View source for Genetically modified food

{{short description|Foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA}}
{{pp-pc}}
{{Genetic engineering sidebar}}
'''Genetically modified foods''' ('''GM foods'''), also known as '''genetically engineered foods''' ('''GE foods'''), or '''bioengineered foods''' are foods produced from [[organism]]s that have had changes introduced into their [[DNA]] using various methods of [[genetic engineering]]. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits when compared to previous methods, such as [[selective breeding]] and [[mutation breeding]].<ref>[http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf GM Science Review First Report] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131016100707/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf |date=October 16, 2013}}, Prepared by the UK GM Science Review panel (July 2003). Chairman Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, P 9</ref>

The discovery of DNA and the improvement of genetic technology in the 20th century played a crucial role in the development of transgenic technology.<ref name=":1" /> In 1988, genetically modified microbial enzymes were first approved for use in food manufacture. Recombinant rennet was used in few countries in the 1990s.<ref name="Chymosinapproval" /> Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when [[Calgene]] first marketed its unsuccessful [[Flavr Savr]] delayed-ripening tomato.<ref name="James 1996">{{cite web |last=James |first=Clive |title=Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995 |url=https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/isaaabriefs/Briefs%201.pdf |publisher=The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications |year=1996 |access-date=17 July 2010}}</ref><ref name="Fray">Weasel, Lisa H. 2009. ''Food Fray''. Amacom Publishing</ref> Most food modifications have primarily focused on [[cash crop]]s in high demand by farmers such as [[Transgenic soybean|soybean]], [[Transgenic maize|maize/corn]], [[Genetically modified canola|canola]], and [[Genetically modified cotton|cotton]]. [[Genetically modified crops]] have been engineered for resistance to [[pathogens]] and [[herbicide]]s and for better nutrient profiles. The production of golden rice in 2000 marked a further improvement in the nutritional value of genetically modified food.<ref name=":2" /> [[Genetically modified livestock|GM livestock]] have been developed, although, {{as of|2015|lc=yes}}, none were on the market.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/developmentapprovalprocess/geneticengineering/geneticallyengineeredanimals/ucm113672.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090709170817/http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm113672.htm |archive-date=July 9, 2009 |title=Consumer Q&A |publisher=FDA |date=2009-03-06 |access-date=2012-12-29}}</ref> As of 2015, the  [[AquAdvantage]] salmon was the only animal approved for commercial production, sale and consumption by the FDA.<ref name="FDA"/><ref>{{Cite web|title = Press Announcements - FDA takes several actions involving genetically engineered plants and animals for food|url = https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151120183227/http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm|archive-date = November 20, 2015|website = www.fda.gov|access-date = 2015-12-03| publisher=Office of the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration}}</ref>  It is the first genetically modified animal to be approved for human consumption.

Genes encoded for desired features, for instance an improved nutrient level, pesticide and [[herbicide resistance]]s, and the possession of therapeutic substances, are often extracted and transferred to the target organisms, providing them with superior survival and production capacity.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Bawa |first1=A. S. |last2=Anilakumar |first2=K. R. |date=2012-12-19 |title=Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review |journal=Journal of Food Science and Technology |volume=50 |issue=6 |pages=1035–1046 |doi=10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1 |pmid=24426015 |pmc=3791249 |issn=0022-1155}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=Healey |first=Justin |title=Organic and genetically modified food |isbn=978-1-925339-11-6 |oclc=946314501}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite book |last=Mahgoub |first=Sala E. O. |title=Testing and analysis of GMO-containing foods and feed |year=2018 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-1-315-17859-2 |oclc=1100467822}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Dizon |first1=Francis |last2=Costa |first2=Sarah |last3=Rock |first3=Cheryl |last4=Harris |first4=Amanda |last5=Husk |first5=Cierra |last6=Mei |first6=Jenny |date=2015-12-28 |title=Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Ethical Eating |journal=Journal of Food Science |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=R287–R291 |doi=10.1111/1750-3841.13191 |pmid=26709962 |issn=0022-1147|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite book |last=Huang |first=Kunlun |date=2017 |title=Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods |doi=10.1007/978-981-10-3488-6|isbn=978-981-10-3487-9 }}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite book |last=Kramkowska |first=Marta |title=Benefits and risks associated with genetically modified food products |date=2013 |oclc=922412861}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last1=Spreng |first1=S |last2=Viret |first2=J |date=2005-03-18 |title=Plasmid maintenance systems suitable for GMO-based bacterial vaccines |journal=Vaccine |volume=23 |issue=17–18 |pages=2060–2065 |doi=10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.01.009 |pmid=15755571 |issn=0264-410X}}</ref> The improved utilization value usually gave consumers benefit in specific aspects like taste, appearance, or size.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":9" />

<!-- The following language and sources, per [[WP:GMORfC]], must not be altered without achieving consensus-->There is a [[scientific consensus]]<ref name="Nicolia2013" /><ref name="FAO" /><ref name="Ronald2011" /><ref name="Also" /><ref name="Freedman-2013">{{cite journal | last=Freedman | first=David H. | title=are engineered foods evil? | journal=[[Scientific American]] | publisher=[[Springer Nature]] | volume=309 | issue=3 | date=2013-08-20 | issn=0036-8733 | doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0913-80 | pages=80–85 | pmid=24003560 | s2cid=32994342 | jstor=26017991| bibcode=2013SciAm.309c..80F }}</ref> that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,<ref name="AAAS2012" /><ref name="ECom2010" /><ref name="ISAAA" /><ref name="AMA2001" /><ref name="AMA2012" /><ref name="LoC2015" /><ref name="NAS2016" /> but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.<ref name="WHOFAQ" /><ref name="Haslberger2003" /><ref name="BMA2004" /> Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.<ref name="PEW2015" /><ref name="Marris2001" /><ref name="PABE" /><ref name="Scott2016" /> The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation,<ref name="loc.gov" /><ref name="Bashshur" /><ref name="Sifferlin" /><ref name="Council on Foreign Relations" /> which varied due to geographical, religious, social, and other factors.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":15">{{Cite journal |last=Skogstad |first=Grace |date=2011-01-13 |title=Contested Accountability Claims and GMO Regulation in the European Union |journal=JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies |volume=49 |issue=4 |pages=895–915 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02166.x |s2cid=154570139 |issn=0021-9886}}</ref><ref name=":16">{{Cite book |last=Thayyil |first=Naveen |title=Biotechnology regulation and GMOs law, technology and public contestations in Europe |date=2014 |publisher=Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd |isbn=978-1-84844-564-2 |oclc=891882521}}</ref><ref name=":18">{{Cite journal |last=Weimer |first=Maria |date=2015-05-24 |title=Risk Regulation and Deliberation in EU Administrative Governance-GMO Regulation and Its Reform |journal=European Law Journal |volume=21 |issue=5 |pages=622–640 |doi=10.1111/eulj.12140 |s2cid=154666745 |issn=1351-5993}}</ref><ref name=":19">{{Cite journal |last=Wickson |first=Fern |date=December 2014 |title=Environmental protection goals, policy & publics in the European regulation of GMOs |journal=Ecological Economics |volume=108 |pages=269–273 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.025 |bibcode=2014EcoEc.108..269W |issn=0921-8009}}</ref> <!--End of restricted section -->

==Definition==
{{Main|Genetically modified organism#Definition}}Genetically modified foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering as opposed to traditional [[cross breeding]].<ref name="who-gmfaq">{{cite web | url=https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ | title=Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods | author=World Health Organization | access-date=29 March 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/genetically-engineered-foods | title=Genetically engineered foods | publisher=University of Maryland Medical Center | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160214090858/http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/genetically-engineered-foods | access-date=14 Feb 2016| archive-date=2016-02-14 }}</ref> In the U.S., the [[United States Department of Agriculture|Department of Agriculture]] (USDA) and the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) favor the use of the term ''genetic engineering'' over ''genetic modification'' as being more precise; the USDA defines ''genetic modification'' to include "genetic engineering or other more traditional methods".<ref name="usda-glossart">{{cite web | url=https://www.usda.gov/farming-and-ranching/plants-and-crops/biotechnology/agricultural-biotechnology-glossary | title=Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms | publisher=United States Department of Agriculture | date=27 February 2013 | access-date=29 September 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623183622/http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm | archive-date=June 23, 2015 | title=Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants | publisher=US Food and Drug Administration | date=22 Jun 2015 | access-date=29 September 2015}}</ref>

According to the [[World Health Organization]], "Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods."<ref name="who-gmfaq" />

What constitutes a [[genetically modified organism]] (GMO) is not clear and varies widely between countries, international bodies and other communities, has changed significantly over time, and was subject to numerous exceptions based on "convention", such as exclusion of [[mutation breeding]] from the EU definition.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|title=Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive|url=https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-07/cp180111en.pdf|access-date=2019-01-05|website=curia.europa.eu}}</ref>

Even greater inconsistency and confusion is associated with various "Non-GMO" or "GMO-free" labelling schemes in food marketing, where even products such as water or salt, that do not contain any organic substances and genetic material (and thus cannot be genetically modified by definition) are being labelled to create an impression of being "more healthy."<ref>{{Cite web|first1=Jonathan|last1=Knutson|date=May 28, 2018|title=A sad day for our society when salt is labeled non-GMO|url=https://www.agweek.com/opinion/columns/4451159-sad-day-our-society-when-salt-labeled-non-gmo|access-date=2021-07-09|website=Agweek|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2015-08-24|title=Non GMO salt? Water? Food companies exploit GMO free labels, misleading customers, promoting misinformation|url=https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/24/non-gmo-salt-water-food-companies-exploit-gmo-free-labels-misleading-customers-promoting-misinformation/|access-date=2021-07-09|website=Genetic Literacy Project|language=en-US}}</ref>

==History==
{{main|History of genetic engineering}}

Human-directed [[genetics|genetic]] manipulation of food began with the [[domestication]] of plants and animals through [[artificial selection]] at about 10,500 to 10,100 BC.<ref name=Zohary />{{rp|1}} The process of [[selective breeding]], in which organisms with desired [[Phenotypic trait|traits]] (and thus with the desired [[genes]]) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is a precursor to the modern concept of genetic modification (GM).<ref name=Zohary>{{cite book |title=Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Plants in the Old World |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=tc6vr0qzk_4C|p=1}} |author1=Daniel Zohary |author-link=Daniel Zohary|author2=Maria Hopf |author2-link=Maria Hopf| author3=Ehud Weiss |year=2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>{{rp|1}}<ref name=Root>{{cite book |title=Domestication |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=WGDYHvOHwmwC|p=1}} |author=Clive Root |year=2007 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Groups}}</ref>{{rp|1}} With the discovery of [[DNA]] in the early 1900s and various advancements in genetic techniques through the 1970s<ref name=":1">{{cite journal |doi=10.1073/pnas.69.10.2904 |last1=Jackson |first1=DA |last2=Symons |first2=RH |last3=Berg |first3=P |title=Biochemical Method for Inserting New Genetic Information into DNA of Simian Virus 40: Circular SV40 DNA Molecules Containing Lambda Phage Genes and the Galactose Operon of Escherichia coli |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |date=1 October 1972 |volume=69 |issue=10 |pages=2904–09 |pmid=4342968 |pmc=389671 |bibcode=1972PNAS...69.2904J|doi-access=free  | issn = 0027-8424}}</ref> it became possible to directly alter the DNA and genes within food.

