease Resistance
Genetic modification of crops can produce varieties that are more resistant to pests and diseases, reducing losses and lessening the dependence on pesticides. For example, a gene that gives resistance to a fungal infection in a wild plant can be inserted into a food plant that lacks this protection. The crop is then less susceptible to this disease.
Genes that give greater tolerance of stress, such as drought, low temperatures or salt in the soil, can also be inserted into crops. This can extend their range and open up new areas for food production.
Crops can be altered to make them grow faster, so that they can be cultivated and harvested in areas with shorter growing seasons. This again can extend the range of a food crop into new areas or perhaps allow two harvests in areas where only one is currently practical.
Plants and animals can be engineered to produce larger amounts of essential vitamins andminerals, such as iron, helping to solve nutrition problems in some parts of the world. They can also be altered to change the amounts of protein, carbohydrates, and saturated and unsaturated fats that they contain. This could lead to the production of foods designed specifically for a healthy diet for all consumers.
It may be possible to have plants and animals produce useful medicines and even vaccines, so that prevention and treatment of human diseases in some places can be achieved cheaply and efficiently through the diet.
Crops can be modified to be resistant to specific herbicides, making it much easier to control troublesome weeds. Farmers can simply apply the weed killer to a crop field, killing the unwanted plants and leaving the food crop unaffected. For example, GM oilseed rape — the source of canola oil — is resistant to one chemical that's widely used to control weeds.
Foods can be engineered to taste better, which could encourage people to eat more healthy foods that are currently not popular because of their taste, such as broccoli and spinach. It may be possible to insert genes that produce more or different flavors as well.
Some of the effects of genetically engineered food on human health may be unpredictable. The many chemical compounds present in foods behave in extremely complex ways in the human body. If the food contains something not normally present in the human diet, it is hard to tell what its effects may be over time. Although GM foods are rigorously tested, there may be some subtle, long-term effects that cannot be detected yet.
It may not be clear to customers exactly what they are eating when they purchase GM foods. Not all countries have a requirement to label food, or ingredients, as genetically modified, and even where such foods are clearly labeled, people may not take the time to read the information. People with an allergy to a specific ingredient may be unexpectedly affected by a GM food that contains that substance. Vegetarians and vegans might unknowingly eat plant-based foods containing genes that originally came from animals.
Genes introduced to make crops toxic to specific insect pests may kill other, beneficial insects, with effects on animals further up the food chain. This could lead to a reduction in the diversity of wildlife in affected areas and possibly even to the extinction of vulnerable species.
It is possible that genes for resistance to insect pests, diseases and herbicides might spread to native plants. Pollen from GM crops could be transferred by insects or wind to wild plants, fertilizing them and creating new, modified plants. This could lead to herbicide-resistant weeds and to the uncontrollable spread of plant species normally kept in check by natural predators and diseases. This might damage delicate ecosystems.
Pollen from genetically modified crops can also spread to fields containing non-GM crops. This can result in supposedly non-GM foods actually containing material from genetically engineered crops. This has happened in at least one well-documented case, leading to a lengthy legal wrangle between a farmer and a well-known GM company. Many complex legal issues involving compensation and ownership may arise. Another problem may be a blurring of the distinction between foods that have been modified and those that have not, creating problems for consumers.
The planting of herbicide-resistant crops might encourage farmers to use weed killers more freely, since they could then be applied indiscriminately to crop fields. As a result, the excess could be carried away by rainfall to pollute rivers and other waterways. The chemicals may poison fish and other wild animals and plants, and could get into human drinking water as well.
The potential to end poverty and malnutrition may not be realized if patent laws and intellectual property rights lead to genetically engineered food production being monopolized by a small number of private companies. The owners of the rights to produce GM foods may be reluctant to allow access to technology or genetic material, making countries in the developing world even more dependent on industrialized nations. Commercial interests may override worthy and potentially achievable goals, limiting the benefits to the world as a whole.
Now it’s time to have a better public debate.
•
It’s no secret that people are nervous about foods made from genetically modified organisms. A July Gallup poll found that 48 percent of respondents believed that GM foods “pose a serious health hazard,” compared to 36 percent who didn’t. California voters may have rejecteda ballot initiative to require labeling of GM foods last fall, but a New York Times survey found overwhelming support for mandatory labeling on the packaging of GM foods.
Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that “consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”
The scientific literature backs this up. In February, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry published a literature review covering 20 years of safety studies. The authors found “overwhelming evidence” that using biotechnology to genetically modify crops “is less disruptive of crop composition compared with traditional breeding, which itself has a tremendous history of safety.” An overview of safety studies appearing this month in Nature Biotechnology noted that, despite disagreement over a need for more long-term safety studies, both critics and proponents of GMOs agree that so far “genetically modified foods have failed to produce any untoward health effects.”
In other words, the scientific consensus is that GMOs do not pose risks to our health or the environment that are any different from the risks posed by the non-GM crops created with modern breeding programs.
