INTRODUCTION SPEECHES

To our teacher, the panels, the opposing side, and for everyone, good afternoon.. As we embark on this
discourse, it is imperative to appreciate the substantial contributions that GMOs bring to the table, particularly in the
context of enhancing crop variety, reducing food waste, and addressing nutritional deficiencies. (Ronald, 2011).

Genetically engineered (GE) foods represent a transformative frontier in agriculture, addressing key challenges by
offering a spectrum of benefits that cater to food preferences and mitigate risk factors. The process involves precise DNA
manipulation, where genes from one organism are strategically inserted into another, fostering crops with heightened
nutritional value, improved taste, and increased resistance to diseases. Unlike the unpredictable outcomes of selective
breeding, genetic engineering enables scientists to select specific genes, minimizing the introduction of undesirable traits
and expediting the development of favorable characteristics. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA, EPA, and USDA play
a pivotal role in ensuring the safety of GE foods, conducting rigorous assessments to dispel concerns related to
unexpected side effects or harmful genetic alterations.

Our first point of contention revolves around the undeniable potential of GMOs to provide a wider range of crop
varieties, thereby significantly increasing food choices for consumers. This not only caters to diverse preferences but also
contributes to a more resilient and adaptable agricultural landscape.(Qaim & Kouser, 2013).

Furthermore, GMOs, particularly pest-resistant crops, emerge as a beacon of hope in the battle against
post-harvest losses due to pests. The reduction in food waste and the consequent increase in food availability present a
compelling case for the integration of genetic engineering in modern agriculture. (Potrykus, 2001).

One noteworthy aspect is the diverse range of advantages associated with genetically engineered crops. These
include a potential reduction in the use of pesticides, a more abundant food supply with lower production costs, and
enhanced environmental sustainability through the conservation of resources like water and fertilizer. Moreover, GE foods
have the capacity to address specific health concerns, such as the development of potatoes with reduced levels of
cancer-causing substances when fried, showcasing the precision and potential for health-focused innovation in this field.

The positive outlook on GE foods is reinforced by the consensus of major scientific organizations worldwide. The World
Health Organization, the National Academy of Science, and others have thoroughly reviewed research on GE foods,
consistently affirming their safety and equivalence to conventional options. This collective endorsement underscores the
rigorous evaluation processes in place and provides a robust foundation for the confidence placed in genetically
engineered foods.

Additionally, the prospect of reducing allergenic components in foods through genetic modifications ensures a
safer consumption experience for individuals with food allergies. This not only aligns with health concerns but also
showcases the precision and sophistication of genetic engineering in addressing specific risks. (Brookes, & Barfoot,2015).

In the realm of environmental impact, GMOs engineered for pest resistance play a pivotal role in reducing the
need for chemical pesticides. This not only contributes to safer food production but also aligns with the global imperative
of fostering environmentally friendly agricultural practices.(Nicolia, et. al, 2013).

Sustainable agriculture, disease resistance, and improved food safety testing further bolster the affirmative case
for embracing GMOs in our agricultural practices. It is our collective responsibility to consider these advancements with an
open mind, acknowledging the potential they hold for a more sustainable and secure future in food production.

Thank you.
Counter-Question 1: "Aren't GMOs linked to health risks? How can we be sure they are safe for consumption?"
Counter-Argument: Numerous studies, such as Nicolia et al. (2013), conducted a comprehensive review of the last 10
years of genetically engineered crop safety research. The findings consistently indicate that GMOs are as safe for
consumption as their non-GMO counterparts. The review supports the conclusion that there is no evidence suggesting
significant health risks associated with the consumption of genetically modified foods.

Reference: Nicolia et al. (2013) - Comprehensive review of GMO safety

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24041244/

Counter-Question 2: "Aren't GMOs causing harm to the environment through increased pesticide use?"
Counter-Argument: Brookes and Barfoot's analysis in 2015 found that the adoption of genetically modified crops has led
to a reduction in pesticide use. The study provides evidence that the cultivation of pest-resistant GMOs has resulted in a
decreased reliance on chemical pesticides, contributing to a more environmentally sustainable agriculture.

Reference: Brookes and Barfoot (2015) - Environmental impacts of GMO crops

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490

Counter-Question 3: "Is there any evidence that GMOs are truly addressing nutritional deficiencies in
populations?"
Counter-Argument: Potrykus's work on "Golden Rice" (2001) provides a significant example of how GMOs can address
nutritional deficiencies. Golden Rice, genetically modified to have higher levels of essential nutrients like Vitamin A, is
designed to combat malnutrition, particularly in regions where Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent.

