Information

Are the changes required to produce genetically manipulated organisms (GMOS) considered to be mutations

Are the changes required to produce genetically manipulated organisms (GMOS) considered to be mutations


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By definition, are mutations required to be natural, or are synthetic lab-induced genetic changes considered mutations too? Furthermore, are genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs) considered forced mutants?


What is a mutation?

A mutation is any change to the DNA sequence. From wikipedia

In biology, a mutation is the permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.

Whether a given alteration to the DNA sequence occurred in nature or in a lab changes nothing to the fact that we call this alteration a mutation.

How common are mutations?

Just so that you realize how common mutations are: In humans, a couple having a baby typically transmit about 40 new mutations to this baby. This mutation rate is not quite the same between women and men (see Kong et al.(2012)).

What is a GMO?

I have never seen the term "forced mutants" before but it sounds like you might have a misrepresentation of what GMOs are and esp. in your misrepresentation, you might think that there is such natural category which are GMOs and other that are non GMOs but the boundaries between the two is more than vague.

Consider for example that the vast majority of our food has been manipulated by humans through artificial selection. Check out the ancestor of modern-day corn (from Genetic Society of America; original source: teosinte.wisc.edu; thanks @John)

This evolutionary change occurred via artificial selection mainly and without using modern genetic tools.


From NIH :

A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene, such that the sequence differs from what is found in most people. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes.

So both naturally occurring, and lab-induced modifications could be considered mutations.

I've never come across the term "forced mutants", but for perspective, a GMO can be created by purposefully exposing the organism to radiation in a controlled manner. In the wild, it is possible that organisms are thusly exposed as well, but in an uncontrolled manner.

For further reading, see this article.


This really is semantics.

There is no clear-cut definition of mutation, whatever you find in a dictionary or in an anonymous article in Wikipedia. However most molecular biologist have a certain picture in their minds when they see or hear the word 'mutation', and a certain picture in their minds when they see or hear the phrase 'genetic manipulation of an organism'.

The two pictures in my mind are very different, but tend to be related to the extent and complexity of the changes rather than whether they occur in the environment or are produced in the laboratory.

Mutation

In plain English mutation just means change, but in molecular genetics one thinks of small-scale changes: base changes, additions or deletions of a base or a short stretch of bases. Those that occur in the environment are random in the general sense, and originally this was also true of those induce in the laboratory through agents such as mutagenic chemicals or ionizing radiation. With advances in recombinant DNA technology the changes could be directed: introduced at particular points in order to produce the desired mutation - site-directed mutagenesis. However the picture is one of small changes, even if they can have major consequences. Certainly the fact that the mutation is directed to produce the desired outcome (presumably what the poster means by 'forced' - although this term is not in common use.)

Genetic Manipulation

Genetic manipulated organisms (whether bacteria or mammals) often have a completely new gene inserted into them so that they can produce an entirely different protein - something non-functional like a fluorescent protein, or practical utility like insulin or a protein that provides a plant with resistance to pesticides. The organism is certainly changed, but 'engineered' would seem more descriptive of the extent of the change and the technology involved than 'mutated'. (And although one of the other answers suggests there is no difference in principle between directed plant breeding and and such manipulations, this seems a little ingenuous to me. There is no way you could breed corn so that it expressed the green fluorescent protein from jellyfish.)

My apparently subjective remarks on genetic manipulated organisms and the non-use (or less frequent use) of the term 'mutation' is supported by the abstracts you find on googling for GMOs. I cite the first four below:

A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is an organism that has had its DNA altered or modified in some way through genetic engineering.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism).

Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture…

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering.


Summary: The vast diversity in gene sequences are what create the large variety of plants and animals we see today. Genetic diversity is crucial for adapting to new environments, as more variation in genes leads to more individuals of a population having favorable traits to withstand harsh conditions. Low genetic diversity, on the other hand, can be very problematic during changing environments, as all individuals will react similarly. It is assumed that genetically engineered modifications may affect the genetic diversity of a population through crossbreeding or uncontrolled growth therefore, many researchers are investigating whether this is true and how it might be prevented.

For billions of years, evolution has given rise to the diverse life forms on Earth today. This process has created species with wide-ranging traits and characteristics however, producing desired agricultural products by natural evolution or selective breeding can be very slow. Now that researchers have a better understanding of genetic engineering, it has become possible to bypass evolution by introducing genetic modifications into plants and animals in the lab. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are advantageous for the food supply because they contribute to faster crop production (see this article and this article), pest resistance (see this article and this article), and more nutritious food sources (see this article). Despite these benefits of GMOs, it is imperative to first understand the risks of producing GMOs before introducing them into the wild.

A major concern of genetically modified organisms is that they will cause reduced genetic diversity of plants and animals in the environment. What this means is that the DNA, which codes for proteins in an organism, will become more similar between individuals of a species. Genetic diversity is directly related to biodiversity, the variability in the traits of organisms that make up an ecosystem, because diversity in DNA will inform the characteristics of the organisms that make up a population. Maintaining genetic diversity is important for the environment and agriculture because increased variability in DNA will provide a better opportunity for organisms to adapt to a changing environment.

One example of when a lack of genetic diversity contributed to a major agricultural problem is the potato famine that afflicted Ireland in the mid 1800s. At this time, Ireland was heavily dependent on potatoes for nutrition, and the type of potatoes they cultivated were not grown from seeds. Instead, they planted sections from a parent potato. In this way, all potatoes were clones of their parents and contained identical genetic information. The lack of genetic variability in these potato crops proved detrimental when an invasive pathogen, P. infestans, wiped out the entire population [1]. Because all potatoes had nearly identical genes, there were no populations of potatoes with favorable traits that allowed them to evade P. infestans. Had Ireland grown different varieties of potato crops with more genetic diversity, it would have been more likely for a population of potatoes to contain genes that provide resistance to the pathogen. If a large enough percentage of potato crops in Ireland were resistant to P. infestans, perhaps this famine would not have been so catastrophic.

Figure 1. Reduced genetic diversity contributes to weak adaptation to changing environments. During the Irish potato famine, most potatoes were clones of their parents with nearly identical gene sequences. Had the population of cultivated potatoes been more genetically diverse (top panel), many potatoes would have had a greater opportunity to survive the deadly pathogen, P. infestans. However, because there was low genetic diversity in Irish potatoes at the time, a vast majority of potato crops were wiped out by the pathogen (bottom panel).

So how might GMOs affect genetic diversity? One possibility is that GMOs may crossbreed with wild plants or animals. A second is that favorable traits could allow GMOs to take over a population. It is easy to speculate how these situations would lead to changes in genetic diversity, but have they ever been observed with GMOs growing today?


Frequently Asked Questions

The Non-GMO Project is a 501c(3) nonprofit organization located in Bellingham, Washington. The Non-GMO Project is governed by a Board of Directors. We also work with a collaborative network of technical and expert advisors from a broad and diverse range of backgrounds and sectors to develop the Non-GMO Project Standard, which independent Technical Administrators use to evaluate products to determine if they are compliant with the Standard.

2. What does it mean when I see the Non-GMO Project Verified butterfly label on a product?

The Non-GMO Project Verified mark assures consumers that the product bearing the label has been evaluated for compliance with the Non-GMO Standard, which can be found on the Non-GMO Project’s website. The URL is also included as part of the verification mark so consumers can easily access more information about what the Non-GMO Project Standard encompasses. The verification mark does not state that a product is “GMO Free,” and it does not state that the product is safer, better or healthier. It simply states the product is compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard.

3. How do products become Non-GMO Project Verified?

The Non-GMO Project Product Verification Program is North America’s most rigorous third-party verification for non-GMO food and products. Third-party verification is the highest quality system when it comes to product labeling and certifications because it ensures products have been comprehensively evaluated by an independent party for compliance. The Non-GMO Project creates the Standard for what it means to be non-GMO, and then independent Technical Administrators evaluate products to determine if they are compliant with the Standard. Independent inspectors and accredited testing laboratories are also part of the Non-GMO Project Verification process, as are ongoing, annual renewal requirements for Non-GMO Project Verified products.

You can read the Non-GMO Project Standard online, for free, anytime, on our website . For more information about the verification process, please read our Verification FAQs .

4. Why is there a URL on the Non-GMO Project Verified label?

The Non-GMO Project’s URL is included as part of the verification mark so consumers can easily access more information about what the Non-GMO Project Verified label means.

5. What does a single-color (e.g., all white) Non-GMO Project Verified label mean?

The full-color and single-color (e.g., all white) versions of our verification mark mean the same thing: the product is Non-GMO Project Verified and compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard. We allow brands to choose colors of the mark at their discretion. Allowing brands to choose the color of the mark can sometimes help them reduce printing costs.

6. Does the Non-GMO Project look at animal feed when evaluating meat or dairy products?

Yes. When you see the Non-GMO Project Verified mark on products made with meat, eggs, or dairy, it means the animals those ingredients came from ate a non-GMO diet compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard. This goes for honey and other apiculture products as well the bees they came from must eat a non-GMO diet and live at least four miles away from the nearest GMO crops.

7. What’s the difference between Non-GMO Project Verified and Organic?

Organic certifications are run directly by the government in Canada and the United States. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency operates the Canada Organic Regime, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service operates the National Organic Program (NOP). These government programs set rules for how animals are raised, how crops are grown, and how pests are treated. The U.S. has a list of prohibited substances Canada has a list of permitted substances. Neither program allows synthetic pesticides or growth hormones. These programs do not allow GMOs either, but they also do not require ongoing testing for them. In contrast, Non-GMO Project verification does require ongoing testing, and the Standard itself is continually reviewed and refined as we learn more about GMOs.

The Non-GMO Project is an independent, non-profit organization. As a single-issue organization, the Non-GMO Project only evaluates products for GMO avoidance. The Non-GMO Project is designed to honor the NOP’s excellent guidelines for traceability and segregation and build on the work that certified organic companies are already doing, with the added measure of ongoing testing of risk ingredients at critical control points.

8. Are Non-GMO Project Verified products tested for chemicals such as glyphosate?

No. The Non-GMO Project is a single-issue certification the only thing the Non-GMO Project tests for is GMOs.

9. Why does the Non-GMO Project verify products like orange juice and cat litter?

Many products that seem unlikely to come from GMOs can actually contain hidden GMO risks, such as exposure to GMOs based on the way a product is harvested or manufactured.

• Although GMO oranges are not yet approved for commercial production, the EPA has approved large-scale field testing of citrus trees that have been genetically engineered to resist citrus greening. There is a history of supply chain contamination from unapproved GMOs like these the Non-GMO Project carefully monitors crop development and contamination events to ensure that products like orange juice with the Butterfly on it stay non-GMO.

• Cat litter is sometimes made from non-risk sand or clay, but many brands contain GMO corn.

• Some table salts contain additional ingredients, including anti-caking or stabilizing agents which can be made from GMOs. The Non-GMO Project verification mark ensures that any additional ingredients meet our rigorous Standard. Pure salt is unique in that it is an ingredient that the Standard requires to be removed from evaluation for GMO contamination. The salt market has changed considerably in the 10+ years since the Project started verifying products. With an increase in pure salt products now available on grocery store shelves, the Non-GMO Project has excluded 100% pure salt products from the Verification program. Salt products that contain additional ingredients will continue to be eligible for Verification, providing consumers with the information they need to make an informed choice while shopping. Unless the product is 100% pure salt, look for the Butterfly to avoid GMOs!

10. Why does the Non-GMO Project verify single-ingredient products, like fresh produce, that are not currently at risk for being GMO?

