Recent Research in Science and Technology 2013, 5(5): 26-29

ISSN: 2076-5061
Available Online: http://recent-science.com/

Impact of GMO’S on environment and human health

Jai Godheja

Department of Biotechnology, Raipur Institute of Technology, Mandir Hasaud, Chhatauna, Raipur, India

Abstract
Genetic pollution is the term of genetics in which the genetic information is transferred in to the organisms where it is not
needed or where this information never existed before. Genetic pollution is a controversial[1][2] term for uncontrolled [3][4] gene
flow into wild populations.This flow of genetic information is usually undesired and cannot be controlled. The flow of genetic
information usually takes place between the genetically modified organisms into the organisms which are not genetically
modified. Genetic modification of genome uses techniques like site directed mutagenesis, selective breeding, somaclonal
variations, horizontal gene transfer (transgenesis), cisgenesis and their modifications. The causes of gene pollution may be
Cross-breeding of GM crops with the wild varieties by cross pollination, consumption of GM foods and improper disposal of
unsuccessful GM crops. The transfer of modified genes by wind-borne pollen might wipe out countless species of organisms.
Microbiologists have come up with an important point that if genetic modification is carried out extensively, new viruses with
greater potential to harm mankind may evolve anytime, and the probability of this occurring can be quite high. This form of
dangerous biotechnology will only benefit largely towards the GM crop farmers in form of monetary gain. According to
relevant statistics, farmers would save more than US$3.3 billion annually on herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. So
come to think of it. Is it worthwhile to become the guinea pigs just to save a few bucks, while those farmers are sitting down
there counting their huge earnings without inflicting any risks on themselves? While some countries have banned GMOs or
placed a moratorium on their release, others are increasing both investment levels and land area devoted to cultivating
genetically modified (GM) crops. In 2006, GM crops were grown commercially by 10.3 million farmers (9.3 million resource-
poor small farmers in developing countries) in 22 countries, on 102 million hectares - about 4 per cent of total arable land
worldwide [5]

Keywords: GMO’s; GM; transgenesis; cisgenesis; somaclonal variations.

INTRODUCTION
number of years, used the term to describe gene flow from domestic,
Genetic engineering has made it possible to make genetically feral, non-native and invasive species into wild indigenous species,
modified organisms and plants. In other words new genes from which they consider undesirable.[3][11][10] For example, TRAFFIC is
another source have been inserted into the organism and as a result the international wildlife trade monitoring network that works to limit
organism shows changes in it according to the gene's function in the trade in wild plants and animals so that it is not a threat to
body. These inserted genes are called as transgenes and scientists conservationist goals. They promote awareness of the effects of
can take them from other sources or species to see certain changes introduced invasive species that may "hybridize with native species,
in the organism. In some cases the genes which are already present causing genetic pollution".[11] The Joint Nature Conservation
in the organism can be taken out and desirable changes can be Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to the Government of
made in them. Scientists make all these changes just to see the United Kingdom and international nature conservation. Its work
different traits or characteristics of genes in an organism. contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity and
When the genetically modified organisms are allowed to educating about the effects of the introduction of invasive/non-native
breed with the organisms which are not genetically engineered, then species. In this context they have advised that invasive species:
these organisms will pollute the genetic of non-genetically "will alter the genetic pool (a process called genetic pollution), which
engineered organisms. Due to this reason the whole ecological is an irreversible change."[13]
system will get affected. There are few possibilities if GM organisms
are bred with non-GM organisms. 1) Genetically modified might lead Genetic engineering
the non-GM organisms to extinction. 2) Their genetics will change
and they will not be able to show their characteristics. 3) There are In the field of agriculture, agroforestry and animal husbandry
chances that these organisms might develop resistance against genetic pollution is being used to describe gene flows between GE
pesticides or herbicides and it will be a nightmare for the farmers. species and wild relatives[12]. An early use of the term genetic
This gene flow is undesirable according to some environmentalists pollution in this later sense appears in a wide-ranging review of the
and conservationists, including groups such as Greenpeace, potential ecological effects of genetic engineering in The Ecologist
TRAFFIC, and GeneWatch UK.[6][7][8][9][10][11] magazine in July 1989. It was also popularized by environmentalist
Jeremy Rifkin in his 1998 book The Biotech Century.[13] While
Invasive species intentional crossbreeding between two genetically distinct varieties is
described as hybridization with the subsequent introgression of
Conservation biologists and conservationists have, for a genes, Rifkin, who had played a leading role in the ethical debate for
Recent Research in Science and Technology 2013, 5(5): 26-29 27

