University OF Sargodha

Institute OF Food Science and Technology

Topic:
Genetically modified food
Submitted by:
Misbah Fatima
Roll no:
BFSF17M006 Regular
Session:
2017-21
Submitted to:
Dr. Farzana Siddique
Contents:
1.0 Introduction………………………………………...3
2.0 Genetically Modified Organisms……………………...3
3.0 Genetically Modified Crops……………………………. 4
4.0 Benefits of Genetically Modified Food………………...... 5
 Increased Crop Yield
 Herbicide Tolerant and Pest Resistant Crop
 Disease Resistance
 Drought and Salinity Tolerance
 Pharmaceutical Crops
 Nutritional added crops
5.0 Important GM Crops……………………………………7
 Safflower
 Soybean
 Sugar beet
 Sweet corn
 Wheat
 Alfalfa
 Corn
 Papaya
 Potato
6.0 Concerns Against GM Food……………………………9
 Effect of GE on Pesticide
 Reduced Efficiency of Pesticides
 Development of resistant weeds and insects
7.0 Effect on Consumers…………………………………….10
 Ambiguous safety
8.0 Identity Preservation in Fields and Markets…………….10
9.0 Economic Concerns in GM Food……………….11
10.0 Global Trade……………………………….11
11.0 Future prospects and Conclusion…………..13
Abbreviation:
GM Genetically Modified
USDA US department of Agriculture
FDA Food and Drug Administration
Introduction:

The development of genetically modified (GM) food has been a matter of considerable interest
and worldwide public controversy. As a result, ‘uncertainties’, ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ concerning
these new technologies have been widely disseminated to the food industry and consumers.
However, there is limited understanding of the ‘‘demand side effects” of these ‘potential food
industry innovations’. Among demand influences, preference, valuation along with underpinning
attitudes – leading toward potential (un)acceptance – have received attention in the literature.
However, the fact that many GM foods are typically products that are consumed daily (e.g., GM
milk, and tomato) increase its complexity. Firstly, the valuation of a new good implies the
provision of information from several sources –public and private, formal and informal, etc. –
while conditioning on the credibility and trustworthiness of each relevant information source.
Given the information available, a further issue concerns attitude expression and formation,
which ultimately leads to the final question regarding product valuation and consumer
preference. The subject of GM food has been of particular interest given the number and variety
of issues at stake. Indeed, the European Union maintained a long ‘‘de facto” moratorium against
the importation of GM food that ended in 2005. The rationale for the moratorium was largely
based on regards for health and environmental concerns as well as the underlying protection of
European agriculture. While new transformation events of maize and other crops are being
authorized in Europe, the debate still remains as to whether individuals and their surrounding
cultural society value these GM food products; whether they perceive any risks and/or benefits
for their health and the environment; and, of course, whether the development of biotechnology
in food products will remain a controversial subject. Even though there is a growing body of
literature concerning consumers’ acceptance of GM food, little attention has so far been devoted
to examining and evaluating the findings from these different studies in order to make
recommendations for policy reform regarding the introduction of GM foods. In this context, the
present study is the first attempt to provide an overall picture of the consumer decision process in
relation to GM food. In a sense, we update and upgrade the work which merely addresses the
issues of consumer attitudes and purchase intention. Moreover, the paper provides a
complementary view to the meta-analysis carried out which on the other hand, only focuses on
the empirical literature aimed to elicit the Willingness-to-pay premium for a non GM food, or the
willingness-to-accept a compensation for GM food products. (Montserrat Costa-Font a, Jose´ M.
Gil a, W. Bruce Traill:2007)

Genetically Modified Organisms:

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the ones in which the genomic material, DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid), has been transferred from a bacterium or a plant, or even an animal, into
a different plant species to obtain the desired and improved quality. Genetic engineering
modifies the genetic material of crops to display specific traits. This technology is often
recognized as “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering” and the resultant
organism is said to be “genetically engineered,” “genetically modified,” or “transgenic.”
Presently GM products include foods and food ingredients, feeds and fiber, medicines, and
vaccines. Although it is extensively claimed that biotechnology, mainly genetically engineered
crops offers strong promise for meeting some of the twenty-first century’s utmost challenges, it
also poses certain risks and apprehensions both known and unknown. It is, therefore, paramount
in this perspective, to know the basic procedures involved in genetic modification for suitable
appreciation of the related issues and challenges.