Reference: Potrykus (2001) - Golden Rice and beyond

https://academic.oup.com/plphys/article/125/3/1157/6109908

Counter-Question 4: "Are there long-term studies proving the safety of GMOs, or are we still in the experimental
stage?"
Counter-Argument: The review by Nicolia et al. (2013) encompassed a substantial period, analyzing studies over the last
10 years. This extensive timeframe reflects a mature stage of research, indicating that the safety of GMOs has been
rigorously studied over an extended duration, providing a robust foundation for the argument supporting their safety.

Reference: Nicolia et al. (2013) - Comprehensive review of GMO safety

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24041244/

Counter-Question 5: "Aren't there concerns about genetic contamination and cross-breeding with non-GMO
crops, posing a threat to biodiversity?"
Counter-Argument: A study by Fuchs and Gonsalves (2007) examined the potential for gene flow between genetically
modified crops and their non-GMO counterparts. The research found that the risk of genetic contamination and
cross-breeding is manageable through proper isolation distances and effective farming practices. Thus, when appropriate
precautions are taken, the threat to biodiversity is minimized.

Reference: Fuchs and Gonsalves (2007) - Managing the risk of gene flow from GM crops

Counter-Question 6: "Don't GMOs lead to increased monoculture, making crops more vulnerable to diseases and
pests?"

Counter-Argument: Velásquez and Gracy's exploration of disease resistance in genetically modified crops (2016)
indicates that, in fact, some GMOs are designed to resist diseases that threaten food crops. This counteracts the notion
that GMOs contribute to increased vulnerability. When engineered for disease resistance, crops can become more
resilient, reducing the risk of widespread crop failure.

Reference: Velásquez and Gracy (2016) - Bacterial and fungal diseases in GM crops
How to make a transgenic crop
The processes involved in making a transgenic crop are the following:

1. Identification of an organism containing the desired gene. This can be from a plant, animal, or
micro-organism.
2. Isolation of the desired gene from that organism.
3. The creation of a modified genetic sequence by the fusion of the desired gene, a promoter
sequence that controls the functioning of the gene, and a marker gene e.g. a fluorescent protein
or an antibiotic resistance factor which allows the gene's presence to be detected even when the
target gene is not being actively expressed.
4. Multiplication of the recombinant sequence, usually in bacteria, to produce multiple copies.
5. Insertion of the copies of the desired gene into the organism to be modified, using either a
particle (gene) gun or a biological agent.
6. Selection of those organisms, which have successfully taken up the desired gene using a
selection test that recognizes only those organisms, which have adopted the marker gene.
7. Multiplication of the modified plants.

[SAFETY]
GMOs are neither inherently risky nor inherently safe. Their degree of riskiness or safety depends on the
characteristics of the inserted gene, the final organism that is produced and the application to which it is put. There is no
scientific evidence that the use of this technology is itself inherently unsafe.

[GOVERNMENT]
Genetic engineering could turn out to be the greatest gift science has to offer the next century. It is vastly more
precise than crossbreeding, which has been used for centuries to alter the genetic makeup of plants and animals. The
resistance of consumers, however, based on their lack of knowledge in this field, is at present developing faster than the
science itself. Not until governments demonstrate that regulation on approvals and on labelling is as adequate as it is for
other areas, will these fears disappear.

[PESTICIDES; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT]

The study of Brookes and Barfoot (2015) focused on the environmental impacts associated with changes in
pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use of GM crops since their first widespread commercial
use in the mid-1990s. The adoption of GM insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant technology has reduced pesticide
spraying by 618.7 million kg (−8.1%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and
insecticide use on these crops (as measured by the indicator, the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)) by18.6%. The
technology has also facilitated important cuts in fuel use and tillage changes, resulting in a significant reduction in the
release of greenhouse gas emissions from the GM cropping area. In 2015, this was equivalent to removing 11.9 million
cars from the roads.