over a decade before, used genetic pollution to describe what he more resistant or form new strains will be greatly increased.
considered to be problems that might occur due the unintentional Microbiologists have come up with an important point that if genetic
process of (modernly) genetically modified organisms (GMOs) modification is carried out extensively, new viruses with greater
dispersing their genes into the natural environment by breeding with potential to harm mankind may evolve anytime, and the probability of
wild plants or animals.[12][14][15] this occurring can be quite high. A research paper commissioned by
The usage of genetic pollution by the Food and Agriculture the British government supports this point. It concludes that crops
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is currently defined as: genetically altered to be resistant to common plant viruses cold risk
"Uncontrolled spread of genetic information (frequently referring to creating mutant strains that could wipe out the entire forms.
transgenes) into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are The resurgence of the pests from primary pest outbreak to a
not present in nature."[17] more destructive secondary outbreak may occur. After a pest has
Since 2005 there has existed a GM Contamination Register, been virtually eliminated by any means, the pest population not only
launched for GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International that recovers, but also explodes to higher and more severe levels. This
records all incidents of intentional or accidental[7] release of phenomenon is known as resurgence. To make matters worse, small
organisms genetically modified using modern techniques.[8] populations of pests that used to be of no concern due to their
significant numbers may suddenly rocket, creating new problems.
Genetic pollution is threatening consumers' right to choose This phenomenon is known as secondary pest outbreak. Do you
think it is safer and more logical to sacrifice a small portion of your
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement crops in exchange for the insurance that you can enjoy the
has made stringent efforts to keep GMOs (genetically engineered destruction of all your available crops?
/modified organisms) out of organic production, some US organic Abnormalities, mutation, and extinction of species may
farmers have found their corn (maize) crops, including seeds, to become widespread and cause a biological havoc that either takes
contain detectable levels of genetically engineered DNA. ages to return back to equilibrium or enters a stage of no return.
"Those who claim ownership rights to these genes should be held Genes produces proteins in the cells that they are programmed to
liable for their uncontrolled spread in the environment and into our work in, but when transferred into another system, the proteins may
food," says Gunnar Rundgren, President of the International act differently, thus resulting in the outbreak of allergies and the
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), which unites disasters mentioned above. This will be a great blow to Gaia, as the
730 member organisations in 103 countries. harmony that the Earth's closely-linked ecosystems that have settled
The organic movement is firm in its opposition to any use of down to will vanish, leaving the Earth's inhabitants to reorganize
GMOs in agriculture, and organic standards explicitly prohibit their themselves to build up the balanced structures. And this might take a
use. The farmers, whose seed is contaminated, have been under few centuries, or even forever.
rigid organic certification, which assures that they did not use any
kind of genetically modified materials on their farms. Any trace of Evaluating human health risk
GMOs must have come from outside their production areas. While
the exact origin is unclear at this time, it is most likely that the At least some of the genes used in GMOs may not have been
pollution has been caused by pollen drift from GMO-fields in used in the food supply before, so GM foods may pose a potential
surrounding areas. However, the contamination may have also come risk for human health. Much of the GM production currently grown
from the seed supply. Seed producers, who intended to supply worldwide is destined for animal feed. According to the UK’s Food
GMO-free seed, have also been confronted with genetic pollution Standards Agency, food from animals fed on these crops is as safe
and cannot guarantee that their seed is 100% GMO-free. as food from animals fed on non-GM crops[16]. The FAO has also
"This is more evidence that GMOs are polluting the environment in a concluded that risks to human and animal health from the use of GM
way that is outside the control of society or the companies that have crops and enzymes derived from GM microorganisms as animal feed
released these GMOs, and we are outraged. Organic products are negligible[17]. Scientists also acknowledge that little is known
remain the best option for consumers who wish to avoid GMO-food about the long-term safety of consuming food made from GM
and resist their use in agriculture. Organic farmers and independent products. WHO recognizes the need for continued safety
certification agencies will take all reasonable measures to prevent assessments on genetically modified foods before they are marketed
contamination. to prevent risks to human health[18] and for continued monitoring. The
main potential risks to human health are discussed below.
Impact of gene pollution
Allergenicity
For instance, the Bt corn produces wind-borne pollen (able to
be spread 1km from farms) that kills the caterpillars of the Monarch The potential of GM crops to be allergenic is one of the main
butterfly. When the life cycles of this butterfly are disrupted, the suspected adverse health effects, due in part to research by Hi-Bred
beautiful Monarch butterflies can only be found in our memory and in the mid-1990s. They discovered that soy bean plants engineered
photographs. with a gene from Brazil nuts produced beans that caused an allergic
Gardening job will be tougher as the weeds acquire the reaction in some people.
modified genes to become super competitive weeds that rampage
through the countryside and destroy other life forms in the process. Toxicity
Would you want your beautiful garden to turn into a mess of green
weeds that you can never get rid of? Another of the risks that opponents of GMOs cite is the
The risk of the evolution of common plant viruses to become potential for GM changes to result in changes that are toxic to
28 Godheja