Genetically modified microbial enzymes were the first application of [[genetically modified organisms]] in food production and were approved in 1988 by the US [[Food and Drug Administration]].<ref name=Chymosinapproval>{{cite news |title=FDA Approves 1st Genetically Engineered Product for Food |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-24-mn-681-story.html |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=24 March 1990 |access-date=1 May 2014}}</ref> In the early 1990s, recombinant [[chymosin]] was approved for use in several countries.<ref name="Chymosinapproval" /><ref name="chymosinCase">{{cite web|title=Chymosin |author=Staff, National Centre for Biotechnology Education |year=2006 |url=http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/ncbe/gmfood/chymosin.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160522102627/http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/ncbe/gmfood/chymosin.html |archive-date=May 22, 2016}}</ref> Cheese had typically been made using the enzyme complex [[rennet]] that had been extracted from cows' stomach lining. Scientists modified [[bacteria]] to produce chymosin, which was also able to clot milk, resulting in [[cheese curds]].<ref name="history">{{cite book |first=Geoffrey |last=Campbell-Platt |title=Food Science and Technology |date=26 August 2011 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-4443-5782-0 |location=Ames, Iowa}}</ref>

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the [[Flavr Savr]] tomato in 1994.<ref name="James 1996" /> Developed by [[Calgene]], it was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an [[Sense (molecular biology)#Antisense DNA|antisense gene]] that delayed ripening.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bruening |first1=G. |last2=Lyons |first2=J. M. | year=2000 | title=The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato | journal=California Agriculture | volume=54 | issue=4 | pages=6–7 | url=http://ucanr.org/repository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes | doi=10.3733/ca.v054n04p6|doi-broken-date=12 July 2025 | doi-access=free }}</ref> China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=James |first=Clive |year=2010 |title=Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995: The First Decade of Crop Biotechnology |journal=ISAAA Briefs No. 1 |page=31}}</ref> In 1995, ''[[Bacillus thuringiensis]]'' (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A0YyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4631,1776980&dq=bacillus+thuringiensis+potato+1996+approved&hl= Genetically Altered Potato Ok'd For Crops] Lawrence Journal-World - 6 May 1995</ref> Other genetically modified crops receiving marketing approval in 1995 were: [[genetically modified canola|canola]] with modified oil composition, [[Bt maize|Bt maize/corn]], cotton resistant to the herbicide [[bromoxynil]], [[Bt cotton]], [[glyphosate]]-tolerant [[soybeans]], virus-resistant [[squash (plant)|squash]], and another delayed ripening tomato.<ref name="James 1996" />

With the creation of [[golden rice]] in 2000, scientists had genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |title=Engineering the Provitamin A (β-Carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm |journal=Science |date=2000-01-14 |pmid=10634784 |pages=303–05 |volume=287 |issue=5451 |doi=10.1126/science.287.5451.303 |first1=Xudong |last1=Ye |first2=Salim |last2=Al-Babili |first3=Andreas |last3=Klöti |first4=Jing |last4=Zhang |first5=Paola |last5=Lucca |first6=Peter |last6=Beyer |first7=Ingo |last7=Potrykus |bibcode=2000Sci...287..303Y|s2cid=40258379 }}</ref>

By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops and a further 31 countries had granted regulatory approval for transgenic crops to be imported.<ref>[https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011] ISAAA Brief ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Retrieved 14 October 2012</ref> The US was the leading country in the production of GM foods in 2011, with twenty-five GM crops having received regulatory approval.<ref>{{cite web |last=James|first=C |title=ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 |work=ISAAA Briefs |publisher=International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) |location=Ithaca, New York |year=2011 |url=https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp |access-date=2012-06-02}}</ref> In 2015, 92% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 94% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified varieties.<ref name=USDA1>{{cite web |title=Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. |url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption |publisher=Economic Research Service, USDA |access-date=26 August 2015}}</ref>

The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was [[AquAdvantage salmon]] in 2015.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Aquabounty Cleared to Sell Salmon in the USA for Commercial Purposes |journal=FDA|url=https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121231004929/http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm|archive-date=December 31, 2012|date=2019-06-19}}</ref> The salmon were transformed with a [[growth hormone]]-regulating gene from a [[Chinook salmon|Pacific Chinook salmon]] and a [[Promoter (genetics)|promoter]] from an [[ocean pout]] enabling it to grow year-round instead of only during spring and summer.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Risk_Assessment_Mitigation_of_AAS-Oct2010.pdf |title=Risk Assessment and Mitigation of AquAdvantage Salmon |date=October 2010 |publisher=ISB News Report |last=Bodnar |first=Anastasia |access-date=2016-01-22 |archive-date=2021-03-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308125138/https://aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Risk_Assessment_Mitigation_of_AAS-Oct2010.pdf }}</ref>

A GM white button mushroom (''[[Agaricus bisporus]]'') has been approved in the [[United States]] since 2016. See [[#Mushroom|§Mushroom]] below.

The most widely planted GMOs are designed to tolerate herbicides. The use of herbicides presents a strong [[selection pressure]] on treated weeds to gain [[Pesticide resistance|resistance to the herbicide]]. Widespread planting of GM crops resistant to glyphosate has led to the use of glyphosate to control weeds and many weed species, such as [[Palmer amaranth]], acquiring resistance to the herbicide.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Culpepper |first1=Stanley A |title=Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. |volume=54 |issue=4 |pages=620–26 |year=2006 |journal=Weed Science |doi=10.1614/ws-06-001r.1 |s2cid=56236569 |display-authors=etal |bibcode=2006WeedS..54..620C }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gallant |first1=Andre |title=Pigweed in the Cotton: A superweed invades Georgia |journal=Modern Farmer}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Webster |first1=TM |last2=Grey |first2=TL |title=Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Morphology, Growth, and Seed Production in Georgia. |volume=63 |issue=1 |pages=264–72 |year=2015 |journal=Weed Science |doi=10.1614/ws-d-14-00051.1|bibcode=2015WeedS..63..264W |s2cid=86300650 }}</ref>

In <!--September-->2021, the first [[CRISPR gene editing|CRISPR-edited]] food has gone on public sale in Japan. Tomatoes were genetically modified for around five times the normal amount of possibly calming<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boonstra |first1=Evert |last2=de Kleijn |first2=Roy |last3=Colzato |first3=Lorenza S. |last4=Alkemade |first4=Anneke |last5=Forstmann |first5=Birte U. |last6=Nieuwenhuis |first6=Sander |title=Neurotransmitters as food supplements: the effects of GABA on brain and behavior |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |date=6 October 2015 |volume=6 |page=1520 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01520|pmid=26500584 |pmc=4594160 |doi-access=free }}</ref> [[GABA]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Tomato In Japan Is First CRISPR-Edited Food In The World To Go On Sale |url=https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/tomato-in-japan-is-first-crispredited-food-to-go-on-sale-/ |access-date=18 October 2021 |work=IFLScience |language=en}}</ref> CRISPR was first applied in tomatoes in 2014.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=Tian |last2=Zhang |first2=Hongyan |last3=Zhu |first3=Hongliang |title=CRISPR technology is revolutionizing the improvement of tomato and other fruit crops |journal=Horticulture Research |date=15 June 2019 |volume=6 |issue=1 |page=77 |doi=10.1038/s41438-019-0159-x |pmid=31240102 |pmc=6570646 |bibcode=2019HorR....6...77W |language=en |issn=2052-7276}}</ref> Shortly afterwards<!--in November/December-->, the first CRISPR-gene-edited marine animal/[[seafood]] and second set of CRISPR-edited food has gone on public sale in Japan<!-- after small public trial sales in late November and tomatoes by another company-->: two fish of which one species grows to twice<!-- (Ø1.9-fold)--> the size of natural specimens due to disruption of [[leptin]], which controls appetite, and the other grows to 1.2 the natural average size with the same amount of food due to disabled [[myostatin]], which inhibits [[muscle growth]].<ref>{{cite journal |title=Japan embraces CRISPR-edited fish |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01197-8 |access-date=17 January 2022 |journal=Nature Biotechnology |date=1 January 2022 |volume=40 |issue=1 |page=10 |language=en |doi=10.1038/s41587-021-01197-8|pmid=34969964 |s2cid=245593283 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Startup hopes genome-edited pufferfish will be a hit in 2022 |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2022/01/05/food/startup-hopes-genome-edited-pufferfish-will-hit-2022/ |access-date=17 January 2022 |work=The Japan Times |date=5 January 2022 |archive-date=17 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220117022646/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2022/01/05/food/startup-hopes-genome-edited-pufferfish-will-hit-2022/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Gene-edited sea bream set for sale in Japan |url=https://thefishsite.com/articles/gene-edited-sea-bream-set-for-sale-in-japan |work=thefishsite.com |language=en}}</ref><!--https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000008.000060432.html-->