[MICROBIAL RESISTANCE, WORLD HUNGER, FOOD WASTE]

Modern agriculture must provide sufficient nutrients to feed the world’s growing population, which is projected to
increase from 7.3 billion in 2015 to at least 9.8 billion by 2050. This goal is made even more challenging because of crop
loss to diseases. Bacterial and fungal pathogens reduce crop yields by about 15% and viruses reduce yields by 3%
(Oerke and Dehne, 2004). For some crops, such as potatoes, the loss caused by microbial infection is estimated to be as
high as 30% (Oerke and Dehne, 2004). As an alternative to the application of chemical agents, researchers are altering
the genetic composition of plants to enhance resistance to microbial infections.
[HUNGER, GOLDEN RICE, GMO IMPROVEMENT, TRIAL]
Biofortification of crops with β-carotene aims to combat vitamin A deficiency, a widespread issue linked to
preventable blindness and increased risks of severe infections and maternal mortality. This deficiency primarily affects
developing countries, causing thousands of children to go blind each year, with many succumbing to related
complications.
Engineering rice grains to produce β-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, has been successful. This technology,
developed in the 1990s, transformed rice grains into a golden yellow color, rich in β-carotene. However, despite its
potential to address vitamin A deficiency, delays in regulatory approvals and implementation have hindered its availability
in countries where it's most needed. The need for stringent biosafety regulations has caused frustration, as this delay
continues to impact malnourished populations in developing nations.
Five years later, Golden Rice consumed by adult volunteers demonstrated that the engineered rice is an effective
source of vitamin A (49.). The trial with a limited number of participants concluded that β-carotene derived from Golden
Rice was effectively converted to vitamin A in humans. Golden Rice could probably supply 50% of the RDA of vitamin A
from a very modest amount—perhaps a cup of rice, if consumed daily (50.,51.). This amount is within the consumption
habits of most children and their mothers (42.). However, this study was done in adults, and the technology was designed
to help children.
In the Philippines, VAD among children has increased from 15.2% in 2008 to 20.4% in 2013, despite a national
supplement program (45.,51.). This regulatory approval is an important step and recent work by scientists has provided
further justification that Golden Rice is safe (43.). Meanwhile, Philippine farmers still cannot grow Golden Rice. Regulators
have to certify that the crop will not cause problems in farmers' fields. These applications are being filed in 2020.

[POPULATION STATISTICS, FOOD PREFERENCE]

The current global human population is approximately 7.35 billion (United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs/Population Division World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables).
Fig. 1A shows the distribution of population around the world (upper panel). Although growth rate of the world population
has slowed in recent years (1.24% per year 10 years ago versus 1.18% per year in recent years), an annual addition of 83
million people is expected. The estimated global population will be 8.5 billion in 2030, and 9.7 billion in 2050 (Fig. 1B). The
expansion of population is one of the major contributors to undernourishment around the world. In 2016, the U.N. Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that 795 million people in the world were undernourished, among which 780
million people in developing regions [11]. Therefore the eradication of hunger should be a priority of policy-making.
Arguably the most realistic solution for matching increased global demand for crops is to boost the crop yields on
currently cultivated land. Currently, the rate of increase in crop-yield is less than 1.7% whereas the annual increase in yield
needs to be 2.4% to meet the demands of population growth, improved nutritional standards and decreasing arability (see
below) [12]. This is a daunting task, which seems only achievable by means of optimization of crop genetics coupled with
quantitative improvements in management of the agricultural system.

BENEFITS
[AGRONOMIC BENEFITS]
1996–2012 saw an increase of more than 370 million tons of food crops. One-seventh of the increased yield is
attributed to GM crops in the U.S. To achieve an equal increase in yield as delivered by GM crops, it is estimated that an
addition of more than 300 million acres of conventional crops would have been needed [20], [21]. These additional 300
million acres would necessarily be lands requiring more fertilizer or irrigation, or carved out tropical forests. Such
conversion of land would generate serious ecological and environmental stress to the world. A report from Graham
Brookes and Peter Barfoot (17) arrived as similar conclusions: for the period 1996–2013 they estimate that biotechnology
was responsible for additional global production of 138 million tons of soybeans, 274 million tons of corn, 21.7 million tons
of cotton lint, and 8 million tons of canola. If those biotechnologies had not been available, to maintain equivalent
production levels would have required an increment of 11% of the arable land in the US, or 32% of the cereal area in the
EU.

[MODIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IN FOOD]

