When comparisons are made among organic conventional and genetic engineering methods of growing foods One of the main differences is that?

Genetic engineering can be done with plants, animals, or bacteria and other very small organisms. Genetic engineering allows scientists to move desired genes from one plant or animal into another. Genes can also be moved from an animal to a plant or vice versa. Another name for this is genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

The process to create GE foods is different than selective breeding. This involves selecting plants or animals with desired traits and breeding them. Over time, this results in offspring with those desired traits.

One of the problems with selective breeding is that it can also result in traits that are not desired. Genetic engineering allows scientists to select one specific gene to implant. This avoids introducing other genes with undesirable traits. Genetic engineering also helps speed up the process of creating new foods with desired traits.

The possible benefits of genetic engineering include:

• More nutritious food
• Tastier food
• Disease- and drought-resistant plants that require fewer environmental resources (such as water and fertilizer)
• Less use of pesticides
• Increased supply of food with reduced cost and longer shelf life
• Faster growing plants and animals
• Food with more desirable traits, such as potatoes that produce less of a cancer-causing substance when fried
• Medicinal foods that could be used as vaccines or other medicines

Some people have expressed concerns about GE foods, such as:

• Creation of foods that can cause an allergic or toxic reaction
• Unexpected or harmful genetic changes
• Inadvertent transfer of genes from one GM plant or animal to another plant or animal not intended for genetic modification
• Foods that are less nutritious

These concerns have thus far been unfounded. None of the GE foods used today have caused any of these problems. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses all GE foods to make sure they are safe before allowing them to be sold. In addition to the FDA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate bioengineered plants and animals. They assess the safety of GE foods to humans, animals, plants, and the environment.

1. Halford NG, Shewry PR. Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public concerns. Br Med Bull. 2000;56(1):62–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Caiping MA, Stauss SH, Meilan R. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of the genome-sequenced polar clone nisqually-1 (Populus trichocarpa) Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2004;22:1–9. [Google Scholar]

3. Lee YS, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ. The ballistic impact characteristics of Kevlar® woven fabrics impregnated with a colloidal shear thickening fluid. J Mater Sci. 2003;38(13):2825–2833. [Google Scholar]

4. Obert B, Ponya Z, Pret'ova A, Barnabas B. Optimization of electroporation conditions for maize microspores. Maydica. 2004;49:15–19. [Google Scholar]

5. Darabani B, Farajnia S, Toorchi M, Zakerbostanabad S, Noeparvar S, Stewart N. DNA-delivery methods to produce transgenic plants. Biotechnology. 2008;7(3):385–402. [Google Scholar]

6. Meli VS, Ghosh S, Prabha TN, Chakraborty N, Chakraborty S, Datta A. Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes. PNAS. 2010;107(6):2413–2418. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Consensus Document on Molecular Characterization of Plants Derives from Modern Biotechnology. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 51 and Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds No. 2220. ENV/JM/MONO 2010; 41. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/29/46815346.pdf.

8. Knight B. 2007. Jul, Agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Crop Protection Monthly. [Google Scholar]

9. Global Biotech Area Surges Past 100 Million Hectares on 13 Percent Growth: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri. Biotech Applications ISAAA (US) 2007. Jan, Available from: http://www.bionity.com/en/news/61027/

10. Brookes G, Barfoot P. GM crops The First Ten Years-Global Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts; UK: PG Economics Ltd; 2006. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) [Google Scholar]

11. Rikki Stancich. GM food special report: Crops that survive climate change. 2008. Feb, Available from: http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5157. Climate Change group.

12. Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Report to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee. 2002 Aug; Available from: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/C2-589-2001-1E.pdf.

13. Altieri MA, Rosset P. Strengthening the case for why biotechnology will not help. The developing world: A response to MCGloughlin. AgBioForum. 1999;2(3-4):226–236. [Google Scholar]

14. Pusztai A. Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? ActionBioscience. 2001. Jun, Available from: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Pusztai/Pusztai-GM-Foods-Risk-Human-Animal-Health-2001.pdf.

15. GM Crops-the health effects. Soil Association. 2008. Feb, www.soilassociation.org.

16. Mae-Wan Ho. International Publishing Group Continuum; 2000. Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare?: Turning the Tide on the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business. 2 Rev Upd edition. [Google Scholar]

17. Mae-Wan Ho. Stability of All Transgenic Lines in Doubt. ISIS Report. Institute of science in society. 2003. Mar, Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MON810GenomeRearranged.php.

18. Mae-Wan Ho. Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection. 2008. Mar, Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/transgenicLinesUnstable2.php. ISIS Report. Institute of science in technology.

19. Braun R. Antibiotic Resistance Markers in Genetically Modified (GM) Crops. European Federation of Biotechnology. Task Group On Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. 2001. Sep, Available from: http://www.biosafety.be/ARGMO/Documents/EFB_AntibioticRM_English.pdf.

20. Chen C, Thiruvengadam V, Lin W, Chang H, Hsu W. Lysine racemase: a novel non-antibiotic selectable marker for plant transformation. Plant Mol Biol. 2010;72(1-2):153–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Non-Human Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance: Scientific assessment. Joint FAO/ OIE/WHO Expert Workshop. 2003. Dec, Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/en/amr.pdf.