==Process==
{{Main|Genetic engineering techniques}}
Creating genetically modified food is a multi-step process. The first step is to identify a useful gene from another organism that you would like to add. The gene can be taken from a [[Cell (biology)|cell]]<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g1v6WMHVkTgC&q=Genetic+Engineering:+Principles+and+Methods|title=An Introduction to Genetic Engineering|last=Nicholl|first=Desmond S. T.|date=2008-05-29|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-47178-7|page=34|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> or [[Gene synthesis|artificially synthesised]],<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Liang J, Luo Y, Zhao H|year=2011|title=Synthetic biology: putting synthesis into biology|journal=Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine|volume=3|issue=1|pages=7–20|doi=10.1002/wsbm.104|pmc=3057768|pmid=21064036}}</ref> and then combined with other genetic elements, including a [[Promoter (biology)|promoter]] and [[Terminator (genetics)|terminator]] region and a [[selectable marker]].<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Berg P, Mertz JE|date=January 2010|title=Personal reflections on the origins and emergence of recombinant DNA technology|journal=Genetics|volume=184|issue=1|pages=9–17|doi=10.1534/genetics.109.112144|pmc=2815933|pmid=20061565}}</ref> Then the genetic elements are [[Gene delivery|inserted into the targets genome]]. DNA is generally inserted into animal cells using [[microinjection]], where it can be injected through the cell's [[nuclear envelope]] directly into the [[Cell nucleus|nucleus]], or through the use of [[viral vectors]].<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Chen I, Dubnau D|date=March 2004|title=DNA uptake during bacterial transformation|journal=Nature Reviews. Microbiology|volume=2|issue=3|pages=241–9|doi=10.1038/nrmicro844|pmid=15083159|s2cid=205499369}}</ref> In plants the DNA is often inserted using [[Agrobacterium#Uses in biotechnology|''Agrobacterium''-mediated recombination]],<ref name="NRC_GMO_Foods">{{cite book|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/|title=Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms|author=National Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health|date=2004-01-01|publisher=National Academies Press (US)}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Gelvin SB|date=March 2003|title=Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation: the biology behind the "gene-jockeying" tool|journal=Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews|volume=67|issue=1|pages=16–37, table of contents|doi=10.1128/MMBR.67.1.16-37.2003|pmc=150518|pmid=12626681}}</ref> [[biolistics]]<ref>{{cite book|title=Genetically Modified Plants: Assessing Safety and Managing Risk|last1=Head|first1=Graham|last2=Hull|first2=Roger H|last3=Tzotzos|first3=George T.|publisher=Academic Pr|year=2009|isbn=978-0-12-374106-6|location=London|page=244|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> or [[electroporation]]. As only a single cell is transformed with genetic material, the organism must be [[Regeneration (biology)|regenerated]] from that single cell. In plants this is accomplished through [[Plant tissue culture|tissue culture]].<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Tuomela M, Stanescu I, Krohn K|date=October 2005|title=Validation overview of bio-analytical methods|journal=Gene Therapy|volume=12 Suppl 1|issue=S1|pages=S131-8|doi=10.1038/sj.gt.3302627|pmid=16231045|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-M4lR-pxqJMC|title=Plant Cell and Tissue Culture|vauthors=Narayanaswamy S|date=1994|publisher=Tata McGraw-Hill Education|isbn=978-0-07-460277-5|page=vi}}</ref> In animals it is necessary to ensure that the inserted DNA is present in the [[embryonic stem cells]].<ref name="NRC_GMO_Foods" /> Further testing using [[Polymerase chain reaction|PCR]], [[Southern hybridization]], and [[DNA sequencing]] is conducted to confirm that an organism contains the new gene.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aGkXFmqOcyIC&q=Genetic+Engineering+analysis+of+DNA+PCR+Southern+sequencing|title=Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods|last=Setlow|first=Jane K.|date=2002-10-31|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-0-306-47280-0|page=109|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref>

Traditionally the new genetic material was inserted randomly within the host genome. [[Gene targeting]] techniques, which creates [[Double-strand breaks|double-stranded breaks]] and takes advantage on the cells natural [[homologous recombination]] repair systems, have been developed to target insertion to exact [[Locus (genetics)|locations]]. [[Genome editing]] uses artificially engineered [[nuclease]]s that create breaks at specific points. There are four families of engineered nucleases: [[meganuclease]]s,<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Grizot S, Smith J, Daboussi F, Prieto J, Redondo P, Merino N, Villate M, Thomas S, Lemaire L, Montoya G, Blanco FJ, Pâques F, Duchateau P|date=September 2009|title=Efficient targeting of a SCID gene by an engineered single-chain homing endonuclease|journal=Nucleic Acids Research|volume=37|issue=16|pages=5405–19|doi=10.1093/nar/gkp548|pmc=2760784|pmid=19584299}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Gao H, Smith J, Yang M, Jones S, Djukanovic V, Nicholson MG, West A, Bidney D, Falco SC, Jantz D, Lyznik LA|date=January 2010|title=Heritable targeted mutagenesis in maize using a designed endonuclease|journal=The Plant Journal|volume=61|issue=1|pages=176–87|doi=10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.04041.x|pmid=19811621|doi-access=free}}</ref> [[zinc finger nuclease]]s,<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Townsend JA, Wright DA, Winfrey RJ, Fu F, Maeder ML, Joung JK, Voytas DF|date=May 2009|title=High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases|journal=Nature|volume=459|issue=7245|pages=442–5|bibcode=2009Natur.459..442T|doi=10.1038/nature07845|pmc=2743854|pmid=19404258}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, DeKelver RC, Moehle EA, Worden SE, Mitchell JC, Arnold NL, Gopalan S, Meng X, Choi VM, Rock JM, Wu YY, Katibah GE, Zhifang G, McCaskill D, Simpson MA, Blakeslee B, Greenwalt SA, Butler HJ, Hinkley SJ, Zhang L, Rebar EJ, Gregory PD, Urnov FD|date=May 2009|title=Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases|journal=Nature|volume=459|issue=7245|pages=437–41|bibcode=2009Natur.459..437S|doi=10.1038/nature07992|pmid=19404259|s2cid=4323298}}</ref> [[transcription activator-like effector nuclease]]s (TALENs),<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL, Schmidt C, Zhang F, Hummel A, Bogdanove AJ, Voytas DF|date=October 2010|title=Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases|journal=Genetics|volume=186|issue=2|pages=757–61|doi=10.1534/genetics.110.120717|pmc=2942870|pmid=20660643}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Li T, Huang S, Jiang WZ, Wright D, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B|date=January 2011|title=TAL nucleases (TALNs): hybrid proteins composed of TAL effectors and FokI DNA-cleavage domain|journal=Nucleic Acids Research|volume=39|issue=1|pages=359–72|doi=10.1093/nar/gkq704|pmc=3017587|pmid=20699274}}</ref> and the Cas9-guideRNA system (adapted from CRISPR).<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Esvelt KM, Wang HH|year=2013|title=Genome-scale engineering for systems and synthetic biology|journal=Molecular Systems Biology|volume=9|article-number=641|doi=10.1038/msb.2012.66|pmc=3564264|pmid=23340847}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|vauthors=Tan WS, Carlson DF, Walton MW, Fahrenkrug SC, Hackett PB|chapter=Precision Editing of Large Animal Genomes |title=Advances in Genetics Volume 80|year=2012|volume=80|pages=37–97|doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-404742-6.00002-8|isbn=978-0-12-404742-6|pmc=3683964|pmid=23084873}}</ref> TALEN and CRISPR are the two most commonly used and each has its own advantages.<ref name=":5">{{cite journal|vauthors=Malzahn A, Lowder L, Qi Y|date=2017-04-24|title=Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR|journal=Cell & Bioscience|volume=7|article-number=21|doi=10.1186/s13578-017-0148-4|pmc=5404292|pmid=28451378 |doi-access=free }}</ref> TALENs have greater target specificity, while CRISPR is easier to design and more efficient.<ref name=":5" />

==By organism==
=== Crops ===
{{main|Genetically modified crops}}Genetically modified crops (GM crops) are genetically modified plants that are used in [[agriculture]]. The first crops developed were used for animal or human food and provide resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, [[Food spoilage|spoilage]] or chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a [[[[herbicide]]]]). The second generation of crops aimed to improve the quality, often by altering the [[Nutrient profiling|nutrient profile]]. Third generation genetically modified crops could be used for non-food purposes, including the production of [[Plant manufactured pharmaceuticals|pharmaceutical agents]], [[biofuels]], and other industrially useful goods, as well as for [[bioremediation]].<ref name=":12">{{cite book|title=Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development|last=Qaim|first=Matin|date=2016-04-29|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-137-40572-2|pages=1–10|chapter=Introduction|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> GM crops have been produced to improve harvests through reducing insect pressure, increase nutrient value and tolerate different [[abiotic stress]]es. As of 2018, the [[commercialised]] crops are limited mostly to [[cash crop]]s like cotton, soybean, maize/corn and canola and the vast majority of the introduced traits provide either herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.<ref name=":12" />

The majority of GM crops have been modified to be resistant to selected herbicides, usually a [[glyphosate]] or [[glufosinate]] based one. Genetically modified crops engineered to resist herbicides are now more available than conventionally bred resistant varieties.<ref name=":03">{{cite journal|vauthors=Darmency H|date=August 2013|title=Pleiotropic effects of herbicide-resistance genes on crop yield: a review|journal=Pest Management Science|volume=69|issue=8|pages=897–904|doi=10.1002/ps.3522|pmid=23457026 |bibcode=2013PMSci..69..897D }}</ref> Most currently available genes used to engineer insect resistance come from the ''[[Bacillus thuringiensis]]'' (Bt) bacterium and code for [[delta endotoxin]]s. A few use the genes that encode for [[vegetative insecticidal protein]]s.<ref>{{cite book|title=Plant Biotechnology|last1=Fleischer|first1=Shelby J.|last2=Hutchison|first2=William D.|last3=Naranjo|first3=Steven E.|year=2014|isbn=978-3-319-06891-6|pages=115–127|chapter=Sustainable Management of Insect-Resistant Crops|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-06892-3_10|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> The only gene commercially used to provide insect protection that does not originate from ''B. thuringiensis'' is the [[Cowpea]] [[trypsin inhibitor]] (CpTI). CpTI was first approved for use cotton in 1999 and is currently undergoing trials in rice.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=78&Event=SGK321|title=SGK321|work=GM Approval Database|publisher=ISAAA.org|access-date=2017-04-27}}</ref><ref name="Qiu_2008">{{cite journal|vauthors=Qiu J|date=October 2008|title=Is China ready for GM rice?|journal=Nature|volume=455|issue=7215|pages=850–2|doi=10.1038/455850a|pmid=18923484|doi-access=free}}</ref> Less than one percent of GM crops contained other traits, which include providing [[virus |virus resistance]], delaying [[senescence]] and altering the plants composition.<ref name="isaaa2">{{cite web|url=https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/default.asp|title=Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014|publisher=ISAAA.org|access-date=2016-09-15}}</ref>