(Faheema Khan and Khalid Rehman Hakeem; 2015)

Genetically Modified Crops:

The first genetically modified crop was produced in 1982, utilizing the antibiotic resistant
tobacco plant. In 1986 the first trial of genetically modified plants occurred in the fields of the
United States and France, where tobacco plants were engineered for resistance against
herbicides. In 1987, Plant Genetic Systems (Ghent, Belgium), established by Marc Van Montagu
and Jeff Schell, was the pioneer company to grow genetically modified tobacco plants with
Genetic Modification of Crop Plants: Issues and Challenges 372 insect resistance by expressing
genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. In 1992, China was the first
country to allow commercialized transgenic plants (virus-resistant) which was later withdrawn
from the market in 1997. The first genetically modified crop permitted for sale in the United
States, in 1994, was the tomato called FlavrSavr which is modified to ripen without softening by
a California company, Celgene. In 1994, the European Union allowed the tobacco plant
engineered to be herbicide resistant, bromoxynil, making it the first commercial genetically
modified crop in the European market. In 1995, Bt Potato was approved safe by the
Environmental Protection Agency, making it the first pesticide-producing crop to be permitted in
the United States. (USDA :2000)

In 2012, more than 420 million acres of GE crops were cultivated in 28 countries contributing
approximately 10 % of global cropland.

Several food crops have been modified to increase production and durability; the examples are
cotton, sugarcane, tomatoes, soybean, Hawaiian papaya, potatoes, rice, rapeseed, sugar beet,
field corn, and sweet corn. Plant geneticists are also investigating other crops they expect will be
beneficial for the commercial industry, such as oil producing plants for cosmetics, crops with
traits to provide nutritional fortification, and even crops that produce pharmaceutical drugs.

The major transgenic crop-producing countries are the United States, Canada, India, South
Africa, China, Argentina, and Brazil. Most genetically engineered crops are transformed to be
either herbicide tolerant, to destroy weeds without damaging crops, or insect resistant, to shield
plants from harmful pests. After nearly 20 years, only one high-yield GE seed has been
considered for approval USA. (USDA:2013)

Benefits of GM FOOD:

Increased Crop Yields

It is widely expected by those in crop production that genetically engineered seeds will increase
the yields of farmers who implement the technology in the fields. Although there is not much
research available regarding the impact of genetic engineering in increasing crop production,
available research supports these expectations. In 1997, the Economic Research Service (ERS)
found a statistically significant association between improved crop yields and increased adoption
of pesticide and herbicide resistant crop seeds. The ERS study also reported that crop yields
significantly increased when farmers adopted herbicide-tolerant cotton and Bt cotton. Another
study performed by Iowa State University (USA) reported Bt crops had higher yield over non-Bt
crops. The university studied 377 cultivated fields and calculated that crops grown from GM
seeds yielded 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field, whereas crops grown from non-GM seeds
yielded 147.7 per field. (ERS:2000)

Herbicide Tolerant and Pest Resistant Crops

Eradicating weeds in physical ways such as tilling is not cost effective. To destroy weeds,
farmers often spray large quantities of different herbicides, which are an expensive and laborious
process involving caution so the herbicide doesn't harm the crops and environment. Herbicide-
tolerant crops are aimed to resist specific herbicides. Herbicides are designed to work with
particular herbicide-tolerant seeds that can kill weeds without causing any detrimental effect on
genetically engineered crops. Most of these crops are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate
commercially sold as Roundup (manufactured by the agrichemical company Monsanto). In 2012,
Monsanto’s Roundup was present in 86 % of the US GE cotton market and 98 % of the US GE
corn market. Monsanto has created a genetically modified soybean strain that is unaffected by
their herbicide product Roundup. Farmers cultivate these soybeans, which then only require one
application of herbicides instead of several applications, dropping production cost and
minimizing the hazards of agricultural waste. Other known herbicide resistant crops include
Celgene’s BXN cotton and Bayer’s Liberty Link corn (USDA,ERS: 2000) Crop losses from
insects and pests can be surprising, causing an immense economic loss for farmers and food
shortages in developing countries. To overcome this loss farmers annually apply several tons of
chemical pesticides. Due to the potential health hazards of pesticides, consumers hesitate to eat
food that has been treated with chemicals, also agronomic wastes from extreme use of pesticides
and fertilizers can contaminate the water supply and cause detrimental effects to the
environment. Growing genetically modified crops such as Bt corn can reduce the application of
chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of crop production. The Bacillus thuringiensis soil
bacterium gene is designed to resist the European corn borer and numerous cotton bollworms.
An entomologist from the University of Missouri found that corn rootworms could pass on Bt
resistance to their offspring. University of Arizona scientists found that within seven years of Bt
cotton introduction, cotton bollworms developed Bt resistance which they later passed on to
offspring, signifying that the resistance was dominant and could evolve quickly.