The Project verifies single-ingredient products that are not currently at risk for being GMO, like blueberries or grapes, so that consumers do not have to bear the burden of knowing which crops are currently being genetically engineered and which ingredients are derived from these GMOs. The average consumer may not be tracking the commercial availability of GMO products as closely as the Non-GMO Project, and may not have such information readily available, especially because this information may change as biotechnology evolves. For those consumers who want to avoid GMOs, the Project’s verification mark is a convenient and reliable way to distinguish quickly which products meet our Standard without having to study or analyze an ingredient list. The Non-GMO Project Verified mark, when used properly by a food supplier, assures consumers that a product bearing our mark has met all of the requirements to obtain Non-GMO Project verification.

11. Why might I see the words “modified” or “artificial” on an ingredient panel of a Non-GMO Project Verified product?

“Artificial” does not mean that an ingredient has been genetically modified, it means it is not found in nature and must be synthesized by humans in a lab. It is important to understand that while artificial does not inherently mean something is a GMO, some artificial ingredients do come from GMOs — especially products of GMO microorganisms. Those types of artificial ingredients are addressed in the Non-GMO Project Standard.

The “modified” in modified corn starch (and other types of modified starches) does not stand for “genetically modified.” In this context, “modified” simply means that the corn starch has been changed or altered in some way to make it more useful in food production. Corn starch is a GMO risk because it contains corn, NOT because it sometimes says “modified.” Rest assured, if a product bears the Non-GMO Project Verified mark, it has been found compliant with North America’s most trusted Standard for GMO avoidance.

12. How do you test for GMOs made with new techniques such as CRISPR?

Testing labs have not yet developed commercial tests for many of the products of the newer genetic engineering techniques. Until such tests are developed, the Non-GMO Project Standard requires affidavit evidence for inputs (ingredients) at risk of being products of newer techniques, like gene editing. It is important to note that these requirements are within the context of the Project’s rigorous verification program, which includes segregation and traceability measures and testing for major (testable) GMO risk ingredients. In this way, we help protect the supply chain from unchecked contamination by these ingredients. The Non-GMO Project is the only certification in North America that rigorously and specifically prohibits products of new GMO techniques like gene editing.

13. Are products bearing the Non-GMO Project Verified seal “GMO Free”?

Unfortunately, “GMO Free” and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology. In addition, the risk of contamination to seeds, crops, ingredients and products is too high to reliably claim that a product is “GMO Free.” The Project’s claim (i.e., Non-GMO Project Verified) offers a true statement acknowledging the reality of contamination risk, but assuring the shopper that the product in question is in compliance with the Project’s rigorous Standard. While the Non-GMO Project Verified seal is not a “GMO free” claim, it is trustworthy, defensible, transparent, and North America’s only third party verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance.

GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The most familiar genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are modified with transgenic techniques, which have been available since the mid-90s. These GMOs are essentially living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Products of new genetic engineering techniques (e.g., CRISPR, TALEN, RNA interference, ODM, and gene drives) are also GMOs.

2. What modifications are made to GMOs and why?

Most GMOs have been engineered to withstand the direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. However, new techniques (such as CRISPR, RNAi, ODM) are now being used to artificially develop other traits in plants, including resistance to browning in potatoes, and to create new organisms.

3. Aren’t all crops genetically modified because they change over time?

No. Genetically modified organisms are distinct from crops that have been bred using traditional cross breeding methods. GMOs are only created through the use of genetic engineering or biotechnology, not through processes that could occur in nature. Regardless of whether foreign DNA is used, any process where nucleic acid is engineered in a laboratory is genetic engineering, and the resulting products are GMOs. This also includes what is sometimes referred to as “synthetic biology” or “synbio.”

Some crops have genetically modified versions that are widely commercially produced. These are corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, papaya, potato, sugar beet, and zucchini.

Many GMO crops are refined and turned into processed ingredients such as: corn starch, corn syrup, canola oil, sugar, molasses, soy lecithin, soy hemoglobin, citric acid, cellulose, maltodextrin, flavorings, vitamins, and anything that says “vegetable” but is not specific.

5. What is genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering, also called biotechnology or bioengineering, is the process scientists use to make GMOs (genetically modified organisms). It includes any process in which genetic material is artificially manipulated in a laboratory, and may involve creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Genetic engineering also includes newer forms of biotechnology such as CRISPR, TALEN, RNAi, ODM, and gene drives.

6. What is biotechnology?

Biotechnology is another term for genetic engineering it is the application of: a. in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles or b. the fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcame natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.

7. What does non-GMO mean? What does Non-GMO Project Verified mean?

Non-GMO means a product was produced without genetic engineering and its ingredients are not derived from GMOs. Non-GMO Project Verified additionally means that a product is compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard, which includes stringent provisions for testing, traceability, and segregation. Only Non-GMO Project Verified products are allowed to use the verification mark. Importantly, the mark includes the Project’s URL, where consumers can look up the Standard to better understand what it means.

8. What does “high risk” mean? What crops are high risk?

When the Non-GMO Project says a crop (also referred to as an input or an ingredient) is “high-risk,” it does not mean that the crop is harmful or worse than other crops. It means a GMO version of that crop is widely commercially available, and that crop is therefore at “high risk” of being a GMO.

Example: Corn is high risk because over 90 percent of corn grown in North America is GMO corn — it is widely commercially available.

High-risk crops currently include alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, potato, soy, sugar beet, and zucchini. Find more information about high-risk crops and inputs here.

9. What does “monitored risk” and “low risk” mean? What crops or ingredients are being monitored or at low risk for GMO contamination?

Ingredients and inputs derived for which genetically modified counterparts are in the research and development stages, which have been developed but are not widely commercially available, or for which known GMO contamination has occurred are closely tracked and monitored by the Non-GMO Project, and thus are considered to be “monitored risk.”

Example: There are GMO varieties of crops, such as wheat, mustard, flax and rice, that exist, but are currently not being used commercially. The Non-GMO Project considers these crops to be “monitored risk.”

“Low-risk” ingredients, on the other hand, are inputs or ingredients that are at a low risk of being produced through genetic engineering or from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because no known GMO counterparts currently exist.

Example: Lentils are low risk because there aren’t any GMO lentils — they are not widely commercially available.

10. Do we need GMOs to feed the growing human population?

No. Nearly all GMOs are used to make animal feed or automobile fuel — not food for humans. When GMOs are in human food, they tend to show up as non-nutritious processed ingredients such as oils and sugars or preservatives and emulsifiers. GMO crops are not about feeding the world but about patented ownership of the food supply. After the Dow-Dupont and Bayer-Monsanto mergers, just three chemical companies now control about 60 percent of the world’s seed supply.

11. How do GMOs affect farmers?

Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. GMOs, therefore, pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States and Canada.

12. How do GMOs impact the environment?
Over 80 percent of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides such as Roundup has increased 15 fold since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “superweeds” and “superbugs,” which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.


Frequently Asked Questions

The Non-GMO Project is a 501c(3) nonprofit organization located in Bellingham, Washington. The Non-GMO Project is governed by a Board of Directors. We also work with a collaborative network of technical and expert advisors from a broad and diverse range of backgrounds and sectors to develop the Non-GMO Project Standard, which independent Technical Administrators use to evaluate products to determine if they are compliant with the Standard.

2. What does it mean when I see the Non-GMO Project Verified butterfly label on a product?

The Non-GMO Project Verified mark assures consumers that the product bearing the label has been evaluated for compliance with the Non-GMO Standard, which can be found here. The URL is also included as part of the verification mark so consumers can easily access more information about what the Non-GMO Project Standard encompasses. The verification mark does not state that a product is “GMO Free,” and it does not state that the product is safer, better or healthier. It simply states the product is compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard.

3. How do products become Non-GMO Project Verified?

The Non-GMO Project Product Verification Program is North America’s most rigorous third-party verification for non-GMO food and products. Third-party verification is the highest quality system when it comes to product labeling and certifications because it ensures products have been comprehensively evaluated by an independent party for compliance. The Non-GMO Project creates the Standard for what it means to be non-GMO, and then independent Technical Administrators evaluate products to determine if they are compliant with the Standard. Independent inspectors and accredited testing laboratories are also part of the Non-GMO Project Verification process, as are ongoing, annual renewal requirements for Non-GMO Project Verified products.

You can read the Non-GMO Project Standard online, for free, anytime, here . For more information about the verification process, please read our Verification FAQs .

4. Why is there a URL on the Non-GMO Project Verified label?

The Non-GMO Project’s URL is included as part of the verification mark so consumers can easily access more information about what the Non-GMO Project Verified label means.

5. What does a single-color (e.g., all white) Non-GMO Project Verified label mean?

The full-color and single-color (e.g., all white) versions of our verification mark mean the same thing: the product is Non-GMO Project Verified and compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard. We allow brands to choose colors of the mark at their discretion. Allowing brands to choose the color of the mark can sometimes help them reduce printing costs.

6. Does the Non-GMO Project look at animal feed when evaluating meat or dairy products?

Yes. When you see the Non-GMO Project Verified mark on products made with meat, eggs, or dairy, it means the animals those ingredients came from ate a non-GMO diet compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard. This goes for honey and other apiculture products as well the bees they came from must eat a non-GMO diet and live at least four miles away from the nearest GMO crops.

7. What’s the difference between Non-GMO Project Verified and Organic?

Organic certifications are run directly by the government in Canada and the United States. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency operates the Canada Organic Regime, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service operates the National Organic Program (NOP). These government programs set rules for how animals are raised, how crops are grown, and how pests are treated. The U.S. has a list of prohibited substances Canada has a list of permitted substances. Neither program allows synthetic pesticides or growth hormones. These programs do not allow GMOs either, but they also do not require ongoing testing for them. In contrast, Non-GMO Project verification does require ongoing testing, and the Standard itself is continually reviewed and refined as we learn more about GMOs.

The Non-GMO Project is an independent, non-profit organization. As a single-issue organization, the Non-GMO Project only evaluates products for GMO avoidance. The Non-GMO Project is designed to honor the NOP’s excellent guidelines for traceability and segregation and build on the work that certified organic companies are already doing, with the added measure of ongoing testing of risk ingredients at critical control points.

8. Are Non-GMO Project Verified products tested for chemicals such as glyphosate?

No. The Non-GMO Project is a single-issue certification the only thing the Non-GMO Project tests for is GMOs.

9. Why does the Non-GMO Project verify products like orange juice and cat litter?

Many products that seem unlikely to come from GMOs can actually contain hidden GMO risks, such as exposure to GMOs based on the way a product is harvested or manufactured.

• Although GMO oranges are not yet approved for commercial production, the EPA has approved large-scale field testing of citrus trees that have been genetically engineered to resist citrus greening. There is a history of supply chain contamination from unapproved GMOs like these the Non-GMO Project carefully monitors crop development and contamination events to ensure that products like orange juice with the Butterfly on it stay non-GMO.

• Cat litter is sometimes made from non-risk sand or clay, but many brands contain GMO corn.

• Some table salts contain additional ingredients, including anti-caking or stabilizing agents which can be made from GMOs. The Non-GMO Project verification mark ensures that any additional ingredients meet our rigorous Standard. Pure salt is unique in that it is an ingredient that the Standard requires to be removed from evaluation for GMO contamination. The salt market has changed considerably in the 10+ years since the Project started verifying products. With an increase in pure salt products now available on grocery store shelves, the Non-GMO Project has excluded 100% pure salt products from the Verification program. Salt products that contain additional ingredients will continue to be eligible for Verification, providing consumers with the information they need to make an informed choice while shopping. Unless the product is 100% pure salt, look for the Butterfly to avoid GMOs!