Adoption by farmers has been rapid, between 1996 and 2013, the total surface area of land cultivated with GM crops increased by a factor of 100.<ref name="James2013">ISAAA 2013 Annual Report [https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/ Executive Summary, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013] ISAAA Brief 46-2013, Retrieved 6 August 2014</ref> Geographically though the spread has been uneven, with strong growth in the [[Americas]] and parts of Asia and little in Europe and Africa<ref name=":12" /> in 2013 only 10% of world cropland was GM, with the US, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina being 90% of that.<ref name="Freedman-2013" /> Its [[Socioeconomics|socioeconomic]] spread has been more even, with approximately 54% of worldwide GM crops grown in [[Developing country|developing countries]] in 2013.<ref name="James2013" /> Although doubts have been raised,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html|title=Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops|last=Hakim|first=Danny|date=2016-10-29|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-05-05|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers through decreased pesticide use as well as increased crop yield and farm profit.<ref>{{Cite journal|vauthors=Areal FJ, Riesgo L, Rodríguez-Cerezo E|date=February 2013|title=Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis|journal=The Journal of Agricultural Science|volume=151|issue=1|pages=7–33|doi=10.1017/S0021859612000111|s2cid=85891950|issn=0021-8596}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|vauthors=Finger R, El Benni N, Kaphengst T, Evans C, Herbert S, Lehmann B, Morse S, Stupak N|date=2011-05-10|title=A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops|journal=Sustainability|volume=3|issue=5|pages=743–62|doi=10.3390/su3050743|doi-access=free|bibcode=2011Sust....3..743F |hdl=20.500.11850/42242|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Klümper W, Qaim M|date=2014-11-03|title=A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=9|issue=11|article-number=e111629|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9k1629K|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629|pmc=4218791|pmid=25365303|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Fruits and vegetables ===
Long before humans began using transgenics, [[sweet potato]] emerged naturally 8000 years ago by embedding of genes from bacteria, that increased its sugar content. Kyndt et al 2015 finds ''[[Agrobacterium tumefaciens]]'' DNA from this natural transgenic event still in the crop's genome today.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Doucleff|first=Michaeleen|date=2015-05-05|title=Natural GMO? Sweet Potato Genetically Modified 8,000 Years Ago|language=en|work=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/05/404198552/natural-gmo-sweet-potato-genetically-modified-8-000-years-ago|access-date=2022-01-15}}</ref><ref name="Lebot-2020">{{cite book | last=Lebot | first=Vincent | title=Tropical Root and Tuber Crops: Cassava, Sweet Potato, Yams And Aroids | publisher=CABI ([[Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International]]) | publication-place=[[Wallingford, Oxfordshire]], UK [[Boston]], USA | year=2020 | isbn=978-1-78924-336-9 | oclc=1110672215 | page=541}}</ref>{{rp|141}}<ref name="Soucy-et-al-2015">{{cite journal | last1=Soucy | first1=Shannon M. | last2=Huang | first2=Jinling | last3=Gogarten | first3=Johann Peter | title=Horizontal gene transfer: building the web of life | journal=[[Nature Reviews Genetics]] | publisher=[[Nature Portfolio]] | volume=16 | issue=8 | date=2015-07-17 | issn=1471-0056 | doi=10.1038/nrg3962 | pages=472–482| pmid=26184597 | s2cid=6794788 }}</ref><ref name="Andersen-et-al-2015">{{cite journal | last1=Andersen | first1=Martin Marchman | last2=Landes | first2=Xavier | last3=Xiang | first3=Wen | last4=Anyshchenko | first4=Artem | last5=Falhof | first5=Janus | last6=Østerberg | first6=Jeppe Thulin | last7=Olsen | first7=Lene Irene | last8=Edenbrandt | first8=Anna Kristina | last9=Vedel | first9=Suzanne Elizabeth | last10=Thorsen | first10=Bo Jellesmark | last11=Sandøe | first11=Peter | last12=Gamborg | first12=Christian | last13=Kappel | first13=Klemens | last14=Palmgren | first14=Michael G. | title=Feasibility of new breeding techniques for organic farming | journal=[[Trends in Plant Science]] | publisher=[[Cell Press]] | volume=20 | issue=7 | year=2015 | issn=1360-1385 | doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2015.04.011 | pages=426–434| pmid=26027462 | s2cid=205454618 | doi-access=free | bibcode=2015TPS....20..426A }}</ref>

[[File:Papaya sunset.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.2|Three views of a papaya, cultivar "Sunset", which was genetically modified to create the cultivar 'SunUp', which is resistant to [[Papaya ringspot virus]]<ref name="Gonsalves">{{cite journal|last=Gonsalves|first=D.|year=2004|title=Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond|url=http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a07-gonsalves.htm|journal=AgBioForum|volume=7|issue=1&2|pages=36–40|access-date=2013-01-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100706225255/http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a07-gonsalves.htm|archive-date=2010-07-06}}</ref>]]
[[Carica papaya|Papaya]] was genetically modified to resist the [[Papaya ringspot virus|ringspot virus]] (PSRV). "SunUp" is a transgenic red-fleshed Sunset papaya [[cultivar]] that is [[homozygous]] for the coat protein gene PRSV; "Rainbow" is a yellow-fleshed [[F1 hybrid]] developed by crossing 'SunUp' and nontransgenic yellow-fleshed "Kapoho".<ref name="Gonsalves" /> The GM cultivar was approved in 1998<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hawaiipapaya.com/rainbow.htm|title=The Rainbow Papaya Story|publisher=Hawaii Papaya Industry Association|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107073644/http://www.hawaiipapaya.com/rainbow.htm|archive-date=2015-01-07|access-date=April 17, 2015}}</ref> and by 2010 80% of Hawaiian papaya was genetically engineered.<ref name=":0" /> ''[[The New York Times]]'' stated, "without it, the state's papaya industry would have collapsed".<ref name=":0">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/opinion/15ronald.html?_r=2&ref=opinion|title=Genetically Engineered Distortions|last1=Ronald|first1=Pamela|date=May 14, 2010|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=July 26, 2010|last2=McWilliams|first2=James}}</ref> In China, a transgenic PRSV-resistant papaya was developed by [[South China Agricultural University]] and was first approved for commercial planting in 2006; as of 2012 95% of the papaya grown in [[Guangdong]] province and 40% of the papaya grown in [[Hainan]] province was genetically modified.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Li|first1=Y|display-authors=etal|date=April 2014|title=Biosafety management and commercial use of genetically modified crops in China|journal=Plant Cell Reports|volume=33|issue=4|pages=565–73|doi=10.1007/s00299-014-1567-x|pmid=24493253|bibcode=2014PCelR..33..565L|s2cid=16570688}}</ref> In [[Hong Kong]], where there is an exemption on growing and releasing any varieties of GM papaya, more than 80% of grown and imported papayas were transgenic.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Loo|first1=Jacky Fong-Chuen|last2=But|first2=Grace Wing-Chiu|last3=Kwok|first3=Ho-Chin|last4=Lau|first4=Pui-Man|last5=Kong|first5=Siu-Kai|last6=Ho|first6=Ho-Pui|last7=Shaw|first7=Pang-Chui|year=2019|title=A rapid sample-to-answer analytical detection of genetically modified papaya using loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay on lab-on-a-disc for field use|journal=Food Chemistry|volume=274|pages=822–830|doi=10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.049|issn=0308-8146|pmid=30373016|s2cid=53115420}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_gmo/gmo_exp/files/Discussion_Paper_GMO_04_2015.pdf.pdf|title=Genetically Modified Organisms (Control of Release) Ordinance Cap. 607: Review of the Exemption of Genetically Modified Papayas in Hong Kong}}</ref>

The New Leaf potato, a GM food developed using ''Bacillus thuringiensis'' (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection from the yield-robbing [[Colorado potato beetle]].<ref name="Bawa pp.1035–1046">{{Cite journal|last1=Bawa|first1=A. S.|last2=Anilakumar|first2=K. R.|date=2016-12-04|title=Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns&nbsp;– a review|journal=Journal of Food Science and Technology|volume=50|issue=6|pages=1035–46|doi=10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1|issn=0022-1155|pmc=3791249|pmid=24426015}}</ref> The New Leaf potato, brought to market by [[Monsanto]] in the late 1990s, was developed for the fast food market. It was withdrawn in 2001 after retailers rejected it and food processors ran into export problems. In 2011, [[BASF]] requested the [[European Food Safety Authority]]'s approval for cultivation and marketing of its Fortuna<!-- see de:Fortuna (Kartoffel) fr:Fortuna (pomme de terre) --> potato as feed and food. The potato was made resistant to [[Phytophthora infestans|late blight]] by adding resistant genes blb1 and blb2 that originate from the Mexican wild potato [[Solanum bulbocastanum]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.research-in-germany.de/84190/2011-11-17-business-basf-applies-for-approval-for-another-biotech-potato.html|title=Business BASF applies for approval for another biotech potato|date=November 17, 2011|publisher=Research in Germany|access-date=October 18, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602111343/http://www.research-in-germany.de/84190/2011-11-17-business-basf-applies-for-approval-for-another-biotech-potato.html|archive-date=June 2, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-basf-idUSTRE79U41Q20111031|title=BASF applies for EU approval for Fortuna GM potato|last=Burger|first=Ludwig|date=October 31, 2011|work=Reuters|access-date=December 29, 2011|location=Frankfurt}}</ref> In February 2013, BASF withdrew its application.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/02/basf-gm-potato-amflora|title=BASF drops GM potato projects|last=Turley|first=Andrew|date=February 7, 2013|publisher=Royal Society of Chemistry News}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm|title=The History and Future of GM Potatoes|date=2010-03-10|publisher=Potatopro.com|access-date=2012-12-29|archive-date=2013-10-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131012033805/http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm}}</ref> In 2014, the USDA approved a [[genetically modified potato]] developed by [[J. R. Simplot Company]] that contained ten genetic modifications that prevent bruising and produce less [[acrylamide]] when fried. The modifications eliminate specific proteins from the potatoes, via [[RNA interference]], rather than introducing novel proteins.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html|title=U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans|last=Pollack|first=Andrew|date=November 7, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/05/03/2013-10504/jr-simplot-co-availability-of-petition-for-determination-of-nonregulated-status-of-potato#h-7|title=Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Potato Genetically Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise|date=May 3, 2013|publisher=Federal Register}}</ref>

As of 2005, about 13% of the [[Zucchini]] grown in the US was genetically modified to resist three viruses; that variety is also grown in Canada.<ref name="NCFAP2006">{{cite web|url=https://www.ncfap.org/documents/2007biotech_report/Quantification_of_the_Impacts_on_US_Agriculture_of_Biotechnology_Executive_Summary.pdf|title=Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006|last=Johnson|first=Stanley R.|date=February 2008|publisher=National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy|location=Washington, D.C.|access-date=August 12, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/74.zucchini.html|title=GMO Database: Zucchini (courgette)|date=November 7, 2007|publisher=GMO Compass|access-date=February 28, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225224346/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/74.zucchini.html|archive-date=February 25, 2017}}</ref>

[[File:C5 plum pox resistant plum.jpg|thumb|[[Plum]]s genetically engineered for resistance to [[plum pox]], a disease carried by [[aphid]]s]]

In 2013, the USDA approved the import of a GM pineapple that is pink in color and that "overexpresses" a gene derived from [[tangerine]]s and suppress other genes, increasing production of [[lycopene]]. The plant's flowering cycle was changed to provide for more uniform growth and quality. The fruit "does not have the ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have been harvested", according to USDA APHIS. According to Del Monte's submission, the pineapples are commercially grown in a "monoculture" that prevents seed production, as the plant's flowers aren't exposed to compatible [[pollen]] sources. Importation into Hawaii is banned for "plant sanitation" reasons.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/apr/16/del_monte_gets_approval_to_import_gmo_pinneapple|title=Del Monte Gets Approval to Import GMO Pineapple|last=Perkowski|first=Mateusz|date=April 16, 2013|publisher=Food Democracy Now|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130422141341/http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/apr/16/del_monte_gets_approval_to_import_gmo_pinneapple|archive-date=April 22, 2013}}</ref> Del Monte launched sales of their pink pineapples in October 2020, marketed under the name "Pinkglow".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.prweek.com/article/1698333/inside-sweet-successful-launch-worlds-first-pink-pineapple |title=Inside the sweet and successful launch of the world's first pink pineapple |last=Bradley |first=Diana |date=27 October 2020 |publisher=[[PRWeek]] |access-date=10 July 2021}}</ref>

