Talk:Genetically modified crops

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified crops article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 4 months

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Food and drink High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Agriculture High‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions regarding the language used to summarize the safety and regulation of genetically modified food on this and related articles (including talk pages).

On July 7, 2016, the community approved the following language to summarize the safety and regulation of genetically modified food in a request for comment (RfC). This decision applies to all articles listed in the Introduction section of the RfC, and on other articles on genetically modified food safety, broadly construed. This may only be overturned by another widely advertised 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or by ruling of the Arbitration Committee.

Language per the RfC

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations

^ Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34: 1–12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

^ "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).

^ Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188: 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).

^ But see also:
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.
Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 1–32. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.
And contrast:
Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 1–5. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.
The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.
and
Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).
Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."

^ "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: 'The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.' The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: 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.
Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could 'Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers'". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

^ "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)" (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

^ "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: )
"Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.

^ "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.

^ "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

^ Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21: 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.

^ Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle: "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.
When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.
The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

^ Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.

^ Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2: 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.

^ Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

^ Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243.

^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

^ Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.

^ Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

This wording has been implemented into this article per the result of the RfC above. The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to implement the result of this RfC. After implementation, editors must not change or remove any part or whole of the text above in the article, including its wording and citations. There is no prejudice against editing other text. Any uninvolved administrator may use discretionary sanctions against editors who repeatedly breach this rule.
The wording was created at Talk:Genetically modified crops and then copied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, edited further, and then copied to this page. The former pages' edit histories now serve to provide attribution for that content, and must not be deleted so long as this page exists.

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimjammer (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Andretam0027, Straws12!.

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Any of this content useful? Cut from food security.

I've just cut out this content from the food security article as it was digressing. There might be bits in here that could be added to this article? Or maybe it's all here already and would only be repetitive. Note: most of this content had been added by students several years ago so it's likely not very up to date:

++++++++++

Use of genetically modified (GM) crops:

The area sown to genetically engineered crops in developing countries is rapidly catching up with the area sown in industrial nations. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), GM crops were grown by approximately 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries in 2005; up from 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries in 2004.

Opposition to GM crops

Based on evidence from previous attempts, there is a likely lack of transferability of one type of GM crop from one region to another. For example, modified crops that have proven successful in Asia from the Green Revolution have failed when tried in regions of Africa. More research must be done regarding the specific requirements of growing a specific crop in a specific region.

There is also a drastic lack of education given to governments, farmers, and the community about the science behind GM crops, as well as suitable growing practices. In most relief programs, farmers are given seeds with little explanation and little attention is paid to the resources available to them or even laws that prohibit them from distributing produce. Governments are often not advised on the economic and health implications that come with growing GM crops and are then left to make judgments on their own. Because they have so little information regarding these crops, they usually shy away from allowing them or do not take the time and effort required to regulate their use. Members of the community that will then consume the produce from these crops are also left in the dark about what these modifications mean and are often scared off by their 'unnatural' origins. This has resulted in failure to properly grow crops as well as strong opposition to the unknown practices.

A study published in June 2016 evaluated the status of the implementation of Golden Rice, which was first developed in the 1990s to produce higher levels of Vitamin A than its non-GMO counterparts. This strain of rice was designed so that malnourished women and children in third-world countries who were more susceptible to deficiencies could easily improve their Vitamin A intake levels and prevent blindness, which is a common result. Golden Rice production was centralized in the Philippines, yet there have been many hurdles to jump in order to get production moving. The study showed that the project is far behind schedule and is not living up to its expectations. Although research on Golden Rice continues, the country has moved forward with other non-GMO initiatives to address the Vitamin A deficiency problem that is so pervasive in that region.

Many anti-GMO activists argue that the use of GM crops decreases biodiversity among plants. Livestock biodiversity is also threatened by the modernization of agriculture and the focus on more productive major breeds. Therefore, efforts have been made by governments and non-governmental organizations to conserve livestock biodiversity through strategies such as cryoconservation of animal genetic resources.

Support of GM crops

Many GM crop success stories exist, primarily in developed nations like the US, China, and various countries in Europe. Common GM crops include cotton, maize, and soybeans, all of which are grown throughout North and South America as well as regions of Asia. Modified cotton crops, for example, have been altered such that they are resistant to pests, can be grown in more extreme heat, cold, or drought, and produce longer, stronger fibers to be used in textile production.

One of the biggest threats to rice, which is a staple food crop especially in India and other countries within Asia, is blast disease, which is a fungal infection that causes lesions to form on all parts of the plant. A genetically engineered strain of rice has been developed so that it is resistant to blast, greatly improving the crop yield of farmers and allowing rice to be more accessible to everyone. Some other crops have been modified such that they produce higher yields per plant or that they require less land for growing. The latter can be helpful in extreme climates with little arable land and also decreases deforestation, as fewer trees need to be cut down in order to make room for crop fields. Others yet have been altered such that they do not require the use of insecticides or fungicides. This addresses various health concerns associated with such pesticides and can also work to improve biodiversity within the area in which these crops are grown.