Disease Resistance

There are many microorganisms and entities such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses that cause plant
diseases. Researchers are working on several projects to construct genetically modified plants
that show resistance to these diseases. Fungi cause a range of severe plant diseases such as grey-
mold, blight, powdery mildew, and downy mildew. Fungal plant diseases are generally coped
with by the use of chemical fungicides. Moreover, combating yield losses and avoiding fungal
infection saves crops from various mycotoxins produced by pathogenic fungi. Mycotoxins can
affect the immune system and interrupt the Genetic Modification of Crop Plants: Issues and
Challenges 374 hormone balance; a few of them are also carcinogenic. Genetic engineering
facilitates novel means of managing fungal infections by transferring genes from other bacteria
or plants encoding enzymes such as glucanase or chitinase. These enzymes further break down
glucan and chitin, which are vital constituents of fungal cell walls. Some other approaches
include provoking a hypersensitive response. The spread of most viruses is very difficult to
control. Once the infection is established, no chemical treatment or methods are available to stop
the same. Genetic engineering can also be used to develop virus resistant plants. The most
common method to exploit this technique is by inserting a plant with a viral gene encoding the
virus coat protein. The plant can then produce this viral protein before the virus infects the plant.
Papaya ring spot potyvirus is a severe viral disease of papaya, which inhibits photosynthesis in
plants and stunts growth. Genetic engineering proved to be successful in producing virus
resistant GM papayas.

Drought and Salinity Tolerance

Creating drought or salinity tolerant crops was a great task, but improvements were made
through a stepwise methodology. Recent inventions in biotechnology are conveying a better
understanding of the pathways and mechanisms involved in drought and salinity tolerance.
Developing crops that can resist extensive durations of drought or salinity in soil and
groundwater will encourage people to cultivate crops in earlier inhospitable areas. Several
drought and salt tolerant genes have been recognized. Identification of these salt regulated genes
has allowed a better understanding of the complexity of higher plants (Hasegawa et al. 2000)
Research institutes such as ICARDA developed drought and salt tolerant wheat and barley
exploiting genetic engineering.

Pharmaceutical Crops

GE crops comprise genes that are beneficial for pharmaceutical industries. Medicines are often
expensive to produce and generally need special storage conditions not freely accessible in
developing countries. Scientists are working to produce edible vaccines in potatoes and
tomatoes. These vaccines will be considerably easier to transport, store, and manage than
conventional injectable vaccines. The USDA has permitted field trials for a safflower variety that
is genetically modified to produce a precursor to human insulin that can be used for diabetes
treatment (SemBioSys 2010 ).

Nutrition-Added Crops

Various GE crops can modify the nutritional value of a food and are therefore encouraged by
biotech industries as a promising solution against diseases. Malnutrition is one of the biggest
threats in third-world countries. Underprivileged people mainly depend on rice as a staple food.
Rice, however, does not have sufficient quantities of all required nutrients to prevent
malnutrition. Giving significance to malnutrition, rice has been genetically modified to contain
surplus vitamins and additional minerals in order to alleviate the nutritional value. “Golden Rice”
is a variety boosted with an organic compound, carotene. The rice has been modified to decrease
the occurrence of vitamin A deficiency in the developing world. Similarly, GE soybean and
canola oil are engineered to ensure lesser polyunsaturated fatty acid content and higher
monounsaturated fatty acid levels (oleic acid) (WHO 2008). In 2010 the USDA permitted a
novel soybean brand that is modified to produce more oleic acid.
Important GE Crops

Safflower:

The USDA in 2007 permitted a field trial of a safflower variety engineered by the Canadian
company SemBioSys. It was tested to produce proinsulin, a precursor to insulin in humans.
Although safflower self-pollinates, some insects can still cross-pollinate safflower plants with
genetically engineered pharmacological qualities. Regardless of the contamination threat,
SemBioSys has a pending application to bring the GE pharmaceutical to market (USDA; 2011)