Some genetic modification is specifically targeted to enrich certain nutrients or substances having high therapeutic
and pro-health value, including vitamins A, C, E, unsaturated fatty acids, alimentary cellulose and probiotics [22]. The
aforementioned “Golden Rice” is a significant example. It ameliorates malnutrition in an effective and economic way.
Similarly, using this biotechnology, researchers can also alter the amino acid composition of proteins as well as the
content of carbohydrates. The former is exemplified by sweet lupine, of which the content of methionine is enriched [23],
[24]. The generation of Amflora, a modified potato variety, is a good example for the latter scenario.
Enhanced nutritional value in transgenic products has been obtained by manipulating their composition of
carbohydrates. Let us consider further the example of Amflora. The bulk of polysaccharides in the potato-bulb is formed
by two types of starch: amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is useful only as food starch, while amylopectin is widely used
in the production of non-food starch, paper, and in textile processing. The synthesis of starch requires various enzymes,
which include a granule-bound starch synthase (GSBB), the primary function of which involves the production of amylose.
In the absence of GSBB, amylopectin is produced exclusively. Exploiting this knowledge has led to methods to modify the
composition of potato starch. The transgenic process involves the introduction into potato bulbs of an additional copy of
the GSBB-coding gene. Counter intuitively, the extra gene in fact suppressed expression of GSBB, by a process know as
“co-suppression”, a.k.a. “gene silencing”. The resultant Amflora potato is with decreased amylose, but rich in amylopectin
[25].

[IMPROVEMENT IN FOOD PROCESSING]

The GM technology can also be employed to facilitate food processing. A notable achievement is “Flavr Savr”
tomatoes. They were produced by the California company, Calgene, in 1992. The genetic alteration consists of
introduction of an antisense gene, which suppresses the enzyme polygalacturonase; the consequence is to slow down the
ripening of tomatoes and thus allow longer shelf life for the fruits. The composition in potato bulbs has also been altered
by gene editing. For instance, using a cyclodextrin glycosyltransferases gene from bacteria, potatoes exhibit greater
stability of brightness factors and, thus, a more attractive appearance [26].
Genetic modification is not limited to plants, but is also applied to animal products. Some researchers are
exploring transgenic fish with a view to enhancing the generation of growth hormones to accelerate growth and body
mass [27], [28], [29]. Very recently the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) has approved the first genetically
engineered animal, “AquAdvantagea” salmon – a fast-growing salmon – for human consumption in the United States. The
decision was made after two decades of regulatory limbo. Because the fish grow to full size in 18 months, rather than 3
years, and with less demand for food resources per kilogram of harvested fish, farming “AquaAdvantagea” may ease
pressure caused by heavy fishing of wild populations. Meanwhile, quite a few attempts have been made to generate milk
with decreased content of lactose or humanized bovine milk [29], [30].

[COUNTER ARGUMENTS FOR POTENTIAL RISKS]

1. Extensive Safety Testing: Proponents argue that GM foods undergo rigorous testing before reaching the market.
Regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), assess the safety of GM crops
through comprehensive evaluations.
2. Allergenicity Assessment: The process of developing GM foods includes thorough allergenicity assessments to
ensure that new proteins introduced into the crops do not pose a risk to individuals with allergies.
3. Environmental Benefits: Some GM crops are engineered to be resistant to pests or tolerant to specific herbicides,
potentially reducing the need for chemical pesticides and promoting environmentally friendly farming practices.
4. Selective Breeding Traditionally Accepted: Advocates highlight that selective breeding, a traditional agricultural
practice, also introduces genetic changes in crops. GM technology is viewed as a more precise and controlled
method compared to traditional breeding.
5. Global Food Security: GM crops can enhance food security by increasing crop yields, improving nutritional
content, and making crops more resilient to environmental challenges such as drought or pests.
6. Economic Benefits: GM crops may offer economic benefits to farmers by increasing productivity and reducing the
need for certain inputs, ultimately contributing to more sustainable agricultural practices.
7. Addressing Nutritional Deficiencies: GM foods, such as Golden Rice, are designed to address specific nutritional
deficiencies. For example, Golden Rice is biofortified with vitamin A to combat vitamin A deficiency in vulnerable
populations.

Toxicity:
Counterargument: Numerous scientific studies have found no evidence of increased toxicity in GM foods compared to
their non-GM counterparts. For instance, a comprehensive review published in the journal "Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition" analyzed over 1,700 studies and concluded that GM crops are as safe for human consumption as
traditional crops (Bawa and Anil, 2013).
“The safety of GE crops is crucial for their adoption and has been the object of intense research work often
ignored in the public debate. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a
classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published
literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues
that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants
became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards
directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of
scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE.”

Additional Reference: A meta-analysis published in "Food and Chemical Toxicology" examined 12 long-term studies and
12 multigenerational studies and found no significant differences in toxicity between GM and non-GM crops (Snell et al.,
2012).

Allergenicity:
Counterargument: Rigorous allergenicity assessments are a mandatory part of the regulatory approval process for GM
foods. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes the importance of assessing potential allergens in GM foods,
and guidelines are in place to evaluate the allergenic potential of introduced proteins (FAO/WHO, 2001).
Additional Reference: A study published in "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" reviewed over 25 years of
research and concluded that there is no evidence that GM crops currently on the market are more allergenic than their
non-GM counterparts (Prescott et al., 2016).