In February 2015 [[Arctic Apples]] were approved by the USDA,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/business/gmo-apples-are-approved-for-growing-in-us.html|title=Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval|last=Pollack|first=A.|date=February 13, 2015|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the US.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-genetically-modified-apple-approved-for-sale-in-u-s-1423863994|title=First Genetically Modified Apple Approved for Sale in U.S.|last1=Tennille|first1=Tracy|date=February 13, 2015|access-date=February 13, 2015|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> [[Gene silencing]] is used to reduce the expression of [[Polyphenol oxidase|polyphenol oxidase (PPO)]], thus preventing the fruit from browning.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-apple/|title=How'd we 'make' a nonbrowning apple?|date=2011-12-07|publisher=Okanagan Specialty Fruits|access-date=September 19, 2016|archive-date=2019-08-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190812105841/https://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-apple/}}</ref>

=== Tomatoes ===
Following the withdrawal of the [[Flavr Savr]] tomato from the market in 1999, genetically modified tomatoes were not sold in the United States for decades.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-02-05 |title=20 years ago today ... What have we learned since the GMO Flavr Savr tomato? |url=https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/20-years-ago-today-what-have-we-learned-gmo-flavr-savr-tomato |access-date=2025-10-01 |website=theecologist.org |language=en}}</ref>

In February 2024, the Purple Tomato, created by the UK-based Norfolk Plant Sciences, was launched to the public. It is distinguished by its striking purple color, which comes from the antioxidant [[Anthocyanin|anthocyanin.]] These tomatoes may offer a range of potential health benefits due to their large antioxidant content. [[Cathie Martin]], the creator of these tomatoes, observed in a study that mice given these tomatoes lived 30% longer than those who did not consume them.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Woodruff |first=Sasa |date=2024-02-06 |title=Gardeners can now grow a genetically modified purple tomato made with snapdragon DNA |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/02/06/1228868005/purple-tomato-gmo-gardeners |access-date=2025-10-01 |work=NPR |language=en}}</ref>

Also in development in the UK are tomatoes enhanced with [[Vitamin D]]. This tomato has increased provitamin D3 that when exposed to UVB light, converts to [[Cholecalciferol|Vitamin D3]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=Non-GMO Project |date=2025-07-10 |title=New GMO Alert: GMO Tomatoes Are Back in Fashion! - The Non-GMO Project |url=https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/new-gmo-alert-gmo-tomatoes-are-back-in-fashion/ |access-date=2025-10-01 |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Maize/corn===
{{anchor|Maize|Corn}}
[[Genetically modified maize|Maize/corn]] used for food and [[ethanol]] has been genetically modified to tolerate various [[herbicides]] and to express a protein from ''[[Bacillus thuringiensis]]'' (Bt) that kills certain insects.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncga.com/know-before-you-grow/|title=Know Before You Grow|work=[[National Corn Growers Association]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111023113815/http://www.ncga.com/know-before-you-grow/|archive-date=October 23, 2011}}</ref> About 90% of the corn grown in the US was genetically modified in 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2010/Acre-06-30-2010.pdf|title=Acreage NASS|date=June 2010|work=National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report|access-date=July 23, 2010}}</ref> In the US in 2015, 81% of corn acreage contained the Bt trait and 89% of corn acreage contained the glyphosate-tolerant trait.<ref name="USDA1"/> Corn can be processed into grits, meal and flour as an ingredient in pancakes, muffins, doughnuts, breadings and batters, as well as baby foods, meat products, cereals and some fermented products. Corn-based masa flour and masa dough are used in the production of taco shells, corn chips and tortillas.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/cache/ARL03021.pdf|title=Corn-Based Food Production in South Dakota: A Preliminary Feasibility Study|date=June 2004|publisher=South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station|access-date=2013-01-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303211540/http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/cache/ARL03021.pdf|archive-date=2016-03-03}}</ref>

===Soy===
Soybeans accounted for half of all genetically modified crops planted in 2014.<ref name="isaaa2" /> [[Genetically modified soybean]] has been modified to tolerate herbicides and produce healthier oils.<ref>Padgette SR, et al (1995) [https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/35/5/CS0350051451?access=0&view=pdf Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line]. Crop Sci 35:1451-1461.</ref> In 2015, 94% of [[soybean]] acreage in the U.S. was genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant.<ref name="USDA1"/>

=== Rice ===
[[File:Golden Rice.jpg|thumb|Golden rice is genetically modified for an increased nutrient level, which has a different color and vitamin A content.]]
[[Golden rice]] is the most well known GM crop that is aimed at increasing nutrient value. It has been engineered with three genes that [[biosynthesis]]e [[beta-carotene]], a precursor of [[Retinol|vitamin A]], in the edible parts of rice.<ref name="ye2000">{{cite journal|vauthors=Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I|date=January 2000|title=Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm|journal=Science|volume=287|issue=5451|pages=303–5|bibcode=2000Sci...287..303Y|doi=10.1126/science.287.5451.303|pmid=10634784|s2cid=40258379 }}</ref> It is intended to produce a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a [[Vitamin A deficiency|shortage of dietary vitamin A]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061120-094716-8709r.htm|title='Green revolution' hero|last=Frist|first=Bill|date=21 November 2006|work=Washington Times|quote=One existing crop, genetically engineered "golden rice" that produces vitamin A, already holds enormous promise for reducing blindness and dwarfism that result from a vitamin-A deficient diet.|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> a deficiency which each year is estimated to kill 670,000 children under the age of 5<ref>{{cite journal|author9=Maternal Child Undernutrition Study Group|vauthors=Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, de Onis M, Ezzati M, Mathers C, Rivera J|date=January 2008|title=Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences|journal=Lancet|volume=371|issue=9608|pages=243–60|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61690-0|pmid=18207566|s2cid=3910132}}</ref> and cause an additional 500,000 cases of irreversible childhood blindness.<ref name="humphery1992">{{cite journal|vauthors=Humphrey JH, West KP, Sommer A|date=1992|title=Vitamin A deficiency and attributable mortality among under-5-year-olds|journal=Bulletin of the World Health Organization|volume=70|issue=2|pages=225–32|pmc=2393289|pmid=1600583}}</ref>  The original golden rice produced 1.6μg/g of the [[carotenoid]]s, with further development increasing this 23 times.<ref name="paine2005">{{cite journal|vauthors=Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R|date=April 2005|title=Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content|journal=Nature Biotechnology|volume=23|issue=4|pages=482–7|doi=10.1038/nbt1082|pmid=15793573|s2cid=632005}}</ref> In 2018 it gained its first approvals for use as food.<ref name="GR2E">{{cite web|url=https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/29/us-fda-approves-gmo-golden-rice-as-safe-to-eat/|title=US FDA approves GMO Golden Rice as safe to eat|date=2018-05-29|work=Genetic Literacy Project|access-date=2018-05-30}}</ref>

===Wheat===
As of December 2017, [[genetically modified wheat]] has been evaluated in field trials, but has not been released commercially.<ref>Staff, USDA Economic Research Service. Last updated: January 24, 2013 [https://web.archive.org/web/20120710154250/http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat/background.aspx#.UbTFBPYaePU Wheat Background]</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status |url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status |publisher=USDA |access-date=9 March 2018 |archive-date=29 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180429020315/https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Regalado |first1=Antonio |title=These are not your father's GMOs |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-your-fathers-gmos/ |magazine=MIT Technology Review |access-date=9 March 2018}}</ref>

=== Mushroom ===
In April 2016, a white button mushroom (''[[Agaricus bisporus]]'') modified using the [[CRISPR]] technique received ''de facto'' approval in the United States, after the USDA said it would not have to go through the agency's regulatory process. The agency considers the mushroom exempt because the editing process did not involve the introduction of foreign DNA, rather several [[base pairs]] were deleted from a duplicated gene coding for an [[enzyme]] that causes browning causing a 30% reduction in the level of that enzyme.<ref name="Waltz-2016">{{cite journal |last1=Waltz |first1=Emily |title=Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation | journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | publisher=[[Nature Portfolio]] | volume=532 |issue=7599 |page=293 |doi=10.1038/nature.2016.19754 |pmid=27111611 |year=2016 |bibcode=2016Natur.532..293W |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Livestock===
{{Main|Genetically modified livestock}}

Genetically modified livestock are organisms from the group of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, birds, horses and fish kept for human consumption, whose genetic material ([[DNA]]) has been altered using [[genetic engineering]] techniques. In some cases, the aim is to introduce a new [[trait (biology)|trait]] to the animals which does not occur naturally in the species, i.e. [[transgenesis]].

A 2003 review published on behalf of [[Food Standards Australia New Zealand]] examined transgenic experimentation on terrestrial livestock species as well as aquatic species such as fish and shellfish. The review examined the molecular techniques used for experimentation as well as techniques for tracing the [[transgenes]] in animals and products as well as issues regarding transgene stability.<ref name="Harper2003">{{cite web |title=Global progress toward transgenic food animals: A survey of publicly available information. |url=http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/Transgenic%20Livestock%20Review%20CSIRO%20FINAL%2012Dec20031.pdf |year=2003 |author1=Harper, G.S. |author2=Brownlee, A. |author3=Hall, T.E. |author4=Seymour, R. |author5=Lyons, R. |author6=Ledwith, P. |publisher=Food Standards Australia and New Zealand |access-date=August 27, 2015 |archive-date=February 13, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200213215743/https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/Transgenic%20Livestock%20Review%20CSIRO%20FINAL%2012Dec20031.pdf }}</ref>

Some mammals typically used for food production have been modified to produce non-food products, a practice sometimes called [[Pharming (genetics)|Pharming]].