The discrepancy between the public debate over GM foods and the debate within the scientific community has left many scientists puzzling over the question: What evidence will it take to convince the public that GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods?
The editors at Nature Biotechnology argue that evidence is not the problem. The issue is that, so far, people have no reason to believe GM foods are being created for their benefit. Changing negative attitudes will “require a concerted and long-term effort to develop GM foods that clearly provide convincing benefits to consumers—something that seed companies have conspicuously failed to do over the past decade.” The question of benefits has been buried because the GMO debate has been framed around the unhelpful distinction between GM and non-GM foods. Instead of asking if GM foods in general are less safe, the editors argue, we should be focused on the specific risks and benefits of individual products, whether they are GM or not.
A focus on the risks and benefits of all new crops could move the debate in a direction that would prompt scientists, companies, and regulators to more clearly justify the role GMOs play in our food supply. To date, consumers nervous about GMOs have been given little reason to think that companies like Monsanto are designing GM crops to solve any problem other than the one of patents and profits. As journalist Mark Lynas put it in his rousing defense of GM foods, for most people GMOs are about a “big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us.”
But many researchers working on GM crops are in fact trying to solve important problems, such as feeding a growing population, keeping food prices affordable worldwide, making healthier fruits and vegetableswidely available, confronting the challenging growing conditions of a changing climate, saving Florida’s oranges or Hawaii’s papaya from pests, and fighting malnourishment in the developing world. For many of these problems, genetic engineering is faster, more cost-effective, and more reliable than conventional breeding methods.
Our society’s unresolved controversy over GMOs is not about safety; it’s about whether we have an acceptable process in place to ensure that our health is not put at risk for the sake of biotech’s bottom line. Researchers, biotech companies, and regulators need to settle on an appropriately rigorous, transparent, and independent safety testing process for all new crops, one whose methods and results are publicly available. Currently, as the Nature Biotechnology review notes, safety assessments in the U.S. are a patchwork affair with weak legal underpinnings. But for GM solutions to our food challenges to be widely accepted, the public needs to know that they are not being coerced into eating something whose risks and benefits are unknown.
Human kind never invented such a fantastic technology that would help us a lot to provide better food to make it sustainable and at the same time to protect environment.
I am pretty sure that majority of you ion this room don’t know exactly what to think about this topic. Is it bad is it good. The reson is the media coverage. Most i
Gmo is tested more than any other food!!!
Many people in developing countries receive very little food, if any, due to its scarcity. It is estimated that in Asia alone, close to 800 million people go to bed hungry every night due to food shortage. This problem can be alleviated by turning to the production of genetically modified organisms (a.k.a. GMOs).
We live in a world that is constantly changing and advancing thanks to technological advancements, especially in the field of molecular genetics.
By genetically altering organisms such as crops, we can eliminate the use of pesticides by making the crops resistant to insects. We can also produce crops that are resistant to floods and droughts. Furthermore, with the use of molecular genetics, we are able to produce foods that are rich in nutrients and supplements.
People in developing countries may not be fortunate enough to have a full course meal that contains nutrients from all four basic food groups. However, GMOs can with a little modification provide all the amino acids, vitamins, and minerals included in a good diet by simply consuming a genetically modified staple crop such as rice. In addition, by producing crops that are resistant to harsh environmental conditions as well as pests, we would see a rapid increase in the production of food thereby reducing and or!
possibly eliminating starvation in developing countries.
What do you think the first thought will cross a person's mind when his/her stomach aches for food? Will he/she choose not to eat because of their fears or will he/she relieve their stomach pain and choose to eat? The only was we will know how to answer this question in truth is to be put in that situation
Benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms
We live in a world that is constantly changing and advancing thanks to technological advancements, especially in the field of molecular genetics. Today, we are discovering and implementing new ways to overcome the ill-fated symptoms developed as a result from poor health or accidents. We are also making advancements in the field of agriculture thanks to molecular genetics. As we all know, food is an essential entity in our lives and is abundant as well as relatively easy to obtain here in the United States. However, as good as it may sound, this is not necessarily true for developing countries. Many people in developing countries receive very little food, if any, due to its scarcity. It is estimated that in Asia alone, close to 800 million people go to bed hungry every night due to food shortage. This problem can be alleviated by turning to the production of genetically modified organisms (a.k.a. GMOs).
Genetically modified organisms can be plants or animals that have been genetically altered to produce or express a desired characteristic or trait. By genetically altering organisms such as crops, we can eliminate the use of pesticides by making the crops resistant to insects. We can also produce crops that are resistant to floods and droughts. Furthermore, with the use of molecular genetics, we are able to produce foods that are rich in nutrients and supplements. People in developing countries may not be fortunate enough to have a full course meal that contains nutrients from all four basic food groups. However, GMOs can with a little modification provide all the amino acids, vitamins, and minerals included in a good diet by simply consuming a genetically modified staple crop such as rice. In addition, by producing crops that are resistant to harsh environmental conditions as well as pests, we would see a rapid increase in the production of food thereby reducing and or!
possibly eliminating starvation in developing countries.