Genetic Hazards:
Counterargument: The likelihood of genetic hazards arising from GM crops is minimal. A review published in "Annual
Review of Plant Biology" emphasized the precision of current genetic engineering techniques and the extensive testing
conducted before GM crops reach the market, reducing the risk of unintended genetic consequences (Waltz, 2009).
Additional Reference: The National Academy of Sciences in the United States published a report stating that the process
of genetic engineering itself does not inherently pose unique risks and that the focus should be on the specific traits
introduced into the plants (National Academies, 2016).

[GUIDELINES]
In contrast, most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary for GM foods. Specific
systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and
the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a
significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.
The WHO Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses aims to assist national authorities in the identification of
foods that should be subject to risk assessment and to recommend appropriate approaches to safety assessment. Should
national authorities decide to conduct a safety assessment of GM organisms, WHO recommends the use of Codex
Alimentarius guidelines
The premise of these principles sets out a premarket assessment, performed on a caseby- case basis and
including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a
consequence of insertion of the new gene) Codex also developed three Guidelines:

● Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants
● Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA microorganisms
● Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals

general overview based on typical principles followed in the premarket assessment of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), which are likely reflected in the Codex guidelines:
[GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GUIDELINES]
1. Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants:
● Molecular Characterization: Assess the genetic characteristics of the modified plant, including the structure and
function of the inserted gene.
● Allergenicity Assessment: Evaluate the potential allergenic properties of the newly introduced protein(s) in the
plant.
● Toxicity Assessment: Conduct studies to determine if there are any toxic effects associated with the consumption
of the GM plant.
● Compositional Analysis: Compare the composition of the GM plant with its non-GM counterpart to identify any
significant differences.
● Unintended Effects: Examine unintended effects that may arise due to the insertion of the new gene.
2. Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced Using Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms:
● Molecular Characterization: Evaluate the genetic structure and stability of the modified microorganism.
● Allergenicity and Toxicity Assessment: Assess the potential allergenic and toxic effects of any newly produced
substances.
● Compositional Analysis: Analyze the composition of the final food product, focusing on any alterations due to the
microorganism's activity.
● Evaluation of Fermentation Process: Examine substances produced during the fermentation process and their
potential impact on food safety.
3. Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Animals:
● Molecular Characterization: Investigate the genetic makeup and stability of the modified animal.
● Allergenicity and Toxicity Assessment: Examine potential allergenic and toxic effects associated with the
consumption of products derived from the modified animal.
● Compositional Analysis: Analyze the composition of animal products for any significant changes.
● Unintended Effects: Investigate unintended effects that may arise as a result of the genetic modification.

[GOVERNMENT]
The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries, GM foods are not yet regulated.
Countries that have legislation in place focus primarily on the assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries that
have regulatory provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account health and
environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and labeling regimes). In view
of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to evolve.

[INFLUENCE ON CONSUMER’S VIEW]

Consumers’ positive response is largely influenced by the decision of the governments to ban or approve the GM
crops cultivation. Similarly, the public support increases when the potential benefits of the technology are well articulated,
consumption increases with a price discount, people’s trust on the government and belief in science increases with a
positive influence by the media.

[BEGINNING OF GMO]
Crop improvement based on scientific principles dates back to the 18th century.5,6 The significant role of
breeders during the 1960s, in improving the productivity was very crucial one. The era of ‘green revolution’ heralded the
emergence of hybridization and selective breeding, as drivers for enhancing food production through the development of
high yielding semi-dwarf varieties, tailored for new mechanized cultivation practices and responsive to synthetic fertilizers
that replaced low yielding multi crops with high yielding mono crops. However, conventional breeding has a major
limitation in terms of utilizing genes from tertiary gene pools due to barriers arising from reproductive isolation. This is
where GM technology, along with marker- and genomics- assisted crop improvement, strengthened accomplishment of
sustainable global food security. GMO technologies offer a much wider scope, allowing gene introgression, overcoming
the reproductive barriers defining the species.