humans and animals. One of the most recent GM crops to be as through the precautionary approach in the Cartagena Protocol
suspected of causing toxicity is the GM maize line known as MON and the IPPC’s Pest Risk Assessment (PRA).
863 (YieldGard Rootworm Corn), which received approval in the US
in 2003 and specifically targets the corn rootworm. MON 863 REFERENCES
contains less Bt toxin than most Bt maize varieties, producing the
[1] Rhymer JM and Simberloff, D. 1996 Extinction by Hybridization
toxin primarily in the roots, which is the site of entry for the western
and Introgression. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
corn rootworm[19]. There is also a possibility that if foreign gene
27: 83-109 doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83
integrate into human DNA, they could switch on random genes
inside of humans, leading to an overproduction of a toxin, allergen or [2] What's Wrong with the Environmental Movement: an interview
carcinogen[20]. with Patrick Moore By: Competitive Enterprise Institute staff,
Environment News 2004 published by The Heartland Institute.
Antibiotic resistance [3] ITALY'S WILD DOGS WINNING DARWINIAN BATTLE, By
PHILIP M. BOFFEY, Published: December 13, 1983, THE NEW
In order to increase the success rate of genetic modification, YORK TIMES. Accessed 27 November 2009.
scientists have used a technique involving antibiotic resistance
genes in addition to the desired gene to identify which plants have [4] Norman C. Ellstrand, 2001. "When Transgenes Wander, Should
successfully absorbed the introduced gene. The antibiotic kanamycin We Worry?" Plant Physiol, Vol.125, pp.1543-1545
is a frequently-used marker for plant modification yet is still used for [5] James, C. 2006. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
treating many human infections[21]. As the genes have traditionally crops: 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
come from bacteria, human pathogens could increase their antibiotic
resistance. Related to these concerns, the UK’s Food Standards [6] GE agriculture and genetic pollution web article hosted by
Agency (FSA) conducted a series of research projects to investigate Greenpeace.org
the transfer and survival of DNA in the bacteria of the human gut. [7] http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/geneng/2001may11.
They concluded that it is extremely unlikely that genes from GM food html ILLEGAL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN FROM
can end up in bacteria in the gut of people who eat them[22]. The MONSANTO DETECTED IN ARGENTINA
British Medical Association, for example, opposes the use of
[8] GM Contamination Register
antibiotic resistance markers in food. The risk is considered serious
enough to encourage scientists to adopt techniques to remove the [9] Greenpeace, "Say no to genetic pollution" (n.d.)
marker genes before a crop plant is developed for commercial use[23]. http://www.greenpeace.org
Scientists have also recently developed an alternative marker [10] Butler D. 1994. Bid to protect wolves from genetic pollution.
derived from tobacco rather than bacteria[24]. Nature 370: 497 doi:10.1038/370497a0
CONCLUSIONS [11] When is wildlife trade a problem? hosted by TRAFFIC.org, the
wildlife trade monitoring network, a joint programme of WWF and
Not all GM plants are equal in terms of their potential IUCN - The World Conservation Union. Accessed on November
environmental impacts. The complexity of ecological systems 25, 2007
presents considerable challenges for experiments to assess the risks [12] Gene flow from GM to non-GM populations in the crop, forestry,
and benefits and inevitable uncertainties of GM plants. Collectively, animal and fishery sectors, Background document to Conference
existing studies emphasize that these can vary spatially, temporally, 7: May 31 - July 6, 2002; Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in
and according to the trait and cultivar modified[25]. Objectively Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
assessing such risks is extremely difficult, because both natural and United Nations (FAO)
human-modified systems are highly complex, and fraught with
uncertainties that may not be clarified until long after an experimental [13] Jeremy Rifkin 1998 The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene
introduction has been concluded. The FAO Expert Consultation and Remaking the World, published by J P Tarcher, ISBN 0-
carried out in 2003 concluded that the cultivation of GM crops, with 87477-909-X
their potential benefits and hazards to the environment, should be [14] Michael Quinion "Genetic Pollution" – World Wide Words
considered within broader ecosystems. Environmental risks and
[15] Amy Otchet 1998 Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world an
benefits depend on a) the specific GM constructs and the crop into
interview hosted by The United Nations Educational, Scientific
which it is introduced; b) the geographical location of the crops; and
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
c) the period or timescale of its cultivation[26]. Conventional breeding
of crops and animals appears as likely as genetic engineering to [16] Food Standards Agency. 2005. GM material in animal
create new plant varieties that might lead to the development of feed.http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/gmfoods/gm-animal
super weeds. Given the significant parallels between GMOs and Accessed February 2006
other invasive species, greater efforts are required to address IAS, in [17] FAO 2004 The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004.
the same way that concerns about GMOs are being addressed. This Agricultural Biotechnology:Meeting the needs of the poor?
should be resolved based on good agricultural management,
regardless of whether the herbicide-resistant crops are genetically [18] WHO 2005. Modern food biotechnology, human health and
modified or are traditionally bred. The risks for the introduction of a development: an evidence-basedstudy. Accessed January 2006
GMO into each new ecosystem need to be examined on a case-by- at
case basis, alongside appropriate risk management measures, such http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf.
Recent Research in Science and Technology 2013, 5(5): 26-29 29