10. Why does the Non-GMO Project verify single-ingredient products, like fresh produce, that are not currently at risk for being GMO?

The Project verifies single-ingredient products that are not currently at risk for being GMO, like blueberries or grapes, so that consumers do not have to bear the burden of knowing which crops are currently being genetically engineered and which ingredients are derived from these GMOs. The average consumer may not be tracking the commercial availability of GMO products as closely as the Non-GMO Project, and may not have such information readily available, especially because this information may change as biotechnology evolves. For those consumers who want to avoid GMOs, the Project’s verification mark is a convenient and reliable way to distinguish quickly which products meet our Standard without having to study or analyze an ingredient list. The Non-GMO Project Verified mark, when used properly by a food supplier, assures consumers that a product bearing our mark has met all of the requirements to obtain Non-GMO Project verification.

11. Why might I see the words “modified” or “artificial” on an ingredient panel of a Non-GMO Project Verified product?

“Artificial” does not mean that an ingredient has been genetically modified, it means it is not found in nature and must be synthesized by humans in a lab. It is important to understand that while artificial does not inherently mean something is a GMO, some artificial ingredients do come from GMOs — especially products of GMO microorganisms. Those types of artificial ingredients are addressed in the Non-GMO Project Standard.

The “modified” in modified corn starch (and other types of modified starches) does not stand for “genetically modified.” In this context, “modified” simply means that the corn starch has been changed or altered in some way to make it more useful in food production. Corn starch is a GMO risk because it contains corn, NOT because it sometimes says “modified.” Rest assured, if a product bears the Non-GMO Project Verified mark, it has been found compliant with North America’s most trusted Standard for GMO avoidance.

12. How do you test for GMOs made with new techniques such as CRISPR?

Testing labs have not yet developed commercial tests for many of the products of the newer genetic engineering techniques. Until such tests are developed, the Non-GMO Project Standard requires affidavit evidence for inputs (ingredients) at risk of being products of newer techniques, like gene editing. It is important to note that these requirements are within the context of the Project’s rigorous verification program, which includes segregation and traceability measures and testing for major (testable) GMO risk ingredients. In this way, we help protect the supply chain from unchecked contamination by these ingredients. The Non-GMO Project is the only certification in North America that rigorously and specifically prohibits products of new GMO techniques like gene editing.

13. Are products bearing the Non-GMO Project Verified seal “GMO Free”?

Unfortunately, “GMO Free” and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology. In addition, the risk of contamination to seeds, crops, ingredients and products is too high to reliably claim that a product is “GMO Free.” The Project’s claim (i.e., Non-GMO Project Verified) offers a true statement acknowledging the reality of contamination risk, but assuring the shopper that the product in question is in compliance with the Project’s rigorous Standard. While the Non-GMO Project Verified seal is not a “GMO free” claim, it is trustworthy, defensible, transparent, and North America’s only third party verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance.

GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The most familiar genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are modified with transgenic techniques, which have been available since the mid-90s. These GMOs are essentially living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Products of new genetic engineering techniques (e.g., CRISPR, TALEN, RNA interference, ODM, and gene drives) are also GMOs.

2. What modifications are made to GMOs and why?

Most GMOs have been engineered to withstand the direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. However, new techniques (such as CRISPR, RNAi, ODM) are now being used to artificially develop other traits in plants, including resistance to browning in potatoes, and to create new organisms.

3. Aren’t all crops genetically modified because they change over time?

No. Genetically modified organisms are distinct from crops that have been bred using traditional cross breeding methods. GMOs are only created through the use of genetic engineering or biotechnology, not through processes that could occur in nature. Regardless of whether foreign DNA is used, any process where nucleic acid is engineered in a laboratory is genetic engineering, and the resulting products are GMOs. This also includes what is sometimes referred to as “synthetic biology” or “synbio.”

Some crops have genetically modified versions that are widely commercially produced. These are corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, papaya, potato, sugar beet, and zucchini.

Many GMO crops are refined and turned into processed ingredients such as: corn starch, corn syrup, canola oil, sugar, molasses, soy lecithin, soy hemoglobin, citric acid, cellulose, maltodextrin, flavorings, vitamins, and anything that says “vegetable” but is not specific.

5. What is genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering, also called biotechnology or bioengineering, is the process scientists use to make GMOs (genetically modified organisms). It includes any process in which genetic material is artificially manipulated in a laboratory, and may involve creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Genetic engineering also includes newer forms of biotechnology such as CRISPR, TALEN, RNAi, ODM, and gene drives.

6. What is biotechnology?

Biotechnology is another term for genetic engineering it is the application of: a. in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles or b. the fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcame natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.

7. What does non-GMO mean? What does Non-GMO Project Verified mean?

Non-GMO means a product was produced without genetic engineering and its ingredients are not derived from GMOs. Non-GMO Project Verified additionally means that a product is compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard, which includes stringent provisions for testing, traceability, and segregation. Only Non-GMO Project Verified products are allowed to use the verification mark. Importantly, the mark includes the Project’s URL, where consumers can look up the Standard to better understand what it means.

8. What does “high risk” mean? What crops are high risk?

When the Non-GMO Project says a crop (also referred to as an input or an ingredient) is “high-risk,” it does not mean that the crop is harmful or worse than other crops. It means a GMO version of that crop is widely commercially available, and that crop is therefore at “high risk” of being a GMO.

Example: Corn is high risk because over 90 percent of corn grown in North America is GMO corn — it is widely commercially available.

High-risk crops currently include alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, potato, soy, sugar beet, and zucchini. Find more information about high-risk crops and inputs here.

9. What does “monitored risk” and “low risk” mean? What crops or ingredients are being monitored or at low risk for GMO contamination?

Ingredients and inputs derived for which genetically modified counterparts are in the research and development stages, which have been developed but are not widely commercially available, or for which known GMO contamination has occurred are closely tracked and monitored by the Non-GMO Project, and thus are considered to be “monitored risk.”

Example: There are GMO varieties of crops, such as wheat, mustard, flax and rice, that exist, but are currently not being used commercially. The Non-GMO Project considers these crops to be “monitored risk.”

“Low-risk” ingredients, on the other hand, are inputs or ingredients that are at a low risk of being produced through genetic engineering or from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because no known GMO counterparts currently exist.

Example: Lentils are low risk because there aren’t any GMO lentils — they are not widely commercially available.

10. Do we need GMOs to feed the growing human population?

No. Nearly all GMOs are used to make animal feed or automobile fuel — not food for humans. When GMOs are in human food, they tend to show up as non-nutritious processed ingredients such as oils and sugars or preservatives and emulsifiers. GMO crops are not about feeding the world but about patented ownership of the food supply. After the Dow-Dupont and Bayer-Monsanto mergers, just three chemical companies now control about 60 percent of the world’s seed supply.

11. How do GMOs affect farmers?

Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. GMOs, therefore, pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States and Canada.

12. How do GMOs impact the environment?
Over 80 percent of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides such as Roundup has increased 15 fold since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “superweeds” and “superbugs,” which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.


Genetically modified organisms pose unknown and unpredictable threat toward our environment.

There are just not enough studies that show how certain mutation would effect environment, and until comprehensive studies are done humans should not play with the risk of doing more damage to the environment than they have already done. Each genetically modified organism needs its own studies, and permission to use them on a wide scale should only be accepted after all the risks are properly addressed.


Islamic perspective on genetically modified food

Via Islam Great Religion

The Islamic perspective on genetically modified organisms is complex and must be investigated from both traditional and contemporary angles, writes Isabel Schatzschneider, with the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE), an organization based in Qatar that addresses issues from an Islamic perspective.

Islamic teachings on food must first be considered when debating the ethics of genetically engineered crops or animals. The Quran has many passages regarding food ethics, specifically stressing that food must be good, pure and wholesome, or ‘tayyib’ in Arabic. But the question of what food is ‘tayyib’ cannot be easily answered by only consulting religious texts—it requires a discussion involving Islamic scholars as well as scientists and experts.

The major concern, echoing anti-GMO activist claims that genetic modification violates ‘nature,’ revolves around whether GM foods violate the natural order of things. The Quran teaches that no one should change the creations of Allah, but other verses stress that believers who feed the hungry will be rewarded in the afterlife. There are also passages in the Quran which “motivate Muslims to conduct research and investigate God’s creation.” These passages could be seen as promoting the use of biotechnology to genetically alter crops that withstand drought or are resistant to disease or herbicide or enhance nutrition.

There is an Islamic tradition or story about the Prophet Muhammad that can inform the debate. Muhammad was said to have once witnessed farmers graft branches of different species of date palms together to produce higher yields. He is said to have told the farmers to stop, and they obeyed him, but their yields decreased. When the farmers told Muhammad this, he replied that he is only a human being and the farmers should continue grafting.

This story could be used to show that “even back in the time of the Prophet, Arabs were changing food crops through selective breeding” and that Muhammad was open to changing his mind about the practice as he came to know more about farming and agriculture. In this sense, according to Islamic teachings, GM crops could be viewed in a positive light because they could benefit farmers and can help reduce world hunger.

On the other hand, environmental activist organizations have claimed that GM crops can harm humans and the environment, do not lead to higher yields and prevent farmers from saving seeds from large seed companies (which is true of all patented hybrid seeds, including those used by organic and conventional farmers). If these crops could potentially cause harm to farmers, consumers and the environment, Schatzschneider asks, “How can this food be considered ‘tayyib?’”

Iran’s Ayatullah Muhammad Ali al-Taskhiri, a religious leader and diplomat, is “quite optimistic about the outcome of biotechnology” but he also has said that ethical decisions should not be made in haste when scientific evidence is not conclusive. Islam stresses feeding the hungry and helping the poor, but with the uncertainty behind GM technology, it is “difficult from an Islamic viewpoint to declare it as beneficial or not.”


Gmos pose a threat to the environment because

Sounds great, right? Gm foods can be grown easily, withstanding cold or drought, without spraying for pests or weeds. Not only that, but the food can be made more nutritious. So what's the problem? Why so much controversy? Opponents of genetic modification have many criticisms against this new technology. First of all there are multiple environmental concerns. Gm foods can cause harm to other organisms unintentionally. For example, a study published in nature on bt corn found that the pollen caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars, even though the caterpillars don't eat corn. If the bt corn pollen is blown onto neighboring milkweed plants (the caterpillars food source) the caterpillars could eat the pollen and die. The results of this study are under debate, since the experiments were not done in the field, but in a laboratory, and new studies suggest that the original may be flawed. Researchers at the university of guelph performed a study and found that under natural conditions, bt corn does not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly [2]. If pollen is blown onto neighboring plants, the plants could crossbreed and the introduced gene could be transferred to non-target plants. This is a concern if a herbicide resistant crop were to breed with a weed and transfer the herbicide resistance gene. This would create a weed that is unharmed by the chemicals used to kill it. Monsanto has patented their roundup ready seeds, and farmers wishing to use them must purchase a license from the company. This can lead to trouble for farmers who don't use the Monsanto seeds. Perry schmeiser is a canola farmer in western Canada who has never bought seeds from Monsanto. In 1998 he was sued by Monsanto since they discovered roundup ready canola in his field. Schmeiser claims that the seed was blown in from neighboring fields, but Monsanto believes he obtained it illegally or stole it. Regardless of how it was obtained, Monsanto felt this was patent infringement and took schmeiser to court in June of 2000. This court battle captured the interest of farmers around the world, because even if they did not intend or even want to have patented seeds in their fields, they could be sued. The judge ruled in favor of Monsanto and stated that it didn't matter how the seed got into schmeiser's field. Whether it was blown in, cross-pollinated by birds, bees or animals, fell off farmer's trucks or migrated from a neighbor's field, it is still patent infringement, and the plants were to become the property of Monsanto. All of schmeiser's profits from 1998 were awarded to Monsanto since there was a probability of having the genetically altered seeds throughout his fields. Insect pests may also become resistant to the toxins produced by gm crops like bt corn. It is now known that some bacteria are becoming antibiotic resistant (so-called superbugs') making it difficult to treat diseases such as tuberculosis. Likewise, opponents of gmos believe that insects could become pesticide resistant making them difficult to control in the future. This process is called mutation. Along with environmental concerns, there are also worries about the effects that gm foods can have on humans. There are concerns that introducing a new gene into a food could cause an allergic reaction in some people (for example, if the gene came from a nut). Most scientists believe that other than allergic reactions, gm foods do not pose a threat to human health, however as with all new products, no long-term studies have been performed.