[HINDRANCE]
GMO, despite being one of the fastest adopted technologies due to its scientific, economic and environmental
merits, has faced opposition owing to the diverse regulatory mechanism arising from political ideologies and cultural
perceptions leading to road blocks in universal consumer acceptance.
Consumers experience anxiety toward GM food and therefore their decision on its consumption is pivotal to
government and agri-business firms to prescribe policies and formulate strategies.13,30 A comprehensive information on
consumers’ perception, preferences, attitude and response toward GM foods has been presented in the context based on
the evidence from literature. A wide gap exists between acceptance for cultivation of GM crops and market across
countries.13 Consumers’ knowledge plays a big role in influencing their attitude toward GM food purchase and
consumption.
On the other hand, the consumer attitude toward genetically modified food products is still largely negative,
particularly in EU and developing countries.37,64,65 Lack of consistent regulatory policies and approvals in spite of
evidence about safety of GMO foods and sensational media reports strengthen consumer skepticism.
[BENEFIT TO ENVIRONMENT]
Also, evidence exist on GMOs benefiting the environment – reduction in CO2 emission equivalent to that of
emission by 16.7 million cars in 2016 alone2. Similarly, the technology adds tolerance to abiotic stress like drought (in the
case of wheat) and resistance to diseases, including late blight of potato, resulting in enhanced yield levels.45–47 A
number of examples can be drawn on increase in the nutrition levels viz., beta-carotene rich rice [golden rice) as reviewed
in Garg et al.,48 and a unique case like enriched flavor and appearance in the case of non-browning apple.49 Research
also reports that the GM plants are expected to produce therapeutic recombinant protein and vaccines in the future.43,50
Further, in monetary terms, the GMO technologies earn super-normal profit to the seed producing companies that own the
patent.

[WORLD HUNGER]
Global food security is vital for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations.51 End to
hunger, better nutrition, sustainable agriculture and achieving food security are of major focus in ‘SDG 2: Zero hunger.’
Improved agricultural techniques and food availability also have a key role to play even in SDG 1 that focuses on poverty
reduction. Genetically modified food can significantly contribute to improved food security and mitigating undernutrition.
Hence, the challenges associated with regulatory and consumer acceptance of GM food should be addressed with priority
and care. This can be done by putting in place regulatory mechanisms and promoting campaigns on consumer
awareness, sovereignty and rights over food safety.

[FUTURE]
The scientific evidence on the environmental and health impacts of GMOs is still emerging and there is no
conclusive evidence on the negative impacts. Though the perceptions of the public about GMOs in agriculture and food is
divided in across developing and developed economies with an overall inclination toward avoiding GM food and products,
the scenario is witnessing a discernible change. Governments all over the world are implementing various regulatory
guidelines and policies to ensure safety of the consumers, producers, farm animals and the environment.
Public acceptance and proper policies are keys for agricultural, environmental and socio- economic benefits of
transgenic crops to reach the poor and the needy. More important is the regional level regulatory harmonizations that
facilitate data transportability for expediting the decision-making with regard to bio-safety. The benefits of the transgenic
crops in the present scenario as well as in future depends upon science-based forward-looking regulatory steps, critically
looking at the benefits rather than the risks, agricultural productivity with due considerations to environmental conservation
and sustainability, and most importantly taking into consideration the millions of hungry and impoverished population.
One notable example of a genetically modified (GMO) food is "Golden Rice." Golden Rice was developed with the aim of
addressing vitamin A deficiency, a significant health issue in many developing countries. Vitamin A deficiency can lead to
various health problems, including blindness and increased susceptibility to infections. Golden Rice was engineered to
produce beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, in the edible parts of the rice plant.

Reason for Development:

● Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent in regions where rice is a staple food, and many people rely heavily on rice for
their diet. Golden Rice was created to provide a sustainable and cost-effective solution to vitamin A deficiency,
especially in areas where access to diverse diets or vitamin supplements is limited.
Methods:
● The development of Golden Rice involved the introduction of genes responsible for beta-carotene synthesis into
the rice genome. Specifically, genes from daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) and a bacterium (Erwinia
uredovora) were introduced. These genes encode enzymes involved in the biosynthetic pathway leading to
beta-carotene production. The result is a rice variety with a distinctive golden-yellow color, indicative of its
increased beta-carotene content.
Benefits:
● Improved Nutrition: Golden Rice is designed to address vitamin A deficiency, providing a potential source of this
essential nutrient in the staple diet of populations relying heavily on rice.
● Cost-Effective Solution: Golden Rice offers a sustainable and cost-effective solution compared to alternative
interventions such as vitamin supplements or diversifying diets, which might be economically challenging for some
communities.
● Accessible Technology: Golden Rice represents the application of biotechnology to improve the nutritional content
of a widely consumed crop, showcasing the potential of genetic engineering to address specific health challenges.