Some people may argue that GMOs is simply not the best solution to starvation. Many believe that GMOs will lead to ill-fated consequences after being consumed. It is in fact that their fears are based on hysteria and ignorance. Consuming GMOs will not lead to the production of horns on our heads nor will it make us grow tails. Genetically modified organisms will however increase food production, which is the bottom line. What do you think the first thought will cross a person's mind when his/her stomach aches for food? Will he/she choose not to eat because of their fears or will he/she relieve their stomach pain and choose to eat? The only was we will know how to answer this question in truth is to be put in that situation. Furthermore, with all the advancements in technology and science, we are discovering that many things around us and in the environment that once was thought to have been harmful to us are no longer a concern. For instance, the use of cellular phon!
es were believed to cause cancer due to their emission of radiation. However, today we know that it is somewhat impossible because for one, you would have to be exposed to a phone for very large amounts of time and two, it is mostly the older phones that may do this due to new phones being modified to emit very low amounts of radiation. Similarly, today GMOs are being developed by scientists who have a profound understanding of molecular genetics allowing them to yield safe mutants.
Genetically modified organisms can indeed be beneficial to all occupants of this world. GMOs will not only provide the resistance to pests and harsh environmental conditions, higher crop yield, but also the means to distribute vaccination and nutrition through out our heavily populated planet. Because the discoveries and advancements being made in science today, GMOs are being made safe for all people and should not be looked upon as something that will destroy mankind. In the contrary, GMOs will save many and provide a better life for those who are less fortunate.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology
If you could save lives by producing vaccines in transgenic bananas, would you? In the debate over large-scale commercialization and use of GMOs, where should we draw the line?
Aa Aa Aa
People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering.
Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms
A photograph shows five silver fish oriented horizontally in a vertical row against a black background. Below, five smaller fish are also arranged similarly. The smaller fish at bottom are approximately one-third the length of the fish at top.
View Full-Size ImageFigure 1
Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's growing population. Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish (Table 1; Takeda & Matsuoka, 2008). Other applications include the production of nonprotein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant) products. A number of animals have also been genetically engineered to increase yield and decrease susceptibility to disease. For example, salmon have been engineered to grow larger (Figure 1) and mature faster (Table 1), and cattle have been enhanced to exhibit resistance to mad cow disease (United States Department of Energy, 2007).
Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology
APPROVED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Herbicide tolerance Soybean Glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) tolerance conferred by expression of a glyphosate-tolerant form of the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) isolated from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, strain CP4
Insect resistance Corn Resistance to insect pests, specifically the European corn borer, through expression of the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis
Altered fatty acid composition Canola High laurate levels achieved by inserting the gene for ACP thioesterase from the California bay tree Umbellularia californica
Virus resistance Plum Resistance to plum pox virus conferred by insertion of a coat protein (CP) gene from the virus
PRODUCTS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
Vitamin enrichment Rice Three genes for the manufacture of beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, in the endosperm of the rice prevent its removal (from husks) during milling
Vaccines Tobacco Hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) produced in transgenic tobacco induces immune response when injected into mice
Oral vaccines Maize Fusion protein (F) from Newcastle disease virus (NDV) expressed in corn seeds induces an immune response when fed to chickens
Faster maturation Coho salmon A type 1 growth hormone gene injected into fertilized fish eggs results in 6.2% retention of the vector at one year of age, as well as significantly increased growth rates
The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone was the first protein pharmaceutical made in plants (Barta et al., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody was produced (Hiatt et al., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which has since dominated the industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes (Ma et al., 2003). As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials. The use of genetically modified animals has also been indispensible in medical research. Transgenic animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases.
Potential GMO Applications
Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of microorganisms are being considered as future clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition, genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Work is currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B virus (HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al., 2003). Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about potential risks.
Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs
Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's 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. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.
Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003).
In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.
Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy
One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Prior to construction of the recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects, including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.
The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al. (1999) in which the mortality of monarch larvae was reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply) covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered with pollen from regular corn. The report by Losey et al. was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that natural levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs.
Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen. For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al., 2001), providing the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years.
Unintended Economic Consequences
Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops.
GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns
In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but 23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market. In addition, only 5% of those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns associated with using biotech products.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean. Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned.
Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled.
These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.
History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development
In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli, was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus (Devos et al., 2007). Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in 1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues.
In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S. had very few regulations in place. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al., 2007). Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by forecasting the societal impacts of GMOs.
Then, 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 risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a product-based approach to assessment, whereas the European approach is more process based (Devos et al., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops.
Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand
Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived markers (Ma et al., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate growing seasons.
GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.