Risks and Precautions of Genetically Modified Organisms

Commercial potential of biotechnology is immense since the scope of its activity covers the entire spectrum of human life. The most potent biotechnological approach is the transfer of specifically constructed gene assemblies through various techniques. However, this deliberate modification and the resulting entities thereof have become the bone of contention all over the world. Benefits aside, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have always been considered a threat to environment and human health. In view of this, it has been considered necessary by biosafety regulations of individual countries to test the feasibility of GMOs in contained and controlled environments for any potential risks they may pose. This paper describes the various aspects of risk, its assessment, and management which are imperative in decision making regarding the safe use of GMOs. Efficient efforts are necessary for implementation of regulations. Importance of the risk assessment, management, and precautionary approach in environmental agreements and activism is also discussed.

1. Introduction

Modern biotechnology has allowed the movement of genetic material across unrelated species, something impossible with the traditional breeding methods. This intentional transfer of genetic material has in turn brought biotechnology out from the laboratory to the field. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially modified to change their characteristics in some way or another [1]. In essence, “genetic modification” or “genetic engineering” techniques enable scientists to find individual genes that control particular characteristics, separate them from the original source, and transfer them directly into the cells of an animal, plant, bacterium, or virus. This technology has many potential applications [2]. These new opportunities bring along greater public scrutiny and government regulation. Risk assessment is a common regulatory tool used in the decision-making process for a proposed commercial release of a GMO into the environment [3, 4].

Environmental applications of microorganisms are wide and varied, ranging from bioremediation, biopesticides, nitrogen fixation, plant growth promoter, to biocontrol of plant diseases, and other such agricultural practices. The sensible application of recombinant DNA techniques has shown the potential for genetically improved microorganisms to be used as soil or seed inoculants [5–8]. However, when introduced into the environment, they could have unintended environmental consequences and may play more pronounced ecological roles than the wild types [9–11]. Genetically improved microorganisms are able to reproduce and establish themselves as persistent populations and may have subtle and long-term effects on biological communities and natural ecosystems [12]. Results of DNA modification may not be limited only to the particular characteristics of the replaced gene. It is therefore important to ensure that when these organisms are released into nature they do not harm the environment or human health [13]. Such concerns have led to broader interests in the theme of risk assessment in the release of GMOs. A cautious approach is necessary to assess environmental risks which may occur due to introduction of recombinant organisms in the natural environment [14].

2. Risks Related to the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms Ecological Stability of the GMO

The application of genetic modification allows genetic material to be transferred from any species into plants or other organisms. The introduction of a gene into different cells can result in different outcomes, and the overall pattern of gene expression can be altered by the introduction of a single gene. The sequence of the gene and its role in the donor organism may have a relatively well-characterized function in the organism from which it is isolated. However, this apparent “precision” in the understanding of a gene does not mean that the consequences of the transfer are known or can be predicted [15]. Copies of a gene may be integrated, additional fragments inserted, and gene sequences rearranged and deleted—which may result in lack of operation of the genes instability or interference with other gene functions possibly cause some potential risks [16]. Therefore, there could be a number of predictable and unpredictable risks related to release of GMOs in the open environment. The report prepared by the Law Centre of IUCN, the World Conservation Union (2004), enlists numerous environmental risks likely to occur by the use of GMOs in the field. These risks are as follows.

Each gene may control several different traits in a single organism. Even the insertion of a single gene can impact the entire genome of the host resulting in unintended side effects, all of which may not be recognizable at the same time. It is difficult to predict this type of risk.

Genetic Contamination/Interbreeding
Introduced GMOs may interbreed with the wild-type or sexually compatible relatives. The novel trait may disappear in wild types unless it confers a selective advantage to the recipient. However, tolerance abilities of wild types may also develop, thus altering the native species’ ecological relationship and behaviour.

Competition with Natural Species
Faster growth of GMOs can enable them to have a competitive advantage over the native organisms. This may allow them to become invasive, to spread into new habitats, and cause ecological and economic damage.

Increased Selection Pressure on Target and Nontarget Organisms
Pressure may increase on target and nontarget species to adapt to the introduced changes as if to a geological change or a natural selection pressure causing them to evolve distinct resistant populations.

Ecosystem Impacts
The effects of changes in a single species may extend well beyond to the ecosystem. Single impacts are always joined by the risk of ecosystem damage and destruction.

Impossibility of Followup
Once the GMOs have been introduced into the environment and some problems arise, it is impossible to eliminate them. Many of these risks are identical to those incurred with regards to the introduction of naturally or conventionally bred species. But still this does not suggest that GMOs are safe or beneficial, nor that they should be less scrutinized.

Horizontal Transfer of Recombinant Genes to Other Microorganisms
One risk of particular concern relating to GMOs is the risk of horizontal gene transfer (HGT). HGT is the acquisition of foreign genes (via transformation, transduction, and conjugation) by organisms in a variety of environmental situations. It occurs especially in response to changing environments and provides organisms, especially prokaryotes, with access to genes other than those that can be inherited [17, 18].
HGT of an introduced gene from a GMO may confer a novel trait in another organism, which could be a source of potential harm to the health of people or the environment. For example, the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to a pathogen has the potential to compromise human or animal therapy [19]. HGT has been observed for many different bacteria, for many genes, and in many different environments. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that recombinant genes would not spread to other bacteria, unless precautions are taken. Recent evidence from the HGT technology confirms that transgenic DNA in GM crops and products can spread by being taken up directly by viruses and bacteria as well as plant and animals cells. Very recently, Yoshida et al. [20] reported that HGT also moved from a nuclear monocot gene into the genome of the eudicot parasite witchweed, which infects many grass species in Africa.
Some of the important potential impacts of HGT from GMOs include the following [21].

Adverse Effects on the Health of People or the Environment
These include enhanced pathogenicity, emergence of a new disease, pest or weed, increased disease burden if the recipient organism is a pathogenic microorganism or virus, increased weed or pest burden if the recipient organism is a plant or invertebrate, and adverse effects on species, communities, or ecosystems.

Unpredictable and Unintended Effects
HGT may transfer the introduced genes from a GMO to potential pests or pathogens and many yet to be identified organisms. This may alter the ecological niche or ecological potential of the recipient organism [9] and even bring about unexpected changes in structure or function [22]. Furthermore, the gene transferred may insert at variable sites of the recipient gene, not only introducing a novel gene but also disrupting an endogenous gene, causing unpredictable and unintended effects.

Loss of Management Control Measures
Regulatory approvals for field trials of GMOs often require measures to limit and control the release in space and time. With the spread of the introduced gene(s) to another species by HGT, a new GMO is created. This new GMO may give rise to adverse effects which are not controlled by management measures imposed by the original license or permit.

Long-Term Effects
Sometimes the impact of HGT may be more severe in the long term. Even under relatively strong selection pressure, it may take thousands of generations for a recipient organism to become the dominant form in the population [23]. In addition, other factors such as timing of appropriate biotic or abiotic environmental conditions and additional changes in the recipient organism could delay adverse effects.

Ethical Concerns
Various ethical issues associated with HGT from GMOs have been raised including perceived threats to the integrity and intrinsic value of the organisms involved, to the concept of natural order and integrity of species, and to the integrity of the ecosystems in which the genetically modified organism occurs [24].
Several scientific evidence that has emerged on GMOs over the last couple of years shows that there are several clear risks to human health and the environment. When genetic engineers create GMO or transgenic plants, they have no means of inserting the gene in a particular position. The gene ends up in a random location in the genetic material, and its position is not usually identified [25, 26]. There are already several examples of such undesired effects being identified in the US after approval (e.g., GM cotton with deformed cotton bolls increased lignin in GM soya, etc.) [27]. Releasing genetically modified plants or crop into the environment may have direct effects, including gene transfer to wild relatives or conventional crops, weediness, trait effects on nontarget species, and other unintended effects [28].
It is widely accepted that the gene flow from GM crops is possible through pollen, from open-pollinated varieties crossing with local crops or wild relatives [29]. Because gene flow has happened for millennia between land races and conventionally bred crops, it is reasonable to expect that it could also happen with transgenic crops. Transgenic crops vary in their tendency to outcross, and the ability to outcross depends on the presence of sexually compatible wild relatives or crops, which varies according to location. However, some lines of evidence suggested that whether or not gene flow between transgenic crops and wild relatives matters, in and of itself [15]. If a resulting transgenic/wild hybrid had some competitive advantage over the wild population, it could persist in the environment and potentially disrupt the ecosystem [28, 30].
In addition, some indirect effects of GMO were also observed which potentially harm to the environment. For example, some transgenic traits such as the pesticidal toxins expressed by Bt genes may affect nontarget species as well as the crop pests. It could happen but still uncertain how likely it is [31, 32]. The toxicological studies of Monarch butterfly provide excellent examples, which established the sensitivity of Monarch larvae to consuming Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) expressed in transgenic maize [33], thereby triggering further to assess exposure and population level effects [31]. It was determined that larval exposure to pollen on a population-wide basis was low, given the proportion of larvae in maize fields during pollen shed, the proportion of fields planted in Bt maize, and the levels of pollen within and around maize fields that exceed the toxicity threshold [29, 30]. However, an acute dose, even if several times higher than would be expected in the field, is not equivalent to a low natural chronic dose experienced over a longer period therefore, a two-year study was undertaken and subsequently demonstrated that the risk to Monarch butterfly populations is 0.6% of the total of Monarch butterflies breeding in the North American Corn Belt [31, 34]. These results indicated negligible effects of Bt pollen to Monarch butterfly larvae from extended exposures in field settings.
Extensive long-term use of herbicides glyphosate and gluphosinate in the Bt crops can promote the development of resistant insect pests and weeds. The Royal Society in the year 2003 has published the results of extensive farm-scale evaluations of the impacts of transgenic HT maize, spring oilseed rape (canola), and sugar beet on biodiversity in the United Kingdom. These studies found that the main effect of these crops compared with conventional cropping practices was on weed vegetation, with consequent effects on the herbivores, pollinators, and other populations that are feed on it. These groups were negatively affected in the case of transgenic HT sugar beet, were, positive in case of HT Maiza and showed no effect in spring oilseed rape. However, there is still insufficient evidence to predict what the long-term impacts of transgenic HT crops will be on weed populations and associated in-crop biodiversity.
Most of the ecologists agree that gene flow is not an environmental problem unless it leads to undesirable consequences. In the short term, the spread of transgenic herbicide resistance via gene flow may create logistical and/or economic problems. Over the long term, transgenes that confirm resistance to pests and environmental stress and/or lead to greater seed production have the greatest likelihood of aiding weeds or harming nontarget species [1]. However, these outcomes seem unlikely for most currently grown transgenic crops. Many transgenic traits are likely to be innocuous from an environmental standpoint, and some could lead to more sustainable agricultural practices.