====Salmon====
{{See also|Genetically modified fish#AquAdvantage salmon|Genetically modified fish#AquAdvantage salmon 2}}

A [[AquAdvantage salmon|GM salmon]], awaiting regulatory approval<ref>{{cite news|first=Rick |last=Rick MacInnes-Rae |author-link=Rick MacInnes-Rae |publisher=[[CBC News]] |date=November 27, 2013 |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/gmo-salmon-firm-clears-one-hurdle-but-still-waits-for-key-oks-1.2442553 |title=GMO salmon firm clears one hurdle but still waits for key OKs AquaBounty began seeking American approval in 1995}}</ref><ref name=NYTImes2012>{{cite news|first=Andrew |last=Pollack |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/business/kakha-bendukidze-holds-fate-of-gene-engineered-salmon.html?pagewanted=all |title=An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon |date=May 21, 2012 |access-date=September 3, 2012}}</ref><ref name=FDA>{{cite web|author=Staff |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-26/pdf/2012-31118.pdf |title=Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact Concerning a Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon |publisher=Federal Register |volume=77 |issue=247 |date=December 26, 2012 |access-date=January 2, 2013}}</ref> since 1997,<ref>{{cite news |title=Gene-Altered Fish Closer to Approval|first=Gautam |last=Naik|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703989304575503891676987232 |work=The Wall Street Journal|date=September 21, 2010}}</ref> was approved for human consumption by the American [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] in November 2015, to be raised in specific land-based hatcheries in Canada and Panama.<ref>{{cite press release |title=FDA takes several actions involving genetically engineered plants and animals for food |url=https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151120183227/http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm|archive-date=November 20, 2015|publisher=Office of the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration |access-date=2015-12-03}}</ref> This salmon, called the [[AquAdvantage salmon]], was designed to reach stages in growth sooner than non-GMO salmon.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Medicine |first=Center for Veterinary |date=2025-02-27 |title=AquAdvantage Salmon Fact Sheet |url=https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/aquadvantage-salmon/aquadvantage-salmon-fact-sheet |journal=FDA |language=en}}</ref> However, the producer of this salmon, [[AquaBounty Technologies]], closed their salmon facilities in December 2024 due to loss of funds.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The rise and fall of genetically engineered salmon |url=https://www.nationalfisherman.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-genetically-engineered-salmon |access-date=2025-10-12 |website=www.nationalfisherman.com |language=en}}</ref>

=== Microbes ===
[[Bacteriophages]] are an economically significant cause of [[cheese culture|culture]] failure in [[cheese]] production. Various culture microbes - especially ''[[Lactococcus lactis]]'' and ''[[Streptococcus thermophilus]]'' - have been studied for genetic analysis and modification to improve [[phage resistance]]. This has especially focused on [[plasmid]] and [[recombinant DNA|recombinant]] chromosomal modifications.<ref name="Coffey-Ross-2002">{{cite journal | title=Bacteriophage-resistance systems in dairy starter strains: molecular analysis to application | last1=Coffey | first1=Aidan | last2=Ross | first2=R. Paul | journal=[[Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (journal)|Antonie van Leeuwenhoek]] | publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]] | volume=82 | issue=1/4 | year=2002 | issn=0003-6072 | doi=10.1023/a:1020639717181 | pages=303–321| pmid=12369198 | s2cid=7217985 }}</ref><ref name="OSullivan-et-al-2019">{{cite journal | last1=O'Sullivan | first1=Lisa | last2=Bolton | first2=Declan | last3=McAuliffe | first3=Olivia | last4=Coffey | first4=Aidan | title=Bacteriophages in Food Applications: From Foe to Friend | journal=[[Annual Review of Food Science and Technology]] | publisher=[[Annual Reviews (publisher)|Annual Reviews]] | volume=10 | issue=1 | date=2019-03-25 | issn=1941-1413 | doi=10.1146/annurev-food-032818-121747 | pages=151–172| pmid=30633564 | s2cid=58620015 }}</ref>

[[Genetically modified]] microbes are also being utilized for farming and soil health. Proven, a genetically-edited product created by the biotechnology company Pivot Bio, uses [[nitrogen-fixing]] microbes instead of synthetic nitrogen in soil for crops such as corn.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marston |first=Jennifer |date=2023-04-19 |title=Pivot Bio pilot replaces synthetic nitrogen on nearly 1m acres of farmland |url=https://agfundernews.com/breaking-pivot-bio-pilot-replaces-synthetic-nitrogen-on-nearly-1m-acres-of-farmland |access-date=2025-10-12 |website=AgFunderNews |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Publication: USDA ARS |url=https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=410031 |access-date=2025-10-12 |website=www.ars.usda.gov}}</ref>

==Derivative products==
===Lecithin===
[[Lecithin]] is a naturally occurring [[lipid]]. It can be found in egg yolks and oil-producing plants. It is an emulsifier and thus is used in many foods. Corn, soy and safflower oil are sources of [[lecithin]], though the majority of lecithin commercially available is derived from soy.<ref name="Lecithin">{{cite web |title=Lecithin |url=http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/e-numbers/137.lecithin.html |date=October 2015 |access-date=18 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151101031047/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/e-numbers/137.lecithin.html |archive-date=1 November 2015 }}</ref><ref name="fda.gov">{{cite web |title=Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Opinion: Lecithin |website=[[Food and Drug Administration]] |url=https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/gras/scogs/ucm260453.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140226044340/http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS/ucm260453.htm |archive-date=February 26, 2014 |date=August 10, 2015 |access-date=18 October 2015}}</ref><ref name="corn dot org">{{cite web |publisher=Corn Refiners Association |url=https://www.corn.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CornOil.pdf |title=Corn Oil, 5th Edition |date=2006}}</ref>{{Page needed |date=August 2015}} Sufficiently processed lecithin is often undetectable with standard testing practices.<ref name=Jaffe>{{cite news |author=Jaffe, Greg (Director of Biotechnology at the [[Center for Science in the Public Interest]]) |work=Atlantic |date=February 7, 2013 |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-genetically-engineered-food/272931/ |title=What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food}}</ref>{{Failed verification|reason="Source does not mention undetectability by standard testing practices."|date=August 2015}} According to the FDA, no evidence shows or suggests hazard to the public when lecithin is used at common levels. Lecithin added to foods amounts to only 2 to 10 percent of the 1 to 5&nbsp;g of [[phosphoglycerides]] consumed daily on average.<ref name="Lecithin"/><ref name="fda.gov"/> Nonetheless, consumer concerns about GM food extend to such products.<ref name=Navigator>{{cite web |publisher=FoodNavigator.com |date=July 1, 2005 |url=https://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Danisco-emulsifier-to-subsitute-non-GM-soy-lecithin-as-demand-outstrips-supply |title=Danisco emulsifier to substitute non-GM soy lecithin as demand outstrips supply}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=this source refers only to soy lecithin|date=August 2015}} This concern led to policy and regulatory changes in Europe in 2000,{{citation needed|date=August 2015}} when Regulation (EC) 50/2000 was passed<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Eur-lex.europa.eu |url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32000R0050&model=guichett |title=Regulation (EC) 50/2000}}</ref> which required labelling of food containing additives derived from GMOs, including lecithin.{{citation needed|date=August 2015}} Because of the difficulty of detecting the origin of derivatives like lecithin with current testing practices, European regulations require those who wish to sell lecithin in Europe to employ a comprehensive system of [[Identity preservation]] (IP).<ref name=MarxDissertation>{{cite thesis |author=Marx, Gertruida M. |type=PhD dissertation |title=Monitoring of Genetically Modified Food Products in South Africa |publisher=University of the Free State |location=South Africa |date=December 2010 |url=http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-10042011-094627/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150109042604/http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-10042011-094627/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf|archive-date=2015-01-09 |hdl=11660/1485 }}</ref>{{Verify source|date=August 2015}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davison |first1=John |last2=Bertheau |first2=Yves Bertheau |date=2007|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228628711 |title=EU regulations on the traceability and detection of GMOs: difficulties in interpretation, implementation and compliance |journal=CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources |volume=2 |number=77 |doi=10.1079/pavsnnr20072077}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}}

===Sugar===
The US imports 10% of its sugar, while the remaining 90% is extracted from [[sugar beet]] and [[sugarcane]]. After deregulation in 2005, [[Genetically modified sugar beet|glyphosate-resistant sugar beet]] was extensively adopted in the United States. 95% of beet acres in the US were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed in 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp |title=ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 |publisher=Isaaa.org |access-date=2012-12-29}}</ref> GM sugar beets are approved for cultivation in the US, Canada and Japan; the vast majority are grown in the US. GM beets are approved for import and consumption in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, the Russian Federation and Singapore.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/13.sugar_beet.html |title=Sugar beet |access-date=2016-02-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301224326/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/13.sugar_beet.html |archive-date=2016-03-01 }}</ref> Pulp from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugar beets contains no DNA or protein&nbsp;– it is just sucrose that is chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugar beets.<ref name=Jaffe /><ref>{{cite book |author=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |date=2009 |url=http://www.eastagri.org/publications/pub_docs/4_Sugar_web.pdf |title=Sugar Beet: White Sugar |page=9 |access-date=2012-09-17 |archive-date=2015-09-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905234431/http://www.eastagri.org/publications/pub_docs/4_Sugar_web.pdf }}</ref> Independent analyses conducted by internationally recognized laboratories found that sugar from Roundup Ready sugar beets is identical to the sugar from comparably grown conventional (non-Roundup Ready) sugar beets.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Nucleic acid and protein elimination during the sugar manufacturing process of conventional and transgenic sugar beets |journal=Journal of Biotechnology |date=1998-02-26 |pages=145–53 |volume=60 |issue=3 |doi=10.1016/S0168-1656(98)00006-6 |pmid=9608751 |first1=Joachim |last1=Klein |first2=Josef |last2=Altenbuchner |first3=Ralf |last3=Mattes}}</ref>