While Golden Rice has been developed with the intention of addressing a critical health issue, its adoption and
acceptance have faced challenges, including regulatory hurdles, concerns about safety, and socio-economic factors. It
remains a subject of ongoing research and debate in the broader context of genetically modified crops and their potential
contributions to global food security and nutrition.

In the Philippines, a notable example of a genetically modified (GMO) crop is Bt eggplant. Bt eggplant is genetically
engineered to express a toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which provides resistance against the
eggplant fruit and shoot borer (FSB), a major pest affecting eggplant crops in the region.

Reason for Development:

● The development of Bt eggplant aimed to address the significant losses in eggplant yield caused by the eggplant
fruit and shoot borer. This pest not only reduces the marketable yield of eggplants but also necessitates the use of
chemical pesticides, which can have environmental and health implications for farmers and consumers.
Methods:
● The Bt gene, which codes for a protein toxic to certain insect pests, was introduced into the eggplant's genome.
This genetic modification allows the Bt eggplant to produce the Bt toxin, providing inherent resistance against the
eggplant fruit and shoot borer. The Bt toxin is specific to certain pests and generally considered safe for
non-target organisms, including humans.
Benefits:
● Reduced Pesticide Use: Bt eggplant reduces the need for chemical pesticides, offering a more environmentally
friendly and sustainable pest management solution.
● Increased Yield: By protecting the eggplants from the damage caused by the eggplant fruit and shoot borer, Bt
eggplant can contribute to increased yields, improving the economic viability of eggplant farming.
● Health and Environmental Benefits: With decreased reliance on chemical pesticides, there can be positive
implications for the health of farmers, consumers, and the environment.
The adoption of Bt eggplant in the Philippines has been a subject of debate, considering concerns about the safety of
GMOs, potential impacts on biodiversity, and socio-economic factors. Regulatory processes, public awareness, and
stakeholder engagement play crucial roles in determining the acceptance and implementation of genetically modified
crops like Bt eggplant in agricultural practices.
Bt Cotton:
● Reason for Development: Bt cotton is engineered to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, providing
resistance against certain insect pests, particularly the cotton bollworm.
● Benefits: Reduced reliance on chemical pesticides, increased yield due to pest resistance, and potential
environmental benefits.
● Method: The Bt gene, which codes for a toxin from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), is introduced into the
cotton plant's genome. This toxin is toxic to certain insect pests, providing the cotton plant with inherent resistance
against the cotton bollworm.
Roundup Ready Soybeans:
● Reason for Development: These soybeans are genetically modified to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate
(Roundup), allowing farmers to use the herbicide for weed control without harming the soybean plants.
● Benefits: Simplified weed management, potentially higher yields, and reduced soil erosion due to decreased
tillage.
● Method: Roundup Ready soybeans are genetically modified to express a version of the EPSPS enzyme that is
tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup). This modification allows farmers to use glyphosate to control
weeds without harming the soybean plants.
Flavr Savr Tomato:
● Reason for Development: The Flavr Savr tomato was one of the first genetically modified tomatoes designed to
have a longer shelf life by delaying the ripening process.
● Benefits: Extended shelf life, potentially reducing food waste.
● Method: The Flavr Savr tomato was engineered by suppressing the production of the enzyme polygalacturonase,
which is responsible for softening the fruit during ripening. This genetic modification aimed to delay the ripening
process.
Drought-Tolerant Maize:
● Reason for Development: Some varieties of genetically modified maize (corn) are designed to be more resilient in
drought conditions, helping to maintain yields in regions prone to water scarcity.
● Benefits: Improved crop resilience in water-limited environments, potentially contributing to food security.
● Method: Drought-tolerant maize varieties are developed using genetic engineering to introduce genes that confer
tolerance to drought stress. These genes may be sourced from other plants with natural drought resistance.
Rainbow Papaya:
● Reason for Development: The Rainbow Papaya is genetically modified to resist the Papaya Ringspot Virus, which
had been devastating papaya crops in Hawaii.
● Benefits: Protection against a viral disease, supporting papaya cultivation in regions prone to the virus.
● Method: The Rainbow Papaya was genetically modified to resist the Papaya Ringspot Virus by introducing a small
piece of the virus's genetic material into the papaya plant.
Arctic Apple:
● Reason for Development: Arctic Apples are genetically modified to resist browning, allowing them to stay fresh for
a longer time after being cut.
● Benefits: Reduced food waste, improved visual appeal, and convenience for consumers.
● Method: The Arctic Apple was genetically modified to reduce browning by silencing the expression of polyphenol
oxidase (PPO) genes responsible for enzymatic browning. This was achieved through RNA interference (RNAi)
technology.
CONCLUSION