3. Risk Assessment

Risk is ubiquitous and unavoidable. To a great extent, therefore, our modus operandi involves assessment and management of risk. Directly observable risks are assessed and managed through heuristic processes. This direct observation may sometimes be insufficient to establish the nature and extent of risk. In such cases, we rely on other institutions, especially reputation and the rule of law [35]. Biosafety issues pertaining to the marketing of GMOs have received increasing attention by national and international agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide [2, 4, 36]. These are based on a common set of principles built on the accumulation of experience and scientific knowledge over the past decades.

Risk assessment intends to quantify risks and evaluate the probabilities of possible outcomes on the basis of scientific data. It is a fundamental part of improving quality, being the quality of products or the quality of life, and plays a central role in the innovation required to maximize benefits. A critical step in risk assessment is identification of circumstances that may give rise to an adverse effect(s) (risk identification or “what could go wrong’’ step) [25]. The level of risk is then estimated from both the likelihood (“how likely is it to happen’’ step) and severity/consequences (“would it be a problem’’ step) associated with the circumstances of concern. This is then followed by characterization of the risk based on evaluation of likelihood and consequences of the identified adverse effects being realized (“what is the risk’’ step) [11].

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

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the year 2006 introduced an Annex III in the protocol of Article 15 for scientifically sound and transparent risk assessment taking into account risk assessment techniques. Such risk assessments shall be based at a minimum, on information provided in Article 8, and other available scientific evidence in order to identify and evaluate the possible adverse effects on human health and environment. The principles and methodology described in Annex III of the protocol follows the proven, well-accepted risk assessment paradigm, including identification of potential harmful characteristics of modified organisms that may have an adverse effect. Risk are then to be evaluated based on a combined analysis of the likelihood of the identified risks materializing and their consequences. The general principle of this protocol includes the following: (i) lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk (ii) risks should be considered in the context of risks posed by the nonmodified recipients or parental organisms (iii) risks should be assessed on a case-by-base basis.

In addition, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety evaluated the effectiveness of the protocol (COP-MOP) for risk assessment in the Article 35 in the year of 2008 for the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms (LMO) to protect the significant loss of biological diversity.

As in the year 2010, biodiversity target is approaching to revise the current Strategic Plan of the Convention and adopt a new biosafety strategic plan (2011–2020) to implementation of more effective risk assessment strategic plans to protect the risk of GMO/LMO according to the Bureau of COP-MOP/4.

Several pieces of information would be necessary for successful risk assessment prior to release of the GMO (1) molecular characteristics of the GMO with detailed information on genetic changes in the size and sequence, (2) details of the technology used to effect the genetic changes, (3) details of the genes and their properties that have been introduced and the possible effects of any other genetic change brought about in the organism, (4) automated karyotyping and chromosomal analysis, (5) growth characteristics of the GMO in comparison with the host organism, (6) nutrient, soil, climatic, and other requirements, (7) nature of interaction with other organisms, (8) nutritional, allergenicity and toxicity studies in case of products intended for use as food and feed, (9) gene flows from the GMO under normal ecological conditions and its impact on ecology in controlled field trials, and (10) the viability of hybrids plants, its biomass productivity, and chemical composition [37].

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

In 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called “Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations,’’ became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that environmental risk assessments can be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approaches of risk assessment for GMO have been widely accepted. However, the USA. has generally taken a product-based approach of risk assessment and Europe adopted a process-based risk assessment approach for GMO [38].

3.1. Environmental Risk Assessment

Environmental risk assessment (ERA) considers the impact of introducing a GM plant into a given environment. The ERA is concerned with evaluating the potential for harm to ecosystem components given that there is exposure to the GM plant. Importantly, the focus and degree of emphasis on elements of the ERA will change during the development process for the GM plant as the scope of environmental release ranges from confined field trials of limited extent through to larger-scale trials and seed increases in more environments, and to the final unconfined commercial release.

The risk of GMO toward the environment is conducted on a case-by-case basis, is comparative, and uses lines of evidence to arrive at a holistic understanding of the nature and degree of risk posed by the particular type of environmental release being analyzed [39]. In addition, a stepwise or tiered approach of data generation and analysis is used in order that the focus be directed to consequential concerns within the universe of possibilities.

Because the universe of possible concerns relevant to ERA is very large, the process of problem formulation is especially critical in order that the risk assessment be properly framed and conducted [23, 40, 41]. The universe of concerns generally need to be addressed with a few very specific questions within context to release most of the GMOs in the environments with special references to genetically modified plants. Does the genetic modification of the plant cause it to have attributes commonly associated with weeds in managed environments? Invasiveness in natural environments? Will the transgenic element in the GM plant move into native plant populations, and so what if it does? That is, will gene flow cause a native plant to become weedy or invasive (or more so)? Or will isolated populations become extinct through hybridization with the GM plant (gene swamping)? And will the GM plant adversely impact nontarget organisms that may be of special interest because they are beneficial, endangered, threatened, or charismatic? [12]. Problem formulation is a formal process whereby the risk assessor determines relevant considerations for risk assessment from this wide host of possible concerns.

The commercial development of a GM plant proceeds in a stepwise fashion, and environmental release in the first instance is in the form of field trials that are limited in number, size, and environments in which they occur. Finally, with commercialization, the GM plant is widely deployed with little concern for its confinement. Obviously, the nature of environmental impacts that need to be addressed, and therefore the data intensity and degree of scrutiny given these impacts in the ERA, will vary with the stage of development and scale of deployment being considered [42]. In view of this, the environmental risk assessment proceeds in a tiered fashion where the problem formulation considers the specific questions to be addressed and arrives at relevant data, and data synthesis needed to undertake the appropriate ERA [43]. Therefore, the ERA is dynamic with respect to the questions addressed, the data synthesized, and the comprehensiveness of the analysis conducted.

As the environmental risk assessment iterates through tiers, conservatism in conduct and interpretation of findings is balanced against uncertainties in the state of understanding. Thus, lower-tier ERA will be highly conservative to balance uncertainty, and as higher tiers of assessment are needed, increased understanding allows for more realistic (less conservative) appraisals [44].

Risk assessment also focused on the change brought about by genetic engineering allows for detailed consideration of the potential consequences of the change relative to the way the GM plant is intended to be used and the environments in which it may be found. One of the examples of safety for food use of corn engineered to be resistant to insect pests the risk analyst at this stage can ask how specifically the change manifested by genetic transformation/expression of an active protein conferring insect resistance to the plant and may pose risks to consumers of food derived from the GM corn. In terms of potential genetically modified food safety, key considerations are how the change may result in toxicity or allergenicity.

4. Risk Management

Once a risk is assessed, it must be managed. The management of risk is an exclusively political action, resulting in a decision regarding whether to accept or not the risk previously estimated. It can take additional aspects (e.g., socioeconomic or ethical) into consideration and concerns methods used to reduce the scientifically identified risk. Many frameworks of risk assessment methodology separate risk assessment from risk management. Some frameworks, however, consider only certain aspects of risk management (e.g., monitoring) as separate from risk assessment but other aspects of risk management (e.g., consideration of risk mitigation options) to be part of risk assessment methodology, since a final characterization of risks must take into account the effects of any mitigation options that reduce risks. The important aspect is, of course, the iterative and interlinked relationship between risk assessment and risk management [3].

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

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

Risk management process also forms a second focus of the economic/political component of the GMO biosafety issue. Whereas a risk/benefit analysis concludes that risks exist with regard to a GMO introduction or other activity, but are sufficiently outweighed by the benefits of that action, it will probably still be required both practically and legally to take steps to manage the risk and to ensure that damage will be minimized [45]. Elements of currently used and proposed risk management process include a variety of different kinds of activities. To a large extent, the specific protective measures imposed on the GMO user will be determined based on scientific factors linked to specific details of the GMO and the proposed use. These issues, too, turn on the ability of the decision maker to rely on unbiased scientific experts who are able to analyze each proposal or application and determine what controls are needed, and what the best available technologies and practices are [46].

The three important components was design for risk management. These components are impact assessment, public awareness/participation, and the design of regulatory systems. These concepts, all very important in this field, are critically important for GMO-related governance. It is not possible to overstate the importance of the public’s contribution to effective decision making, as well as the importance of public awareness, within the context of government decisions on matters and activities affecting the environment [47].

4.1. Role of Impact Assessment Processes

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

4.2. Public Awareness/Access to Information

Public access to information is an important cornerstone of public participation and is one of the tools that could help to realize the benefits and avoid the risks of modern biotechnology. This concept is well recognized in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, and in the recently adopted Åarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making, and access to justice in environmental matters [12].

4.3. Transparency and Capacity

Simple “transparency”and “access” to relevant documents, however, may not be sufficient in the case of biosafety issues. Arguably, the concept of access to information must include, in some way, access to the tools and expertise with which to understand that information. While merely providing access to the data will be sufficient in many developed countries that are home to highly specialized and active NGOs, even here the balance of expertise weighs heavily on the side of the GMO proponents, often the companies or institutions that developed the GMOs [48].

4.4. Labelling, Standards, and Certification

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

4.5. Confidential Information

One of the key concerns in this regard relates to the proponent’s need to maintain some information as “confidential.” While the basic realities of modern business clearly underscore the need for confidentiality, it is also true that confidentiality provisions are often used as a means of avoiding disclosures. In the face of increasing recognition that activities, including especially species introduction, in one country may have serious impacts on neighbouring countries, labelling and other access to information is increasingly addressed at international and regional levels [49].

4.6. Direct Public Participation and Awareness Mechanisms

With regard to direct public participation in biosafety-related decision making, a small number of countries, including Denmark, The Netherlands, and New Zealand, are also taking a leading role in developing mechanisms for public awareness. These countries’ legislative provisions require relatively broad-based stakeholder processes addressing certain aspects of modern biotechnology, including the release of GMOs. Such processes help the governments and regulatory agencies to gauge public opinion, generate dialogue, gather useful information, and develop awareness within their populations on modern biotechnology [50].

4.7. Design of Regulatory Systems for GMO Development and Use

In many different fields of endeavour, technological capacity to act has moved significantly faster than has the governmental ability to oversee and regulate it. As a consequence, many concerns relating to the risk of GMOs are directed more closely to the apparent lack of societal and governmental restraints on GMO developers and users, rather than to addressing particular scientific issues. This suggests that a third key element of the risk-management process involves a reconsideration of regulatory mechanisms and systems for governmental oversight of GMO development and use [51].

4.8. Sociocultural Impacts

It is in the area of sociocultural impacts that the controversy over GMOs and biosafety takes on its most complex aspect. On one hand, food production, food security, and livelihood improvement are all critical elements of sustainable development, to which GMOs and other products of modern biotechnology are often cited as important contributions. On the other hand, the introduction of GMOs can affect humans, (as well as animals and ecosystems), particularly at the community level, in many ways beyond direct physical sustenance, not all of which are beneficial [52]. The environmental questions surrounding biotechnology need to be addressed, yet the technology as a whole offers great promise of environmental, social, and economic benefits that should not be inhibited unnecessarily. A number of concerns should be addressed through sociocultural assessment of the impact (sociocultural risks and benefits) of GMOs. These include the biodiversity impacts of extending GMO introductions into marginal areas (which are often centres of diversity not only of wild species but also of traditional agricultural species) and into protected areas and their buffer zones [53].