Soybean

soybean is among the two most extensively grown GE crops. The USDA has released two
soybean varieties engineered to have healthier oil profiles. Furthermore, in December 2011, the
USDA approved a novel soybean genotype that was lower in saturated fat, and in July 2012 it
approved a soybean with higher level omega-3 fatty acids.(USDA;2007)

Sugar Beet

In 2005, after determining that genetically modified production posed no threats to other plants
and the environment, the USDA approved Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beet. In 2008, the
Center for the Food Genetic Modification of Crop Plants: Issues and Challenges 376 Security
Club confronted this approval in law court on the basis that the USDA’s environmental
assessment overlooked significant economic and environmental impacts(USDA;2005). In July
2012, the USDA finally approved GE sugar beets.

Sweet Corn

Monsanto in 2011 announced that Roundup Ready sweet corn would be engineered for
implanting (Gilliam 2011). Sweet corn is Monsanto’s first commercialized GE vegetable crop
approved by the USDA. 3.5 Tomato In 1991, DNA Plant Technology Corporation transferred a
gene from the flat fish winter flounder to produce a cold-tolerant tomato. It was later approved
for field testing, but was never approved for commercialization. In 1992, Calgene engineered the
tomato called Flavr Savr having a longer shelf life and was the first GE crop on the market. Later
it was withdrawn from the market due to harvesting difficulties and lower demand (USDA, ERS
2013).

Wheat

In 2002, Monsanto appealed the USDA for the approval of Roundup Ready red spring wheat. It
was the first GE crop modification for human food consumption other than livestock feed. In
2004, an Iowa State study predicted that allowing genetically modified wheat could decrease US
wheat exports by 30–50 % and reduce costs for both GE and conventional wheat(USDA;2013).
Monsanto abandoned GE wheat field tests before getting commercial agreement, although the
company continued research in 2009.

Alfalfa

Alfalfa is an important feed crop for livestock. The USDA permitted Monsanto’s Roundup
Ready alfalfa in 2005. In 2007, non-GE alfalfa producers challenged the USDA’s permit on the
basis that GE alfalfa might contaminate organic alfalfa. In 2010 a USDA environmental impact
statement F. Khan and K.R. Hakeem 377 confirmed the possible harmful impacts of organic and
conventional alfalfa growers, including lower demand in the market due to adulteration.
Nevertheless, in 2011 the USDA approved genetically engineered alfalfa deprived of any
planting restrictions.

Corn

The USDA in 2011 allowed Syngenta’s amylase corn with distinctiveness to produce an enzyme
that accelerates the production of ethanol. The USD assured that it was harmless for food and
livestock feed and allowed it for field trials. (USDA;2011)

Papaya

In 1999, the EPA approved two varieties of papaya that are resistant to the papaya ring spot
virus. Genetically engineered papayas contributed 30 % of Hawaii’s papaya production in 1999
increasing to 77 % by 2009. Moreover, the third ring spot-resistant papaya was approved by the
(USDA in 2009)
Potato

The EPA and FDA in 1995 permitted Monsanto’s Colorado potato beetle resistant New leaf
potato Later in 2001, Monsanto withdrew the potato commercialization, but in 2010, the
European Union approved the Amphora potato for farming which is a product of the German
chemical company (BASF 2010) although the crop is intended for industrial use only such as
paper and textiles. The USDA is seeking for the approval of a low-acrylamide and reduced-
bruising potato created by McDonald’s main supplier.

Concern Against GM Foods

Scientists, environmentalists, professional associations, public interest groups, and other

government representatives have all raised concerns about genetically modified food and
criticized the agro industry for earning profits without concern for potential health hazards.
Critics also pointed to government for failing to implement adequate regulatory measures.
Utmost concerns about GM foods are human health risks, environmental safety, and economic
issues.