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have emerged as a transformative solution in agriculture, addressing
critical challenges while offering a myriad of benefits that cater to food preferences and mitigate risk factors. Through
precise DNA manipulation, GMOs foster crops with enhanced nutritional value, improved taste, and increased disease
resistance (Ronald, 2011). Unlike the unpredictability of selective breeding, genetic engineering allows specific gene
selection, minimizing undesirable traits and accelerating the development of favorable characteristics. Stringent regulatory
oversight by entities like the FDA, EPA, and USDA ensures rigorous assessments for the safety of GMOs (Nicolia et al.,
2013).

One significant advantage of GMOs is their potential to diversify crop varieties, expanding food choices for
consumers (Qaim & Kouser, 2013). Additionally, GMOs, especially pest-resistant crops, help reduce post-harvest losses
due to pests, resulting in less food waste and increased food availability (Potrykus, 2001). Furthermore, GMOs can be
tailored to address specific health concerns, such as the creation of potatoes with reduced cancer-causing substances,
showcasing their potential for health-focused innovation (Brookes & Barfoot, 2015).

Scientific consensus from organizations like the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Science
consistently affirms the safety and equivalence of GMOs to conventional options (Nicolia et al., 2013). GMOs are
developed with meticulous attention to allergen reduction and environmental sustainability, offering reduced pesticide use,
increased resilience, and enhanced food safety testing (Herman & Helm, 2007; Gianessi & Carpenter, 1999).

With increased transparency about bioengineered foods and their ingredients, consumer awareness is growing,
aligning with the goal of fostering informed choices and public trust in GMOs. The trajectory of GMOs presents a
promising narrative, balancing innovation and safety, ushering in a transformative era in sustainable agriculture and food
production.

The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in
many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology
(e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues under debate are usually
very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from country to country. On issues such
as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer preferences, there is no worldwide consensus to
date. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has made significant progress
and developed Codex texts relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology in 2011 to ensure
consistency on any approach on labelling implemented by Codex members with already adopted Codex provisions.

Drawing from past experience it seems unlikely the technological momentum toward genetically modified foods
can be stopped dead in its tracks. Or should be. The immediate advantages are too tangible to ignore or set aside out of
fear of the unknown and unintended disadvantages.

In conclusion, embracing GMOs is key to a more diverse, sustainable food future. Genetic engineering enables us
to carefully select beneficial traits while minimizing risks, creating healthier, tastier crops. With stringent safety measures
in place, GMOs offer a promising solution for a more nourishing and environmentally responsible food supply.

Thank You!
REFERENCES
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9009926/
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2001/309707/DG-4-ENVI_NT(2001)309707_EN.pdf
https://jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(22)02335-5/fulltext
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453016300295
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24041244/
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified
Ronald, P. (2011). Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics, 188(1), 11-20.
Nicolia et al. (2013). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in
Biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88.
Qaim, M., & Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e64879.
Potrykus, I. (2001). Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiology, 125(3), 1157-1161.
Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2015). Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2013: Impacts on
pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops & Food, 6(2), 103-133.
Herman, E. M., & Helm, R. M. (2007). Safety issues associated with the use of transgenic crops in human and animal
nutrition. Journal of Nutrition, 137(3), 743-747.
Gianessi, L. P., & Carpenter, J. E. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. National Center for Food and
Agricultural Policy.
Genetically engineered foods: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. (n.d.). https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002432.htm
Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety
research. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2014 Mar;34(1):77-88. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. Epub 2013 Sep 16. PMID:
24041244.
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015:
Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions, GM Crops & Food, 8:2, 117-147, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
Ingo Potrykus, Golden Rice and Beyond, Plant Physiology, Volume 125, Issue 3, March 2001, Pages 1157–1161,
https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.125.3.1157
Dong OX, Ronald PC. Genetic Engineering for Disease Resistance in Plants: Recent Progress and Future Perspectives.
Plant Physiol. 2019 May;180(1):26-38. doi: 10.1104/pp.18.01224. Epub 2019 Mar 13. PMID: 30867331; PMCID:
PMC6501101.
Wally O, Punja ZK. Genetic engineering for increasing fungal and bacterial disease resistance in crop plants. GM Crops.
2010 Jul-Sep;1(4):199-206. doi: 10.4161/gmcr.1.4.13225. PMID: 21844674.
Be disclosure. BE Disclosure | Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be