In a review of Borlaug's 2000 publication entitled Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry, the authors argued that Borlaug's warnings were still true in 2010,

GM crops are as natural and safe as today's bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality global food insecurity would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve.
— Rozwadowski and Kagale

Research conducted by the GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence (GRACE) program through the EU between 2007 and 2013 focused on many uses of GM crops and evaluated many facets of their effects on human, animal, and environmental health.

The body of scientific evidence concluding that GM foods are safe to eat and do not pose environmental risks is wide. Findings from the International Council of Scientists (2003) that analyzed a selection of approximately 50 science-based reviews concluded that "currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat," and "there is no evidence of any deleterious environmental effects having occurred from the trait/species combinations currently available." The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) supported the same consensus a year later in addition to recommending the extension of biotechnology to the developing world. Similarly, the Royal Society (2003) and British Medical Association (2004) found no adverse health effects of consuming genetically modified foods. These findings supported the conclusions of earlier studies by the European Union Research Directorate, a compendium of 81 scientific studies conducted by more than 400 research teams did not show "any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding." Likewise, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Europe (OECD) and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) did not find that genetically modified foods posed a health risk. EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Fischer, Klara (2016-07-01). "Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral—A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution". Research Policy. 45 (6): 1185–1194. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.007.
^ Wedding, K. (2013). Pathways to productivity: The role of GMOs for food security in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Rowman and Littlefield.
^ Stone, Glenn Davis; Glover, Dominic (2016-04-16). "Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines". Agriculture and Human Values. 34: 87–102. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1. ISSN 0889-048X. S2CID 16474458.
^ "Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises | The Source | Washington University in St. Louis". 2016-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-12-12. Retrieved 2016-07-31.
^ Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration. Rep. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2007. FAO. Web.
^ Cryoconservation of Animal Genetic Resources.Rep. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 12. Print.
^ www.gmo-compass.org. "GMO Crop Growing: Growing Around the World". www.gmo-compass.org. Archived from the original on 2016-08-06. Retrieved 2016-07-31.
^ www.gmo-compass.org. "Cotton – GMO Database". www.gmo-compass.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-31. Retrieved 2016-07-31.
^ TeBeest, D. (2007). "Rice Blast". The Plant Health Instructor. doi:10.1094/phi-i-2007-0313-07. Archived from the original on 2016-06-29.
^ Shew, Aaron M.; Nalley, Lawton L.; Danforth, Diana M.; Dixon, Bruce L.; Nayga, Rodolfo M.; Delwaide, Anne-Cecile; Valent, Barbara (2016-01-01). "Are all GMOs the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India" (PDF). Plant Biotechnology Journal. 14 (1): 4–7. doi:10.1111/pbi.12442. hdl:2097/33968. ISSN 1467-7652. PMID 26242818. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ Makinde, D. (2009). "Status of Biotechnology in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities". Asian Biotechnology and Development Review. 11 (3).
^ Gerasimova, Ksenia (2015-06-11). "Debates on Genetically Modified Crops in the Context of Sustainable Development". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (2): 525–547. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9656-y. ISSN 1353-3452. PMID 26062746. S2CID 22512421.
^ Borlaug, N.E. (2000), "Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry", Plant Physiology, 124 (2): 487–490, doi:10.1104/pp.124.2.487, PMC 1539278, PMID 11027697
^ Rozwadowski, Kevin; Kagale, Sateesh, Global Food Security: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology Commentary (PDF), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015, retrieved 12 January 2014
^ International Council for Science, "New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas," 2003.
^ Entine, J. (ed), "Let them Eat Precaution: How politics is undermining the genetic revolution in agriculture," The AEI Press: Washington, DC, 2005.
^ Royal Society, "Royal Society Submission to the Government's GM Science Review," Royal Society, Policy Document: 14/03, May 2003
^ British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education, "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement," British Medical Association, May 2004.
^ European Union (EU) Research Directorate, GMOs: Are there any Risks?. EU Commission press briefing, 9 October 2001. Accessed at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/index.html Archived 2006-04-25 at the Wayback Machine
^ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) "GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties, and Assessment, Rapporteurs' Summary." The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods, 28 February – 1 March, 2000.
^ Millstone, E., and J. Abraham. 1988. Additives: A guide for everyone. London: Penguin. Nuffield Council on Bioethics "Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues," 1999.

EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Needs updating?