In 2017, Brazil became the first country to approve the commercial cultivation of [[Genetically modified sugarcane#Bt Sugarcane|genetically modified insect-resistant sugarcane]].<ref>{{Cite web |last= |date=2017-06-08 |title=Genetically modified sugarcane developed by CTC in Brazil is approved at CTNBio |url=https://ctc.com.br/en/genetically-modified-sugarcane-developed-by-ctc-in-brazil-is-approved-at-ctnbio-2/ |access-date=2025-09-28 |website=CTC - Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira |language=en-US}}</ref> Some other countries also allow the import of refined sugar derived from these genetically modified crops, as the refined product is considered indistinguishable from conventional sugar.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lajolo |first1=Franco Maria |last2=Yokoyama |first2=Silvia Mine |last3=Cheavegatti Gianotto |first3=Adriana |date=2021 |title=Sugar derived from genetically modified sugarcane |journal=[[Food Science and Technology]] |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=1–7 |doi=10.1590/fst.30619 |issn=1678-457X|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Vegetable oil===
Most [[vegetable oil]] used in the US is produced from GM crops [[canola]],<ref name="soyatech">{{cite web |url=http://www.soyatech.com/canola_facts.htm |title=Soyatech.com |publisher=Soyatech.com |access-date=2012-12-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025141529/http://www.soyatech.com/canola_facts.htm |archive-date=2012-10-25 }}</ref> [[maize|maize/corn]],<ref name=CornPoster>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/cornusesposter.pdf |title=Poster of corn products |access-date=2012-12-29 |archive-date=2020-02-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200214031330/https://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/cornusesposter.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |publisher=Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils |date=2006 |url=http://www.iseo.org/FoodFatsOils2006.pdf |title=Food Fats and Oils |access-date=2011-11-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070214081043/http://www.iseo.org/FoodFatsOils2006.pdf |archive-date=2007-02-14 }}</ref> [[cottonseed oil|cotton]]<ref>{{cite web|publisher=National Cottonseed Producers Association |url=http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp |title=Twenty Facts about Cottonseed Oil |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017083204/http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp |archive-date=October 17, 2015}}</ref> and [[soybeans]].<ref>{{cite web |first=Michelle |last=Simon |publisher=Food Safety News |date=August 24, 2011 |url=http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/conagra-sued-over-gmo-100-natural-cooking-oils/ |title=ConAgra Sued Over GMO '100% Natural' Cooking Oils}}</ref> Vegetable oil is sold directly to consumers as [[cooking oil]], [[shortening]] and [[margarine]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imace.org/about-margarine/how-to-produce-and-use-margarine/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225085103/http://www.imace.org/about-margarine/how-to-produce-and-use-margarine/ |archive-date=February 25, 2012 |title=ingredients of margarine |publisher=Imace.org |access-date=2012-12-29}}</ref> and is used in prepared foods. There is a vanishingly small amount of protein or DNA from the original crop in vegetable oil.<ref name=Jaffe /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfrm?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=203&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=1&fg=4&sort=c&measureby=m|title=USDA Protein(g) in Fats and Oils|access-date=2015-05-31|archive-date=2018-10-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005030813/https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfrm?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=203&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=1&fg=4&sort=c&measureby=m}}</ref> Vegetable oil is made of [[triglycerides]] extracted from plants or seeds and then refined and may be further processed via [[hydrogenation]] to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining process removes all, or nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00158-1 |title=Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils |year=2000 |last1=Crevel |first1=R.W.R. |last2=Kerkhoff |first2=M.A.T. |last3=Koning |first3=M.M.G |journal=Food and Chemical Toxicology |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=385–93 |pmid=10722892}}</ref>

==Other uses==
===Animal feed===
Livestock and poultry are raised on [[Compound feed|animal feed]], much of which is composed of the leftovers from processing crops, including GM crops. For example, approximately 43% of a canola seed is oil. What remains after oil extraction is a meal that becomes an ingredient in animal feed and contains canola protein.<ref name="What Is Canola Oil?">{{cite web |url=https://www.canolainfo.org/canola/index.php |title=What is Canola Oil? |publisher=CanolaInfo |access-date=2012-12-29}}</ref> Likewise, the bulk of the soybean crop is grown for oil and meal. The high-protein defatted and toasted soy meal becomes livestock feed and [[dog food]]. 98% of the US soybean crop goes for livestock feed.<ref>David Bennett for Southeast Farm Press, February 5, 2003 [http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.html World soybean consumption quickens] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060605232122/http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.html |date=2006-06-05}}</ref><ref name=britannica>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557184/soybean |title=Soybean |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Online |access-date=February 18, 2012}}</ref> In 2011, 49% of the US maize/corn harvest was used for livestock feed (including the percentage of waste from [[distillers grains]]).<ref name=NCGA>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/woc_2012.pdf |title=2012 World of Corn, National Corn Growers Association |access-date=2012-12-29 |archive-date=2020-02-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200207000145/https://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/woc_2012.pdf }}</ref> "Despite methods that are becoming more and more sensitive, tests have not yet been able to establish a difference in the meat, milk, or eggs of animals depending on the type of feed they are fed. It is impossible to tell if an animal was fed GM soy just by looking at the resulting meat, dairy, or egg products. The only way to verify the presence of GMOs in animal feed is to analyze the origin of the feed itself."<ref>Staff, GMO Compass. December 7, 2006. [http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/153.animal_feed_genetic_engineering.html Genetic Engineering: Feeding the EU's Livestock] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170112235640/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/153.animal_feed_genetic_engineering.html |date=2017-01-12 }}</ref>

[[Enzyme]]s produced by genetically modified microorganisms are also integrated into animal feed to enhance availability of nutrients and overall digestion. These enzymes may also provide benefit to the gut [[microbiome]] of an animal, as well as [[Hydrolysis|hydrolyse]] [[Antinutrient|antinutritional factors]] present in the feed.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Food Processing Technology: Principles and Practice |last=Fellows |first=P.J. |publisher=Woodhead Publishing Limited |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-84569-216-2 |page=236}}</ref>

===Proteins===
The foundation of genetic engineering is DNA, which directs the production of proteins. Proteins are also the common source of [[Allergen|human allergens]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gerdes|first1=Louise|title=Genetic Engineering Opposing Viewpoints|publisher=Greenhaven Press|edition=2004|page=132}}</ref>  When new proteins are introduced they must be assessed for potential allergenicity.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Taylor|first1=Steve|last2=Hefle|first2=Susan|date=May 2001|title=Will genetically modified foods be allergenic?|journal=Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology|volume=107|issue=5|pages=765–771|doi=10.1067/mai.2001.114241|pmid=11344340|doi-access=free}}</ref>

[[Rennet]] is a mixture of enzymes used to [[Coagulation|coagulate]] milk into cheese. Originally it was available only from the fourth stomach of calves, and was scarce and expensive, or was available from microbial sources, which often produced unpleasant tastes. Genetic engineering made it possible to extract rennet-producing genes from animal stomachs and insert them into [[bacteria]], [[fungi]] or [[yeasts]] to make them produce [[chymosin]], the key enzyme.<ref>{{cite journal |pmid=6304731 |year=1983 |last1=Emtage |first1=JS |last2=Angal |first2=S |last3=Doel |first3=MT |last4=Harris |first4=TJ |last5=Jenkins |first5=B |last6=Lilley |first6=G |last7=Lowe |first7=PA |title=Synthesis of calf prochymosin (prorennin) in ''Escherichia coli'' |volume=80 |issue=12 |pages=3671–75 |pmc=394112 |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |doi=10.1073/pnas.80.12.3671|bibcode=1983PNAS...80.3671E|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Harris TJ, Lowe PA, Lyons A, Thomas PG, Eaton MA, Millican TA, Patel TP, Bose CC, [[Norman Carey|Carey NH]], Doel MT | title=Molecular cloning and nucleotide sequence of cDNA coding for calf preprochymosin | journal=Nucleic Acids Research | volume=10 | issue=7 | pages=2177–87 |date=April 1982 | pmid=6283469 | pmc=320601 | doi=10.1093/nar/10.7.2177}}</ref> The modified microorganism is killed after fermentation. Chymosin is isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the [[Fermentation-produced chymosin|Fermentation-Produced Chymosin]] (FPC) used by cheese producers has an amino acid sequence that is identical to bovine rennet.<ref name="GMO Database"/> The majority of the applied chymosin is retained in the [[whey]]. Trace quantities of chymosin may remain in cheese.<ref name="GMO Database" />

FPC was the first artificially produced [[enzyme]] to be approved by the [[US Food and Drug Administration]].<ref name=Chymosinapproval/><ref name=chymosinCase/> FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and as of 2015 had yet to be surpassed in commercial markets.<ref name="Law 2010 100–101">{{cite book |last=Law |first=Barry A. |title=Technology of Cheesemaking |year=2010 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |location=UK |isbn=978-1-4051-8298-0 |pages=100–101 |url=http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405182989.html |archive-date=2023-12-26 |access-date=2013-01-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231226085910/https://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405182989.html }}</ref> In 1999, about 60% of US [[hard cheese]] was made with FPC.<ref name="USDA">
{{cite web |url=https://fpc.state.gov/6176.htm |title=Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues |publisher=U.S. Department of State |access-date=2006-08-14}}</ref> Its global market share approached 80%.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72186-5 |title=Major Technological Advances and Trends in Cheese |year=2006 |last1=Johnson |first1=M.E. |last2=Lucey |first2=J.A. |journal=Journal of Dairy Science |volume=89 |issue=4 |pages=1174–78 |pmid=16537950|doi-access=free }}</ref> By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.<ref name="GMO Database">{{cite web|url=http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html |publisher=GMO Compass |title=Chymosin |access-date=2016-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150326181805/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html |archive-date=2015-03-26}}</ref>

In some countries, recombinant (GM) [[bovine somatotropin]] (also called rBST, or bovine growth hormone or BGH) is approved for administration to increase milk production. rBST may be present in milk from rBST treated cows, but it is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected into the human bloodstream, has no observable effect on humans.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Dale E. |last1=Baumana |first2=Robert J. |last2=Collier |date=September 15, 2010 |url=http://www.agribiotech.info/details/2010%20rBST%20article%20for%20NABC_Bauman%2009-15%20Final%2004.pdf |title=Use of Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production |access-date=February 23, 2013 |archive-date=May 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513065301/http://www.agribiotech.info/details/2010%20rBST%20article%20for%20NABC_Bauman%2009-15%20Final%2004.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Staff |publisher=American Cancer Society |work=Last Medical Review |date=2011-02-18}}{{full citation needed|date=October 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone.html|title=Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone|website=www.cancer.org}}</ref> The FDA, [[World Health Organization]], [[American Medical Association]], [[Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics|American Dietetic Association]] and the [[National Institute of Health|National Institutes of Health]] have independently stated that dairy products and meat from rBST-treated cows are safe for human consumption.<ref name="Brennand">{{cite web |url=https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf |title=Bovine Somatotropin in Milk |first=Charlotte P. |last=Brennand |access-date=2011-03-06 }}</ref> On 30 September 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit]], analyzing submitted evidence, found a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows.<ref>{{cite web|first=Greg |last=Cima |publisher=JAVMA News |date=November 18, 2010 |url=https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/101201m.aspx |title=Appellate court gives mixed ruling on Ohio rBST labeling rules}}</ref><ref name="Ohio decision">{{cite web|author=leafcom |url=http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fco%2020100930180.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr |title=International Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Boggs – Argued: June 10, 2010 |publisher=Leagle.com }}</ref> The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has: increased levels of the hormone [[Insulin-like growth factor 1]] (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly".<ref name="Ohio decision"/>

== Benefits ==
Genetically modified foods are usually edited to have some desired characteristics, including certain benefits for surviving extreme environments, an enhanced level to nutrition, the access of therapeutic substances, and the resistance genes to pesticide and herbicides. These characteristics could be beneficial to humans and the environment in certain ways.