5. Ways to Manage Risks

Management and mitigation of risk allows feedback for validation of the initial assessment. Risks can vary depending on several factors including nature of the GMO, its intended use, and the environment receiving the GMO. Therefore, they should be assessed and managed on a case-by-case basis. The purpose of case-by-case practice is to treat every release as unique, since every GMO represents different genetic characteristics. Prior consent from the authorities is advisable in order to perform deliberate release, and field trials before the GMO may be commercialized [54, 55]. This is particularly important for genetically engineered microorganisms that have the potential to survive, persist, and spread in the environment to which they may gain access. As cited by the European food safety authority [13], the following points should be addressed when appropriate: (i) the potential for survival and persistence in the receiving environment and any selective advantage that may be offered: in case of selective advantage, its nature should be identified along with any potential for negative effects (ii) the potential for gene transfer (iii) the potential for negative effects or consequences based on interactions with indigenous microorganisms (iv) possible effects on humans, animals, and plants (v) possible effects or (nonreversible) perturbations on biogeochemical processes.

These points may be assessed by a combination of laboratory studies, micro- and mesocosm experiments, and small-scale field releases to identify hazards and to quantify actual levels of exposure [56]. However, extrapolation of assessment from one context to another, that is, from laboratory research to small-scale field trials and finally to commercial scale is not recommended. Small-scale trials involve a lesser number of GMOs and may provide valuable information related to concerns like survival and persistence, competitive fitness, and some ecological implications of release. Commercial release, on the other hand, involves a higher number of GMOs to be released in different, complex ecosystems and needs to be carefully carried out over time and at different sites to reveal impact on relationships between species and ecosystem interactions [57].

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

5.1. Contained Use of GMOs

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

5.2. Monitoring the Fate of GMOs Released in the Environment

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

The establishment of monitoring procedures may be difficult, but such monitoring is essential not only to understand the effectiveness of the introduced organism but also to detect unexpected spread. In general, the procedures involve development or application of already existing techniques for identifying the organism in environmental samples. These procedures have been developed and are, in most cases, well accepted [58].

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

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

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

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

6. Precautionary Approach

When there is a risk, two or more outcomes are possible, which one will occur is unknown but at least one of them is undesired. It is within this context that the precautionary approach from Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration [60] can be introduced.

Precautionary approach is premised on the notion of reducing, if not eliminating, risks to human health and the environment. It acknowledges the complexity and variability of the natural environment and embodies certain humility about scientific procedures and knowledge. It prioritizes the rights of those who stand to be affected by an activity, rather than those who stand to benefit from it [57]. It involves scrutiny of all available alternatives and an examination of justifications and benefits as well as risks and costs. In short, a precautionary approach involves the adoption of long-term, holistic, and inclusive perspectives in environmental protection [46, 61, 62].

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

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

The precautionary calculus often overlooks the fact that even when technologies introduce new risks, very often they confer net benefits—that is, their use reduces many other serious and costly hazards. For example, the use of GMOs with enhanced pest and disease resistance has reduced the use of pesticides, reducing runoff into waterways, and the exposure of workers who manufacture, transport, and apply these chemicals. It has also permitted farmers to adopt environment-friendly, no-till farming practices. Rice varieties enhanced with provitamin A and iron could drastically improve health of hundreds of millions of the malnourished in developing countries. Such tangible environmental and health benefits are usually given little or no weight in precautionary risk calculations [63].

To gain more clarity on whether the precautionary principle could be used as an effective tool to reduce the overall risks or to merely regulate risks, we can consider the experience of the European Union and the US, respectively, with the genetically modified crops [64]. The EU has ensured low rates of adoption of GM crops within Europe, but it does not follow that this has reduced overall environmental or health risks, the very reason for the precautionary approach. But the US approach, which incorporates a moderate version of the principle (requiring governmental approval prior to their commercial cultivation), has led to rapid adoption of GM crops and brought significant environmental benefits (relative to conventional crops) such as higher yields, lower pesticide usage, and increases in biodiversity [65]. Thus, while the EU’s version of the precautionary principle has effectively limited GM crops by prolonging riskier practices, it has been environmentally counterproductive.

Even though several countries have adopted well-drafted environmental and biodiversity laws, reference to “precautionary principle” is missing. For instance, Malaysia’s national biodiversity policy makes explicit reference to the convention on biological diversity (1992) but refrains from using the term “precautionary principle.” Similarly, other countries in the region, Vietnam, Indonesia and Lao PDR, also do not directly invoke precautionary principle in their laws.

On the other hand, in several countries (e.g., India and Pakistan), the highest judicial authority has cited “precautionary principle” in its judgments. Several African countries have made explicit reference to “precautionary principle” in their laws. Examples include the 1997 Mozambique environment legislation, the 1996 general environmental law of Cameroon, and South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act.

Latin American countries have also incorporated ‘precaution as guiding principle’ in their national environmental laws. Examples include general and biodiversity-related environmental laws in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Ecuador.

The “precautionary principle” in Australia’s environmental policy is deeply rooted, as reflected in the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Environment of 1992 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999.

This “Precautionary Principle” as mentioned above is deeply entrenched in the environmental legislations of several European countries. On the other hand, in the United States of America, precaution is rarely stated explicitly in any of its laws. However, the precautionary principles are well entrenched in several protection acts such as Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992.

A report by the European Environment Agency (2002) summarizes the European experience invoking “Precautionary Principle” for environmental management which provides useful insights on what lessons can be learned about the Precautionary Principle from several case studies. These lessons include the following: (1) respond to ignorance as well as uncertainty, (2) research and monitor for early warnings, (3) search out and address “blind spots” and gaps in scientific knowledge, (4) identify and reduce interdisciplinary obstacles to learning, (5) ensure that real-world conditions are fully accounted for and systematically scrutinize and justify the claimed “pros” and “cons”, (6) evaluate alternatives, (7) promote robust diverse and adaptable solutions, and (8) use “lay” and local knowledge as well as all relevant specialist expertise.

The increasing acceptance of precautionary principles has, however, been accompanied by changes in their public profile. Many European industries decreasingly view precautionary principles as acceptable risk management approaches and increasingly view them as tools for environment and health advocates. These industries ‘disenchantment is fed both by decreasing control over regulatory bodies’ interpretation of “precaution” and by seeing precautionary principles endorsed by individuals with very different worldviews. These proponents advocate precaution as a response to globalization and the so-called “risk society” where risks extend over time and national boundaries, without compensating many of those affected by them [63].

Some environmental groups argue that this world requires an expanded role for NGOs, representing and interpreting precautionary principles. These groups do not dismiss science but doubt its ability to resolve issues with great uncertainties and pervasive value conflicts. However, even those who acknowledge limits to conventional science may be uncomfortable with the transfer of power where NGOs made the arbiters of ambiguity [66].

Some US agencies accepted that businesses and governments may invoke precautionary principles to protect their markets from outside competition. They point to “precautionary” bans that fall heavily on US products, such as GM corn and beef raised with growth hormones [67]. The Commission of the European Communities [68] has recognized these possibilities without offering a clear resolution.

In contrast, the above precautionary principle is anultimate key issue within the sustainable development framework. New approaches are needed to take into account the risk, uncertainty, and complexity involved. There is a need to identify normative preferences, and the stakeholders perspectives and extended peer communities are needed.

7. How to Ensure the Role of Precautionary Measures

The precautionary approach offers the public and decision makers a forceful, common-sense approach to environmental and public health problems. In order to deliver the promise implied by its name, the principle should not increase the overall risks. To ensure that a policy is truly precautionary, one should compare the risks of adopting the policy against not adopting it. It should take care of some ethical criteria to ensure that it actually reduces overall risks when outcomes are ambiguous. These include the human mortality and morbidity threat, threats from outcomes that are irreversible or persistent, the immediacy criteria wherein immediate threats must be taken care of prior to threats that could occur later, and the uncertainty criteria where threats of harm that are more certain should take precedence over less certain harms.

As formulated at the “Wingspread Conference” [69], the principle of precautionary action has 4 parts. (1) People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. (2) The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public. (3) Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine “a full range of alternatives’’ including the alternative of doing nothing. (4) Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be “open, informed and democratic’’ and “must include affected parties.’’

In February 2, 2000, European Commission Communication (ECC) released a note on the Precautionary Principle: the “precautionary principle” applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain, and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates of there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal, or plant health EC [2000].

It is important to emphasize that although this principle operates in the context of scientific uncertainty, it is considered by its proponents to be applicable only when, on the basis of the best scientific advice available, there is good reason to believe that harmful effects might occur [44]. The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration remains by far the most widely quoted version of the precautionary principle. It states that in case of ‘‘threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’’. It also brings in the element of proportionality by stating that measures should be applied according to the capability of the states.

The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety based on the Precautionary Principle, emerged as a result of international negotiation to reduce the transboundary movement transit, handling and use of living modified organism (LMO) that may negatively impinge on the biological diversity. Three are three core elements of the Cartagena Protocol: advance information agreement (AIA), risk assessment and the precautionary principle. The idea of the for requiring AIA of LMO is that states have a right to know what is coming into their territories, and the information should be provided in time to prepare possible harm. This procedure applies only to LMOs for introduction into environment. AIA procedures are embodied in Articles 8, 9, and 10. According to these procedures, the exporting party must communicate a written request to importer prior to transfer of LMOs intended to be introduced into environment.

The risk assessment of the Article 10 is envisioned in the protocol as guideline for parties in their decisions to import LMOs. An assessment of risk will enable them to anticipate and prevent environmental harm. Risk assessment should be performed with information available to importing state in the AIA documentation. Procedures to assess risk should be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. This article also contains explicit support for the risk management and precautionary approach.

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

Article 17 stated that the unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures of the living modified organisms that likely have significant adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity take into account risk to human health.

Article 18 of the Caratagena Protocol addressing handling transport, packaging, and identification of transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment must identify the organisms as LMOs. The objective of this article is to make sure that the LMOs are handled and moved safely to avoid adverse effects on biological biodiversity and human health.

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

Thus, the precautionary principle is not panacea, and it will not change world overnight, but it can make a difference in the protection of human health and environment by providing the guidance to policy makers when considering threats posed by GMOs [70, 71].

8. Conclusion

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

9. Future Prospective of GMO

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

Acknowledgment

Dhan Prakash, Ranjana Bhatia, and Sonika Verma contributed equally for the this review article.