22. Ho MW, Cummins J. New evidence links CaMV 35S promoter to HIV transcription. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2009;21(3-4):172–174. [Google Scholar]

23. Myhre MR, Fenton KA, Eggert J, Nielsen KM, Traavik T. The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. Eur Food Res Technol. 2006;222(1-2):185–193. [Google Scholar]

24. Lai MM. RNA recombination in animal and plant viruses. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1992;56(1):61–79. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Teycheney PY, Tepper M. Possible roles of endogenous plant viral sequences and transgenes containing viral sequences in both virus resistance and virus emergence. Environ Biosafety Res. 2007;6(4):219–221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998;6(6):219–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 1999;354(9187):1353–1354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Hashimoto W, Momma K, Katsube T, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, et al. Safety assessment of genetically engineered potatoes with designed soybean glycinin: compositional analyses of the potato tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed protein in transgenic potatoes. J Sci Food Agric. 1999;79(12):1607–1612. [Google Scholar]

29. Momma K, Hashimoto W, Ozawa S, Kawai S, Katsube T, Takaiwa F, et al. Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean glycinin: Analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999;63(2):314–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. 2008. Nov, Available from: http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zen-tek_studie_2008.pdf.

31. Munro S. GM food debate. Lancet. 1999;354(9191):1727–1729. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Daniel KT. The Hidden Dangers of Soy Allergens. Nexus Magazine. 2004. Sep, Available from: www.nexusmagazine.com.

33. Ho MW, Cummins J. Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease. A GM Connection? Global Research. 2008. Aug, Available from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9891.

34. Kurunganti K. Institute of science in technology; 2008. Apr, Mass Protests against GM Crops in India. Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmProtestsIndia.php. [Google Scholar]

35. Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M, Tierzieva S, Bernstein DI, Lummus Z, et al. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107(7):575–582. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, Martinez-Gil AF, de la Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000;33(2):147–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Pasini G, Simonato B, Curioni A, Vincenzi S, Cristaudo A, Santucci B, et al. IgE-mediated allergy to corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Allergy. 2002;57(2):98–106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Pusztai A. Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM foods. Nutr Health. 2002;16:73–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond substantial equivalence. Nature. 1999;401(6753):525–526. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Redenbaugh K, Hatt W, Martineau B, Kramer M, Sheehy R, Sanders R, Houck C, Emlay D. Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and Vegetables. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, Inc; 1992. A case study of the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato. [Google Scholar]

41. Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Bailey MR, MacDonald J, Holden L, Fuchs RL. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr. 1996;126(3):702–716. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Taylor NB, Fuchs RL, MacDonald J, Shariff AB, Padgette SR. Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem. 1999;47(10):4469–4473. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Berberich SA, Ream JE, Jackson TL, Wood R, Stipanovic R, Harvey P, et al. The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. J Agric Food Chem. 1996;44(1):365–371. [Google Scholar]

44. Novak WK, Haslberger AG. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Food Chem Tox. 2000;38(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Lappe MA, Bailey EB, Childress C, Setchell KDR. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Med Food. 1999;1(4):241–245. [Google Scholar]

46. Harrison LA, Bailey MR, Naylor MW, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Nida DL, et al. The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enol-py-ruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agro-bacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J Nutr. 1996;126(3):728–740. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Momma K, Hashimoto W, Ozawa S, Kawai S, Katsube T, Takaiwa F, et al. Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean glycinin: Analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999;63(2):314–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybean. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:688–692. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Bindslev-Jensen C, Poulsen LK. Hazards of unin-tentional/intentional introduction of allergens into foods. Allergy. 1997;52(12):1184–1186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Burks AW, Fuchs RL. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and commercial soybean varieties. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;96(6 pt 1):1008–1010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Nakamura R, Matsuda T. Rice allergenic protein and molecular-genetic approach for hypoallergenic rice. Biosci Biotech Biochem. 1996;60(8):1215–1221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Carter CA, Gruere GP. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. University of California Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics; 2003. Mar, International Approaches to the Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. Available from: http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/cartergruere_929BEB69BA4EE.pdf. [Google Scholar]

53. Byrne P. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods. 2010. 2010 Sep. Available from: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html. Colorado State University Extension. Fact sheet. No. 9.371.

54. Indepth: Genetic Modification, Genetically Modified Foods: a primer, CBC News Online. 2004. May, Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/

55. Most people want to know if their food has GM ingredients. Relax News. 2009. Dec, Available from: http://www.food.gov.uk.

56. Lendman S. Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods. 2008. Feb, Available from: www.truehealthfacts.com.

57. Genetically modified foods. Better health Channel. 2010 Feb; Available from: www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au.

58. Soybeans Monsanto. Available from: http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/pipeline-brochures/soybeans.pdf.

59. Bourgeois F. Drug trials funded by industry are more likely to publish favorable results. Ann Int Med. 2010;153:158–166. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Saunders P. Institute of Science for Society; 2009. Apr, Corporate Monopoly of Science. Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/corporateMonopolyOfScience.php. ISIS Report. [Google Scholar]

61. Qaim M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. New Biotechnol. 2010;27(5):552–557. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Ho MW. Schmeiser's Battle for the Seed. Institute of Science for Society. ISIS Report. Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SLBFTS.php.