Much of the information currently given is now 10-20 years old and possibly out of date. I will try to find some newer scientific sources. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. If anything needs to be updated in re: WP:GMORFC, I'd be very interested in discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to help out a bit too. I wanted to clean it up the article a little but I'm mindful that this is a sensitive page so wanted to proceed carefully. I just wanted to ask should this page mention gm animals as it is a dedicated crops page (eg in the history section)? I wanted to remove mention to animals but perhaps cross reference to Genetically modified food. -- Sporesalad (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good question, about animals. I would take "crops" to mean plants only, but I can see an argument to the contrary, so I'd like to hear more opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with largely plants only, though there's weird edge cases like algae that aren't really plants. Functionally, I'd say farmed primary producers.

If there's mention of genetically modified animals, it's probably best only when there's a topic here that covers both, but I wouldn't delve into animals here in significant depth. People may talk about a "crop" of calves in the beef cattle world, but that's more jargon than anything. KoA (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. The GM animals page is the right location for such content. I'm fine with including algae here, as, in effect, a non-animal crop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

[1] Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34: 1–12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

[2] "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).

[3] Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188: 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).

[4] But see also:
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.
Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 1–32. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.
And contrast:
Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 1–5. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.
The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.
and
Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).
Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."

[5] "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: 'The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.' The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: 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.
Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could 'Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers'". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

[6] "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)" (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

[7] "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: )
"Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

[8] "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.

[9] "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.

[10] "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

[11] Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21: 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.

[12] Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle: "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.
When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.
The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

[13] Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.

[14] Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2: 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.

[15] Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

[16] Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243.

[17] "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

[18] Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

[19] Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.

[20] Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 24, 2016.

[282] Fischer, Klara (2016-07-01). "Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral—A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution". Research Policy. 45 (6): 1185–1194. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.007.

[283] Wedding, K. (2013). Pathways to productivity: The role of GMOs for food security in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Rowman and Littlefield.

[284] Stone, Glenn Davis; Glover, Dominic (2016-04-16). "Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines". Agriculture and Human Values. 34: 87–102. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1. ISSN 0889-048X. S2CID 16474458.

[285] "Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises | The Source | Washington University in St. Louis". 2016-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-12-12. Retrieved 2016-07-31.

[286] Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration. Rep. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2007. FAO. Web.

[287] Cryoconservation of Animal Genetic Resources.Rep. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 12. Print.

[288] www.gmo-compass.org. "GMO Crop Growing: Growing Around the World". www.gmo-compass.org. Archived from the original on 2016-08-06. Retrieved 2016-07-31.

[289] www.gmo-compass.org. "Cotton – GMO Database". www.gmo-compass.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-31. Retrieved 2016-07-31.

[290] TeBeest, D. (2007). "Rice Blast". The Plant Health Instructor. doi:10.1094/phi-i-2007-0313-07. Archived from the original on 2016-06-29.

[291] Shew, Aaron M.; Nalley, Lawton L.; Danforth, Diana M.; Dixon, Bruce L.; Nayga, Rodolfo M.; Delwaide, Anne-Cecile; Valent, Barbara (2016-01-01). "Are all GMOs the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India" (PDF). Plant Biotechnology Journal. 14 (1): 4–7. doi:10.1111/pbi.12442. hdl:2097/33968. ISSN 1467-7652. PMID 26242818. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[292] Makinde, D. (2009). "Status of Biotechnology in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities". Asian Biotechnology and Development Review. 11 (3).

[293] Gerasimova, Ksenia (2015-06-11). "Debates on Genetically Modified Crops in the Context of Sustainable Development". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (2): 525–547. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9656-y. ISSN 1353-3452. PMID 26062746. S2CID 22512421.

[294] Borlaug, N.E. (2000), "Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry", Plant Physiology, 124 (2): 487–490, doi:10.1104/pp.124.2.487, PMC 1539278, PMID 11027697

[295] Rozwadowski, Kevin; Kagale, Sateesh, Global Food Security: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology Commentary (PDF), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015, retrieved 12 January 2014

[296] International Council for Science, "New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas," 2003.

[297] Entine, J. (ed), "Let them Eat Precaution: How politics is undermining the genetic revolution in agriculture," The AEI Press: Washington, DC, 2005.

[298] Royal Society, "Royal Society Submission to the Government's GM Science Review," Royal Society, Policy Document: 14/03, May 2003

[299] British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education, "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement," British Medical Association, May 2004.

[300] European Union (EU) Research Directorate, GMOs: Are there any Risks?. EU Commission press briefing, 9 October 2001. Accessed at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/index.html Archived 2006-04-25 at the Wayback Machine

[301] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) "GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties, and Assessment, Rapporteurs' Summary." The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods, 28 February – 1 March, 2000.

[302] Millstone, E., and J. Abraham. 1988. Additives: A guide for everyone. London: Penguin. Nuffield Council on Bioethics "Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues," 1999.

Talk:Genetically modified crops

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

Any of this content useful? Cut from food security.

Opposition to GM crops

Support of GM crops

Needs updating?

Wikious

Boobota

Sagapedia