References

  1. C. James, “Preview: global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops,” ISAAA Brief no. 35, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  2. L. Alberghina, L. Frontali, and P. Sensi, Proceedings of the 6th European Congress on Biotechnology, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994.
  3. R. A. Hill, “Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms,” Environmental Biosafety Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 67–70, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. H. A. Kuiper and H. V. Davies, “The safe foods risk analysis framework suitable for GMOs? A case study,” Food Control, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1662–1676, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. K. Birkenhead, Y. P. Wang, B. Noonan, S. S. Manian, and F. O'Gara, “Characterization of Rhizobium meliloti dct genes and relationships between utilization of dicarboxylic acid and expression of nitrogen fixation genes,” in Advances in Molecular Genetics of Plant-Microbe Interactions, R. Verma and D. P. Palacios, Eds., p. 834, American Phytopathology Society, St Paul Publishers, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  6. A. H. Bosworth, M. K. Williams, K. A. Albrecht et al., “Alfalfa yield response to inoculation with recombinant strains of Rhizobium meliloti with an extra copy of dctABD and/or modified nifA expression,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 3815–3832, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  7. V. Corich, F. Bosco, A. Giacomini, M. Basaglia, A. Squartini, and M. P. Nuti, “Fate of genetically modified Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae during long-term storage of commercial inoculants,” Journal of Applied Bacteriology, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 319–328, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  8. D. Schubert, “A different perspective on GM food,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 20, no. 10, p. 969, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. H. Heuer and K. Smalla, “Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria,” Environmental Biosafety Research, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 3–13, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. M. Tiedje, R. K. Colwell, and Y. L. Grossman, “The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations,” Ecology, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 298–315, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  11. G. T. Tzotzos, G. P. Head, and R. Hull, “Principles of risk assessment,” Genetically Modified Plants, vol. 2009, pp. 33–63, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  12. C. N. Stewart Jr., H. A. Richards, and M. D. Halfhill, “Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions,” BioTechniques, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 832–843, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  13. European Food Safety Authority, “Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified microorganisms and their derived products intended for food and feed use,” EFSA Journal, vol. 374, pp. 1–115, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  14. K. L. Johnson, A. F. Raybould, M. D. Hudson, and G. M. Poppy, “How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis?” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. N. C. Ellstrand, H. C. Prentice, and J. F. Hancock, “Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 30, pp. 539–563, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. C. Dennis, “The brave new world of RNA,” Nature, vol. 418, no. 6894, pp. 122–124, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. W. Martin, “Mosaic bacterial chromosomes: a challenge en route to a tree of genomes,” BioEssays, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 99–104, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  18. H. Ochman, J. G. Lawrence, and E. A. Grolsman, “Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation,” Nature, vol. 405, no. 6784, pp. 299–304, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. P. M. Bennett, C. T. Livesey, D. Nathwani, D. S. Reeves, J. R. Saunders, and R. Wise, “An assessment of the risks associated with the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified plants: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 418–431, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. S. Yoshida, S. Maruyama, H. Nozaki, and K. Shirasu, “Horizontal gene transfer by the parasitic plant Striga hermonthica,” Science, vol. 328, no. 5982, p. 1128, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. P. Keese, “Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer,” Environmental Biosafety Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 123–149, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. V. E. Prescott, P. M. Campbell, A. Moore et al., “Transgenic expression of bean α-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 53, no. 23, pp. 9023–9030, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. K. M. Nielsen and J. P. Townsend, “Monitoring and modeling horizontal gene transfer,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1110–1114, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Gene Technology Ethics Committee, “Working paper: ethical issues arising from trans-species gene transfer,” 2006, http://www.ogtr.gov.au. View at: Google Scholar
  25. European Food Safety Authority, “Statement of the scientific panel on GMO on the safe use of the nptII antibiotic resistance marker gene in genetically modified plants,” 2007, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib. View at: Google Scholar
  26. M. Labra, C. Savini, M. Bracale et al., “Genomic changes in transgenic rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants produced by infecting calli with Agrobacterium tumefaciens,” Plant Cell Reports, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 325–330, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. W. Craig, M. Tepfer, G. Degrassi, and D. Ripandelli, “An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops,” International Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 706–726, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  28. M. J. Wilkinson and C. S. Ford, “Estimating the potential for ecological harm from gene flow to crop wild relatives,” Collection of Biosafety Reviews, vol. 3, pp. 42–47, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  29. K. S. Oberhauser, M. D. Prysby, H. R. Mattila et al., “Temporal and spatial overlap between monarch larvae and corn pollen,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 21, pp. 11913–11918, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. M. Pleasants, R. L. Hellmich, G. P. Dively et al., “Corn pollen deposition on milkweeds in and near cornfields,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 21, pp. 11919–11924, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. G. P. Dively, R. Rose, M. K. Sears et al., “Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous exposure to Cry1Ab-expressing corn during anthesis,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1116–1125, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  32. J. D. Pidgeon, M. J. May, J. N. Perry, and G. M. Poppy, “Mitigation of indirect environmental effects of GM crops,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 274, no. 1617, pp. 1475–1479, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. J. E. Losey, L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter, “Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae,” Nature, vol. 399, no. 6733, p. 214, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  34. J. D. Wolt, R. K. Peterson, P. Bystrak, and T. Meade, “A screening level approach for non-target insect risk assessment: transgenic Bt corn pollen and the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaiidae),” Environmental Entomology, vol. 32, pp. 237–247, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  35. J. Morris, “The relationship between risk analysis and the precautionary principle,” Toxicology, vol. 181-182, pp. 127–130, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. M. P. Nuti, A. Squartini, and A. Giacomini, “European community regulation for the use and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the environment,” in Molecular Ecology of Rhizosphere Microorganisms, F. O'Gara, D. N. Dowling, and B. Boesten, Eds., pp. 165–173, VCH Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  37. M. R. Smith and A. König, “Environmental risk assessment for food-related substances,” Food Control, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1588–1600, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. Y. Devos, P. Maeseele, D. Reheul, L. Speybroeck, and D. Waele, “Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: a (Re)quest for sense and sensibility,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 29–61, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. European Food Safety Authority, “Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed,” 2004, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo/gmo_guidance.html. View at: Google Scholar
  40. D. A. Andow and C. Zwahlen, “Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants,” Ecology Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 196–214, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. Organization of Economic Corporation and Development, “Descriptions of selected key generic terms used in chemical hazard/risk assessment, OECD series on testing and assessment number 44, ENV/JM/ MONO(2003)15, environment directorate,” in Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, France, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  42. G. L. Lövei and S. Arpaia, “The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies,” Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. S. Hassan, “The initiative of the IOBC/WPRS working group on pesticides and beneficial organism,” in Ecotoxicology: Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms, P. Haskell and P. McEwan, Eds., pp. 22–27, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Germany, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  44. M. Morgan and M. Henrion, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
  45. ACRE, “Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems,” in Proceedings of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, London, UK, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  46. G. M. Poppy, “Geneflow from GM plants—towards a more quantitative risk assessment,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 436–438, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. United Nations Environment Programme, “Governance for sustainable and human development,” UNDP policy document, 1997, http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy/chapter1.htm. View at: Google Scholar
  48. K. R. Hayes, P. C. Gregg, V. V. Gupta et al., “Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 3: Hierarchical Holographic Model for herbicide tolerant oilseed rape,” Environmental Biosafety Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 109–128, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  49. World Trade Organization, “European communities—measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products, panel report, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R and WT/DS293/R final report,” 2006, http://www.wto.org. View at: Google Scholar
  50. C. N. Stewart Jr., “Gene flow and the risk of transgene spread,” 2008, http://agribiotech.info/details/Stewart-GeneFlow%20Mar%208%20-%2003.pdf. View at: Google Scholar
  51. R. I. Rose, “Tier-based testing for the effects of proteinaceous insecticidal plant-incorporated protectants on nontarget arthropods in the context of regulatory risk assessments,” IOBC WPRS Bull, vol. 29, pp. 143–150, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  52. L. A. Kogan, “World Trade Organization biotech decision clarifies central role of science in evaluating health and environmental Risks for regulation purposes,” Global Trade and Customs Journal, vol. 2, p. 149, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  53. J. D. Wolt and R. K. D. Peterson, “Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: the role of risk analysis,” AgBioForum, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 291–298, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  54. A. I. Myhr and T. Traavik, “The precautionary principle: scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 73–86, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. O. Renn, “Precaution and ecological risk,” in Encyclopedia of Ecology, vol. 4, pp. 2909–2916, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  56. M. Garcia-Alonso, E. Jacobs, A. Raybould et al., “A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms,” Environmental Biosafety Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 57–65, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. S. Mayer and A. Stirling, “Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments—lessons for the evaluation of GM crops,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 57–71, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. J. K. Jansson, “Tracking genetically engineered microorganisms in nature,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 275–283, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. R. Costanza, “Visions, values, valuation, and the need for an ecological economics,” BioScience, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 459–468, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  60. United Nations Environment Programme, “Rio declaration on environment and development,” in Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  61. E. Fisher and R. Harding, Perspectives on the precautionary principle, Federation Press, Sydney, Australia, 1999.
  62. C. Raffensberger and J. Tickner, Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
  63. G. Conko, “Safety, risk and the precautionary principle: rethinking precautionary approaches to the regulation of transgenic plants,” Transgenic Research, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 639–647, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. I. M. Goklany, The improving state of the world: why we’re living longer, healthier, more comfortable lives on a cleaner planet, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  65. M. Marvier, C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and P. Kareiva, “A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5830, pp. 1475–1477, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. B. Durodie, Poisonous Dummies: European Risk Regulation after BSE, European Science and Environment Forum, Cambridge, UK, 1999.
  67. J. Tait, “More faust than frankenstein,” Journal of Risk Research, vol. 4, pp. 175–191, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  68. Commission of the European Communities, “Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle,” Tech. Rep. 2.2.2000 COM, European Comission, Brussels, Belgium, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  69. “Wingspread conference on the precautionary principle,” 1998, http://www.sehn.org/wing.html. View at: Google Scholar
  70. J. N. Herrera, “International law and GMOs: can the precautionary principle protect the biological diversity,” Boletin Maxicano de Derecheo Comparado, vol. 118, pp. 97–136, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  71. T. E. Nickson, “Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops,” Plant Physiology, vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 494–502, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2011 Dhan Prakash et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room

Photo courtesy Simplot Plant Sciences

This piece was adapted from an article in the Winter 2015 edition of Issues in Science & Technology.

The newly approved, genetically engineered “Innate” brand of potato is quite remarkable. It is bruise resistant and contains 50 to 70 percent less asparagine, a chemical that is converted to acrylamide, a presumptive carcinogen, when heated to high temperatures. The advantage of lower levels of acrylamide is obvious, but the bruise resistance is important to sustainability because of the potential to decrease waste.

The Innate potato is one example of new genetic engineering techniques that are more precise and versatile than ever. These advances promise a new generation of improved crops, animals, and microorganisms that will be attractive to the public. But the new techniques also raise critical questions about public policy. How will the various regulatory agencies approach them as a matter of law and regulation? What will be the regulatory costs, time, and effort required to bring them to market? And, further out, how will regulatory agencies approach the emerging field of synthetic biology, which involves the design and construction of new biological components, devices, and systems, so that standardized biological parts can be mixed and assembled?

Based on recent history, the answers to such questions are not comforting. Most of the federal agencies involved have ignored both common sense and the consensus of the scientific community, and policymakers and federal bureaucrats have crafted regulations that have created formidable regulatory delays and expense. The public and private sectors have squandered billions of dollars on complying with superfluous, redundant regulatory requirements that have priced public sector and small company research and development out of the marketplace.

Numerous national and international scientific organizations have repeatedly addressed whether there are unique risks associated with genetic engineering. Their conclusions have been congruent: There are no unique risks from the use of molecular techniques of genetic engineering.

Perhaps the most comprehensive and unequivocal analysis of the risks of genetically engineered plants and microorganisms is the 1989 National Research Council report “Field Testing of Genetically Modified Organisms.” It emphasized that the more modern molecular techniques “are more precise, circumscribed, and predictable than other methods. They make it possible to introduce pieces of DNA, consisting of either single or multiple genes that can be defined in function and even in nucleotide sequence. … With organisms modified by molecular methods, we are in a better, if not perfect, position to predict the phenotypic expression.” Close to three decades later, the techniques that were the focus of the report are still widely used, and the newer refinements are even more precise and predictable.

In 2000, the National Research Council released another report weighing in on the scientific basis of federal regulation of genetically engineered plants. It concurred with earlier assessments by other groups that “the properties of a genetically modified organism should be the focus of risk assessments, not the process by which it was produced.” Various distinguished panels around the world have continued to make the same points about genetic engineering and “genetically modified organisms.”

Thus, there has been a broad consensus in the scientific community, which has been reflected in statements of federal government policy going back more than 25 years, that the newest techniques of genetic modification are essentially an extension, or refinement, of older, less precise, and less predictable ones, and that oversight should focus on the characteristics of products, not on the processes or technologies that produced them.