removal of marker genes from transgenic plants. Biochimie, Vol.

[19] Alexander, C.E. and T.V. Mellor. 2005. Determinants of corn
84, pp.1119-1126.
rootworm resistant corn adoption in Indiana. AgBioForum, 8(4),
197-204. Available at http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n4/v8n4a01- [24] Mentewab, A. and C. N. Stewart, Jr. 2005. Overexpression of an
alexander.htm . Arabidopsis thaliana ABC transporter confers kanamycin
resistance to transgenic plants. Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 23.
[20] Smith, J.M. 2006. Debate on GM Foods. Food consumer.
pp.1177-1180. Available at
Available at
http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/printer_Part_3_Debate_on_ http://plantsciences.utk.edu/pdf/nbt1134.pdf .
GM_foods.shtml [25] Wolfenbarger, L. L. and P.R. Phifer 2000 The Ecological Risks
and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants, Science, 290:
[21] Third World Academy of Sciences 2000 Transgenic plants and
2088-2094.
human health and safety. Available at:
http://stills.nap.edu/html/transgenic/safety.html [26] FAO. 2003 Report of the FAO Expert Consultation on
Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops . 16 - 18
[22] Food Standards Agency. 2002. Extremely low risk of GM transfer.
June 2003, Rome, Italy. Available at
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2002/jul/gm_reports
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/FIELD/006/AD690E/AD690E00.HT
Accessed February 2006
M.
[23] Scutt, C.P., E.I. Zubko, P. Meyer. 2002. Techniques for the