Environmental Safety

Effect of GE Pesticides

The US Environmental Protection Agency set a regulation of pesticides and herbicides, together
with GE crops that are modified to be insect resistant. The EPA also sets tolerable levels of
pesticide and herbicide remains in food, including GE insect tolerant crops. During the year
1995–2008 the EPA listed 29 GE pesticides modified into cotton, corn, and potatoes. In 1947,
bioengineered insecticides were regulated under the Federal Insecticides, Fungicide, and
Rodenticides. Pesticide and insecticide resistance GE crops need to prove they do not cause any
adverse effects on the environment or public health. The biotech industries must conduct field
trials for insect tolerant GE crops, create tolerable pesticide characteristics, and record the
pesticide trait for commercial production. A study showed that pollen from Bt corn caused high
mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Unfortunately, Bt toxins destroy several species
of insect larvae indiscriminately. It is impossible to design a Bt toxin that would only target crop
damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study has been later investigated
by the EPA and other nongovernmental research agencies; the initial data from new findings
propose that the original study may have been flawed (Niiler 1999). This topic is highly
debatable and both sides are defending their data strongly. Presently, there is no conclusion about
the Bt studies and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms requires further evaluation.

Reduced Efficiency of Pesticides

Farmers are concerned that usage of GM seeds may reduce efficiency of pesticides. Several
populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the currently banned pesticide DDT.A study
reported a decreased susceptibility in pests to the use of Bt as a sprayed pesticide. (F. Khan and
K.R. Hakeem)

Development of Resistant Weeds and Insects

When the crop is grown nearby a closely related weed species, gene transfer from GE crop to
weed through pollen transfer has been verified (www.colostate.edu). The crossbreeding transfer
of the herbicide resistant genes will create super weeds or superbugs that may possibly develop a
resistance to GM crops and insecticides.

Effect on Consumers

Ambiguous Safety

The effects of GM crops on human health are not yet identified. GE food like non- GE food can
carry hazards to consumers such as potent allergens and toxins. Evidence proves that human
reaction to allergens will be similar when it is transferred to GE organisms. A study found that
persons allergic to nuts responded in a similar way to genetically engineered soybeans in which a
protein from a Brazil nut was introduced. However, very little evidence supports a significant
health hazard of GM crops to consumers. The Centers for Disease Control also found no
evidence between a processed food that contained a GM product and claimed to be allergic
(Bonalume 1999). Moreover, the GM industry identified that the local market consumers of GM
products for years have no associated health hazards. Corn and soybeans are the major GE food
crop of the industrial food supply, from vegetable oils to high fructose corn syrup to livestock
feed. Safety studies on GE food are insufficient as biotech companies prohibit production for
research purposes in their seed licensing contract. A toxicologist reported in a study that rats fed
on GE corn over two years had deteriorated liver and kidney functioning and also had high
chances for tumor development. Another study reported impaired embryonic development and
abnormalities in the livers of mice as well as in rats fed GE soybean. In 2007 a study found liver
damage and kidney impairment of rats that were fed insect tolerant Bt corn. Studies indicate that
the Roundup Ready attribute lowers the nutritional content of engineered crops by constraining
the absorption of nutrients such as iron, calcium, zinc, and magnesium making plants more
disease vulnerable. A study reported that fusarium, some pathogenic fungi that infects plant
roots, becomes more dominant over Roundup-treated crops. ( (www.colostate.edu).

Identity Preservation in Field and Markets

Labeling of GM foods and food products is also an important issue. For consumers to have the
opportunity to make selections about their food, all GE foods should be labeled. The agro-
industry considers that food labeling should be voluntary and subject to the Genetic Modification
of Crop Plants: Issues and Challenges 380 requirements of the free market. Consumer interest
groups are also demanding obligatory labeling on GM food. The FDA’s recent status for food
labeling is administered by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA is only concerned with
food additives, not whole foods that are considered “GRAS,” generally recognized as safe. There
are some other queries that need to be responded to if the labeling of GM foods becomes
obligatory. Firstly, the agronomist will absorb the cost of such an initiative in order to save GM
crops and non-GM crops from mixing during harvesting and shipping. It is almost assured that
manufacturers will pass along these added expenses to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Secondly, the suitable limits of GM adulteration in non-GM products, where the acceptable limit
of cross-contamination is 1 % is determined by the EC, yet several consumer groups debated that
only 0 % is adequate. Researchers concluded that present technology is incompetent to identify
minute amounts of contamination, so safeguarding 0 % contamination is not guaranteed.
(David;2004) Finally, the utmost challenge confronted by a new food labeling policy is to
educate and notify consumers without damaging the public trust and causing alarm or fear of
GM food products.