In spite of such guidance, regulatory agencies have generally chosen to exercise their discretion to identify and capture molecular genetic engineering as the focus of regulations. Those choices have drastically affected the progress of agricultural R&D.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is responsible for the regulation of most genetically engineered plants. APHIS had long regulated the importation and interstate movement of organisms (plants, bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc.) that are plant pests, which were defined by means of an inclusive list—essentially a binary “thumbs up or down” approach. A plant that an investigator might wish to introduce into the field is either on the prohibited list of plant pests, and therefore requires a permit, or it is exempt.

This straightforward approach is risk-based, in that the organisms required to undergo case-by-case governmental review are an enhanced-risk group (organisms that can injure or damage plants), in contrast to organisms not considered to be plant pests. But for more than a quarter-century, APHIS has applied a parallel regime (in addition to its basic risk-based regulation) that focuses exclusively on plants altered or produced with the most precise genetic engineering techniques. To create it, APHIS concocted a new category—a “regulated article”—defined in a way that captures virtually every genetically modified plant for case-by-case review, regardless of its potential risk, because it might be a plant pest.

In order to perform a field trial with a regulated article, a researcher must apply to APHIS and submit extensive paperwork before, during, and after the field trial. After conducting field trials for a number of years at many sites, the researcher must then submit a vast amount of data to APHIS and request “deregulation,” which is equivalent to approval for unconditional release and sale. These requirements make genetically engineered plants extraordinarily expensive to develop and test. The cost of discovery, development, and regulatory authorization of a new trait introduced between 2008 and 2012 averaged $136 million.

APHIS’s approach to genetically modified plants is difficult to justify. Plants have long been selected by nature, as well as bred or otherwise manipulated by humans, for enhanced resistance or tolerance to external threats to their survival and productivity, such as insects, disease organisms, weeds, herbicides, and environmental stresses. Through a variety of techniques, plants have also been modified for qualities attractive to consumers, such as seedless watermelons and grapes and the tangerine-grapefruit hybrid called a tangelo. Many such modifications have involved far more drastic and extensive genetic changes than those made by molecular techniques. One technique, “wide cross” hybridization, performed by plant breeders since the 1930s, moves large numbers of “alien” genes from one species or one genus to another in order to create plant varieties that cannot and do not exist in nature. Common commercial crops derived from wide crosses include tomato, potato, sweet potato, oat, rice, wheat, corn, and pumpkin.

The basic tenets of government regulation are that similar things should be regulated similarly, and the degree of oversight should be proportionate to the risk of the product or activity. For new varieties of plants, it is not the source or the method used to introduce a gene but its function that determines how it contributes to risk. Under USDA and APHIS, however, only plants made with the newest, most precise techniques have been subjected to more extensive and burdensome regulation, independent of the risk of the product.

Under its discriminatory and unscientific regulatory regime, APHIS has approved more than 90 genetically engineered traits, and farmers have widely and quickly adopted the crops incorporating them. After the cultivation worldwide of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 17 million farmers in 30 countries) and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food containing genetically engineered ingredients in North America alone, there has not been a single documented ecosystem disruption or a single confirmed tummy ache.

With this record of successful adoption and use, one might have thought that APHIS would reduce its regulatory burdens on genetically engineered crops, but APHIS continues to push the costs for regulatory compliance into the stratosphere while its reviews of benign new crops have become ever more dilatory. Evaluations that took an average of six months in the 1990s now take three-plus years. APHIS’s performance compares unfavorably with its counterparts abroad. From January 2010 through June 2013, the average time from submission to decision was 372 days for Brazil and 771 days for Canada, versus 1,210 days for the United States.

The EPA’s approach to modern genetic engineering has been equally flawed. The agency has long regulated field tests and the commercial use of pesticides under the. In 2001, the EPA issued final rules under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act for the regulation of genetically engineered plants, concocting a new concept—“plant-incorporated protectants,” or PIPs, defined as “pesticidal substances produced and used by living plants.”

But the EPA regulatory net captures pest-resistant plants only if the “protectant” has been introduced or enhanced by the most precise and predictable techniques of genetic engineering. The registration process is excessively complex and burdensome. The submission required for regulatory review includes copious data on the parental plant, the genetic construction, the behavior of the test plant, and so on—requirements that could not be met for any plant modified with older, cruder techniques, which are exempt from the FIFRA rules. EPA then conducts a series of redundant case-by-case reviews—before the initial trial when trials are scaled up or tested on additional sites and again if even minor changes have been made in the genetic construct. Those reviews are then repeated when the sponsor is ready to cultivate the plants at commercial scale.

This approach, which has been condemned repeatedly by the scientific community over many years, has discouraged innovation and provided incentives for the developers of new plant varieties to use inferior but unregulated techniques.

There are far more rational—and proven—alternatives to the current unscientific regulation of genetic engineering. For more than two decades, the Food and Drug Administration has had a scientific, risk-based approach toward “novel foods” made with any technology. Published in 1992, the statement of policy emphasized that the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition does not impose discriminatory regulation based on the use of one technique or another. The FDA concluded that greater scrutiny is needed only when certain safety issues arise. Those safety issues include the presence of a completely new substance in the food supply, changes in a macronutrient, an increase in a natural toxicant, or the presence of an allergen where a consumer would not expect it. In addition, the FDA has properly resisted calls for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods as not materially relevant information under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and as not consistent with the statutory requirement that food labeling must be accurate and not misleading.

However, FDA has been less successful with its oversight of genetically engineered animals. In 1993, developers of a faster-maturing genetically engineered salmon—an Atlantic salmon containing a particular Pacific Chinook salmon growth hormone gene—first approached FDA. After 15 years of indecision, in 2008 the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine decided that every genetically engineered animal intended for food would be evaluated as a veterinary drug and subjected to the same premarket approval procedures and regulations as drugs (such as pain relievers and anti-flea medicines) used to treat animals. The rationale offered was that a genetically engineered construct “that is in a [genetically engineered] animal and is intended to affect the animal’s structure or function meets the definition of an animal drug.” But this explanation conveniently ignores the science, the FDA’s own precedents, and the availability of other, more appropriate regulatory options.

Adoption of the FDA’s existing approach to foods (which is far less protracted and intensive than that for veterinary drugs) would have sufficed and should have been applied to genetically engineered animals intended for consumption. Instead, FDA interpreted its authority in a way that invokes a highly risk-averse, burdensome, and costly approach. The impact has been devastating: The FDA has not approved a single genetically engineered animal for food consumption. An entire, once-promising sector of genetic engineering has virtually disappeared.

So is there any reason for optimism about the future? How will the various regulatory agencies approach the newest refinements of genetic engineering? How will they respond to synthetic biology?

The opportunity costs of unnecessary regulatory delays and inflated development expenses are formidable. As David Zilberman, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues have observed, “The foregone benefits from these otherwise feasible production technologies are irreversible, both in the sense that past harvests have been lower than they would have been if the technology had been introduced and in the sense that yield growth is a cumulative process of which the onset has been delayed.”

The nation has already foregone significant benefits because of the over-regulation and discriminatory treatment of genetic engineering. If we are to avoid repeating those mistakes for newer genetic modification technologies and synthetic biology, we must have more scientifically defensible and risk-based approaches to oversight. We need and deserve better from governmental regulatory agencies and from their congressional overseers.


Viewpoint: GMOs are ‘unnatural’? Evolution explodes a popular crop biotech myth

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

The Institute for Responsible Technology, a one-man operation headed by anti-GMO activist Jeffery Smith, adds that “….genetic engineers must force the DNA from one organism into another. Their methods include….using viruses or bacteria to ‘infect’ animal or plant cells with the new DNA.”

This fear of the unnatural is the foundation for nearly every anti-GMO argument ever conceived, but it’s also wholly unjustified. The techniques scientists have developed to breed biotech crops were copied from nature—and Smith’s example helps demonstrate the point.

Restriction Enzymes are like molecular scissors that cut specific sequences of DNA.

Certain bacteria and viruses have always been at war. In fact, there are viruses called phages that infect bacteria and use them to replicate. The viruses land on the surface of bacterial cells and inject their DNA into the cells, essentially turning bacteria into virus factories. But bacteria aren’t defenseless against these assaults. They utilize proteins called restriction enzymes to chop up the DNA of invading viruses before they can infect the bacterial cells. Cleverly enough, phages evolved a counter-counter measure to avoid being hacked to pieces: they edit their own DNA so the bacteria can’t recognize them as invaders. Werner Arber and several other scientists who discovered this virus restriction mechanism were eventually awarded the Nobel Prize, because their research laid the foundation for modern biotechnology.

The genesis of GMOs

Building on Arber’s work as well as experiments performed by Paul Berg and Hamilton Smith, biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen showed in 1973 that a newly isolated restriction enzyme could be used to cut a DNA strand at specific nucleotide sequences. The pair of scientists also found that another enzyme called DNA ligase could be used to attach this cleaved DNA strand to the genome of another organism.

Boyer and Cohen demonstrated this technique in the lab by taking the genes for antibiotic resistance out of two strains of bacteria and transferring them to a bacterial strain that naturally lacks antibiotic resistance. They then exposed this modified strain of bacteria to both types of antibiotics and found that neither drug could kill the bacteria.

This story offers a fascinating example of how basic research can lead to revolutionary discoveries. But beyond that, there are a few important points to draw out of this science history lesson that directly apply to the current debate around GMO and gene-edited crops.

The ability to cut and reattach DNA is an evolved trait that bacteria and other prokaryotes use to fight off infection. Scientists discovered this mechanism and put it to work to produce new foods and medicines—they didn’t create it artificially. The genes, enzymes, and organisms that allow us to recombine DNA exist in nature.

To go one step further, this type of genetic modification is possible because all living organisms share the same genetic code, DNA. With a few exceptions, every species replicates its DNA and synthesizes proteins the same way. This is why, for instance, we can take the human gene that controls insulin production, add it to a bacterial cell, and make as much of the hormone as we need to treat diabetics.

“Naturally transgenic”

Defenders of crop biotechnology have pointed out that all food is genetically modified in some way. The old adage that our food crops hardly resemble their ancestors thanks to thousands of years of plant breeding is true, but there are many examples of plants and other organisms naturally exchanging genes, making them GMOs. As science writer Arvind Suresh noted in a 2016 GLP article, researchers discovered in 2015 “that practically every known species of cassava (sweet potato) contained genes from the Agrobacterium, a bacterial species whose genes….were inserted over 8,000 years ago….”

The monarch butterfly, the same one that adorns every non-GMO Project label, is an even more poignant example, as another 2015 study illustrated. Geneticist Val Giddings pointed out the irony of this situation in October 2018:

Scientists have discovered that monarch butterflies have themselves been genetically modified by viruses that are specific to lepidoptera, which have inserted viral DNA into those monarch butterflies in their past evolutionary history, making them, by any rational definition, genetically modified with foreign DNA.

These are not merely exceptions to the rule. As the authors of a September 2019 study in Plant Molecular Biology explained, “Naturally transgenic [GMO] plant species occur on an unexpectedly large scale.” The list includes food crops such as bananas, peanuts, Surinam cherries, hops, cranberries and tea, deemed transgenic because they contain DNA from the Agrobacterium mentioned above, the microbe researchers often use to transfer genes between species. More research remains to be done on this phenomenon, but the study authors suggest that this horizontal gene transfer mechanism possibly plays an important role in plant evolution.


Watch the video: BIG changes coming to Express Entry system. Canada PR 2022 (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Pyt

    no words! just wow! ..

  2. Tochtli

    It is time to become reasonable. It is time to come in itself.

  3. Dondre

    Nothing new :(



Write a message