Economic Concerns of GM Products

Bringing a GM food from field to the local market is an extensive and expensive process and
agro companies wish to ensure a commercial profit on their investment. Unions combined with
patent restrictions have increased the economic power of biotechnology companies. Consumers
are concerned that patenting improved plant varieties will increase the price of seeds which will
be unaffordable for farmers and third-world countries. Biotech corn seed prices rose by an
average of 13 % annually between 2002 and 2012, and soybean seed prices increased by an
average of 11 % annually. Between 1996 and 2007, Monsanto acquired more than a dozen seed
companies. Strict patents preserve genetically engineered varieties and violation of such patents
is of great concern for an agro-industry. The patent holder controls how partnering companies
utilize the combined traits. Therefore, there are several seed companies; most of the accessible
soybean, cotton, and corn seeds contain Monsanto-patented traits that have been cross licensed to
other seed-producing companies. Agriculturalists pay patent tolls and sign a bond for limited
authorization to plant GE seeds. Growers need to purchase new seeds every year due to patent
infringement. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third-world countries
who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to
plant in the next growing season.

Global Trade

GM crops and GM products are not universally accepted in the global market. The United States
has eagerly permitted GE crops, whereas consumers in Japan and Italy are doubtful about the
safety of GE foods. The European Union has banned the F. Khan and K.R. Hakeem 381 import
of crops with inserted genes, referring to concerns about the environment and human health
hazard. Presently some EU countries prohibit GE cultivation altogether: France, Germany,
Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, and Hungary. Nations that prohibit GE food normally enforce
strict rules to avoid illegal GE imports which blocks US exports of soybean and corn that are
major GE food crops. Japan does not produce GE crops and needs obligatory labeling of all GE
food. In spite of the modern grain-handling arrangement in the United States, GE grains have
contaminated non-GE shipments. The Government Accountability Office recognized six known
unlicensed releases of GE crops between 2000 and 2008. In 2000, Japan noticed GE Star Link
corn which was not allowed as fi t for the human diet. After the Star Link exposure, Europe
banned all US corn shipments, costing crop producers $300 million. In August 2006, non-
licensed GE Liberty Link rice was found to have contaminated conventional rice stocks. Europe
and Japan enforced heavy restrictions and ceased all US rice imports costing the US rice
producers $1.2 billion. In recent years, the US Trade Representative has been pushing transaction
partners to eliminate unnecessary import prohibitions and limitations to US GE crops and GE
products and is even insisting countries remove GE labeling necessities. (USTR;2011)Moreover,
the US State Department has pressured governments all over the world to lift GE restrictions.

Future Prospects and Conclusion

There are many potential reasons to believe that current and future GM crops have the greatest
potential to benefit economic, ecological, and evolutionary components of sustainable crop
production in the future. Increasingly, the use of GM crops will require agronomists, ecologists,
farmers, and policy makers alike to take more of a systems perspective that considers the broader
evolutionary consequence of the traits in question. However, engineering crops with complex
traits such as abiotic stress tolerance, nutrition use efficiency, and yield potential remains
difficult, although they are highly desirable in agricultural production. A great number of genes
have proven effective under well-controlled conditions, but are generally not good enough when
tested in the field. More and more research is needed through the integration of GM crops as the
basic strategy for successful management of pests, diseases, and weeds in an agro-ecosystem.
The safety assessment of foods derived from GM crops conferring nutritional benefits may in
some cases require the development of improved in vivo dietary studies of whole foods. It is
important to develop animal models that are very sensitive to the detection of toxic and anti-
nutritive effects and intended positive nutritive effects. Toxicological tests should be considered
on a case-by-case basis, for example, proliferative changes in tissues during the 90-day study
may indicate the need for a long-term toxicity study. In addition to animal studies designed
specifically for safety evaluation, nutritional or wholesomeness testing may be performed to
determine whether the food or feed product of the GM Genetic Modification of Crop Plants:
Issues and Challenge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
40 CFR 172.3(a), 40 CFR 180, 40 CFR 152.1(a) (2001) Pew initiative on food and biotechnology,

Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J (2002) Isolating, cloning, and sequencing DNA, 4th edn. Garland Science,
New York

BASF (2010) European Commission approves Amflora starch potato (Press Release). Available at
http://www.basf.com/group/pressrelease/P-10-179

Berg P, Mertz JE (2010) Personal reflections on the origins and emergence of recombinant DNA
technology. Genetics 184:9–17

Colorado State University, Transgenic crops: an introduction and resource guide.

http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/risks.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953604003909
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662508088669