=== Prepare for extreme weather ===
Plants that have undergone genetic modification are capable of surviving [[extreme weather]].<ref name=":3" /> Genetically modified (GM) food crops can be cultivated in locations with unfavorable climatic conditions on occasion.<ref name=":4" /> The quality and yield of genetically modified foods are often improved.<ref name=":3" /> These foods tend to grow more quickly than conventionally cultivated ones. Furthermore, the application of genetically modified food could be beneficial in resisting drought and poor soil.<ref name=":4" />

=== Nutritional enhancement ===
Increased levels of specific nutrients in food crops can be achieved by genetic engineering. The study of this technique, sometimes known as nutritional improvement, is already well advanced.<ref name=":3" /> Foods are well monitored to gain specific qualities that became practical, for example, concentrated nutraceutical levels and health-promoting chemicals, making them a desirable component of a varied diet.<ref name=":14">{{Cite journal |last1=Costa-Font |first1=Montserrat |last2=Gil |first2=José M. |last3=Traill |first3=W. Bruce |date=April 2008 |title=Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy |journal=Food Policy |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=99–111 |doi=10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002 |issn=0306-9192}}</ref> Among the notable breakthroughs of genetic modification is Golden Rice, whose genome is altered by the injection of the vitamin A gene from a daffodil plant conditioning provitamin A production.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":14" /> This increases the activity of phytoene synthase, which therefore synthesizes a higher amount of beta-carotene, followed by modification and improvement of the level of iron and [[bioavailability]].<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /> This affects the rice's color and vitamin content, which is beneficial in places where vitamin A shortage is common.<ref name=":3" /> In addition, increased mineral, vitamin A, and protein content has played a critical role in preventing childhood blindness and iron deficiency anemia.<ref name=":7" />

Lipid composition could also be manipulated to produce desirable traits and essential nutrients.<ref name=":9" /> [[Scientific evidence]] has shown that inadequate consumption of omega-3 [[polyunsaturated fatty acids]] is generally associated with the development of chronic diseases and developmental aberrations.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":8" /> Alimentary lipids can be modified to gain an increased saturated fatty acid together with a decreased polyunsaturated fatty acid component. Genes coded for the synthesis of unsaturated fatty acids are therefore introduced into plant cells, increasing the synthesis of polyunsaturated omega-3 acids.<ref name=":9" /> This omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid is responsible to lower the level of LDL cholesterol and triglyceride level as well as the incidence rate of cardiovascular diseases.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":8" /><ref name=":9" />

=== Production of therapeutic substances ===
The genetically modified organisms, including potato, tomato, and spinach are applied in the production of substances that stimulate the immune system to respond to specific pathogens.<ref name=":9" /> With the help of recombinant DNA techniques, the genes encoded for viral or bacterial antigens could be genetically transcribed and translated into plant cells.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /> Antibodies are often produced in response to the introduction of antigens, in which the pathological microflora obtains the immune response towards specific antigens. The transgenic organisms are usually applied to use as oral vaccines, which allows the active substances to enter the human digestive system, targeting the alimentary tract in which stimulate a mucosal immune response. This technique has been widely used in vaccine production including rice, maize, and soybeans.<ref name=":9" /> Additionally, transgenic plants are widely used as bioreactors in the production of pharmaceutical proteins and peptides, including vaccines, hormones, human serum albumin (HSA), etc. The suitability of transgenic plants can helps meet the demand for the rapid growth of therapeutic antibodies.<ref name=":8" /> All this has given new impetus to the development of medicine.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" />

== Health and safety ==
{{see also|Genetically modified food controversies#Health}}

<!-- The following language and sources, per [[WP:GMORfC]], must not be altered without achieving consensus-->There is a [[scientific consensus]]<ref name="Nicolia2013"/><ref name="FAO"/><ref name="Ronald2011"/><ref name="Also"/> that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,<ref name="AAAS2012"/><ref name="ECom2010"/><ref name="ISAAA" /><ref name="AMA2001" /><ref name="AMA2012" /><ref name="LoC2015"/><ref name="NAS2016"/> but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.<ref name="WHOFAQ"/><ref name="Haslberger2003"/><ref name="BMA2004"/> Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.<ref name="PEW2015"/><ref name="Marris2001"/><ref name="PABE"/><ref name="Scott2016"/> The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.<ref name="loc.gov"/><ref name="Bashshur"/><ref name="Sifferlin"/><ref name="Council on Foreign Relations"/><!--End of restricted section -->

Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various combinations of additional testing, labeling<ref name="PHAA">{{cite web |publisher=Public Health Association of Australia |year=2007 |url=http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf |title=Genetically modified foods |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140120113716/http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf |archive-date=January 20, 2014}}</ref> or removal from the market.<ref name="CAPE">{{cite web |publisher=[[Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment]] |title=CAPE's Position Statement on GMOs |url=http://cape.ca/capes-position-statement-on-gmos/ |date=November 11, 2013 |access-date=March 26, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326015525/http://cape.ca/capes-position-statement-on-gmos/ |archive-date=March 26, 2014 }}</ref><ref name="IDEA">{{cite web |publisher=Irish Doctors' Environmental Association |url=http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/ |title=IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods |access-date=2014-03-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326015714/http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/ |archive-date=2014-03-26 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://aaemonline.org/aaemonline/oldsite/gmopost.html |title=American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Moratorium on Genetically Modified Foods, position paper |publisher=American Academy of Environmental Medicine |access-date=3 August 2017 |archive-date=1 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190301231909/http://aaemonline.org/aaemonline/oldsite/gmopost.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html |title=Press Advisory |publisher=American Academy of Environmental Medicine |access-date=18 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150428190623/http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html |archive-date=28 April 2015 }}</ref> Despite these concerns, long-term studies in humans are limited by ethical and practical constraints.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Why are there no long-term GMO safety studies or studies on humans? |url=https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/why-are-there-no-long-term-gmo-safety-studies-or-studies-on-humans/ |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=Genetic Literacy Project |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Katiraee |first=Layla |date=2016-07-20 |title=Why aren't GMOs tested on humans? |url=https://biofortified.org/2016/07/19/why-arent-gmos-tested-on-humans/ |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=Biofortified |language=en-US}}</ref> However, studies in non-human animals,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Seek Rhee |first1=Gyu |last2=Hyun Cho |first2=Dae |last3=Hyuck Won |first3=Yong |last4=Hyun Seok |first4=Ji |last5=Sun Kim |first5=Soon |last6=Jun Kwack |first6=Seung |last7=Da Lee |first7=Rhee |last8=Yeong Chae |first8=Soo |last9=Woo Kim |first9=Jae |last10=Mu Lee |first10=Byung |last11=Lea Park |first11=Kui |last12=Sik Choi |first12=Kwang |date=2005 |title=Multigeneration Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Study of bar Gene Inserted into Genetically Modified Potato on Rats |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390500182446 |journal=[[Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health]] |language=en |volume=68 |issue=23–24 |pages=2263–2276 |doi=10.1080/15287390500182446 |pmid=16326439 |bibcode=2005JTEHA..68.2263S |issn=1528-7394}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zhang |first1=Min |last2=Zhuo |first2=Qin |last3=Tian |first3=Yuan |last4=Piao |first4=Jianhua |last5=Yang |first5=Xiaoguang |date=2014 |title=Long-term toxicity study on transgenic rice with Cry1Ac and sck genes |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278691513007102 |journal=[[Food and Chemical Toxicology]] |language=en |volume=63 |pages=76–83 |doi=10.1016/j.fct.2013.10.035}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kılıç |first1=Aysun |last2=Akay |first2=M. Turan |date=2008 |title=A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278691507005443 |journal=[[Food and Chemical Toxicology]] |language=en |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=1164–1170 |doi=10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016 |pmid=18191319 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Flachowsky |first1=Gerhard |last2=Halle |first2=Ingrid |last3=Aulrich |first3=Karen |date=2005 |title=Long term feeding of Bt-corn – a ten-generation study with quails |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450390500353549 |journal=[[Archives of Animal Nutrition]] |language=en |volume=59 |issue=6 |pages=449–451 |doi=10.1080/17450390500353549 |pmid=16429830 |issn=1745-039X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sissener |first1=N.H. |last2=Sanden |first2=M. |last3=Bakke |first3=A.M. |last4=Krogdahl |first4=å. |last5=Hemre |first5=G.-I. |date=2009 |title=A long term trial with Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fed genetically modified soy; focusing general health and performance before, during and after the parr–smolt transformation |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0044848609004499 |journal=[[Aquaculture (journal)|Aquaculture]] |language=en |volume=294 |issue=1–2 |pages=108–117 |doi=10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.05.002 |bibcode=2009Aquac.294..108S }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ricroch |first1=Agnès E. |last2=Boisron |first2=Audrey |last3=Kuntz |first3=Marcel |date=2014 |title=Looking back at safety assessment of GM food/feed: an exhaustive review of 90-day animal feeding studies |url=http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=68940 |journal=[[International Journal of Biotechnology]] |language=en |volume=13 |issue=4 |page=230 |doi=10.1504/IJBT.2014.068940 |issn=0963-6048}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Snell |first1=Chelsea |last2=Bernheim |first2=Aude |last3=Bergé |first3=Jean-Baptiste |last4=Kuntz |first4=Marcel |last5=Pascal |first5=Gérard |last6=Paris |first6=Alain |last7=Ricroch |first7=Agnès E. |date=2012 |title=Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278691511006399 |journal=[[Food and Chemical Toxicology]] |language=en |volume=50 |issue=3–4 |pages=1134–1148 |doi=10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048 |pmid=22155268 }}</ref> particularly in livestock,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Steinke |first1=K. |last2=Guertler |first2=P. |last3=Paul |first3=V. |last4=Wiedemann |first4=S. |last5=Ettle |first5=T. |last6=Albrecht |first6=C. |last7=Meyer |first7=H. H. D. |last8=Spiekers |first8=H. |last9=Schwarz |first9=F. J. |date=2010 |title=Effects of long-term feeding of genetically modified corn (event MON810) on the performance of lactating dairy cows: Long-term feeding of genetically modified corn in dairy cows |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01003.x |journal=[[Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition]] |language=en |volume=94 |issue=5 |pages=e185–e193 |doi=10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01003.x |pmid=20579187 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Van Eenennaam |first1=A. L. |last2=Young |first2=A. E. |date=2014-10-01 |title=Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1 |url=https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/92/10/4255/4702576 |journal=[[Journal of Animal Science]] |language=en |volume=92 |issue=10 |pages=4255–4278 |doi=10.2527/jas.2014-8124 |pmid=25184846 |issn=0021-8812}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Walsh |first1=Maria C. |last2=Buzoianu |first2=Stefan G. |last3=Rea |first3=Mary C. |last4=O'Donovan |first4=Orla |last5=Gelencsér |first5=Eva |last6=Ujhelyi |first6=Gabriella |last7=Ross |first7=R. Paul |last8=Gardiner |first8=Gillian E. |last9=Lawlor |first9=Peadar G. |date=2012-05-04 |editor-last=Gilbert |editor-first=Jack Anthony |title=Effects of Feeding Bt MON810 Maize to Pigs for 110 Days on Peripheral Immune Response and Digestive Fate of the cry1Ab Gene and Truncated Bt Toxin |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=7 |issue=5 |article-number=e36141 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0036141 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=3345032 |pmid=22574138 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...736141W }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Trabalza-Marinucci |first1=Massimo |last2=Brandi |first2=Giorgio |last3=Rondini |first3=Cristina |last4=Avellini |first4=Luca |last5=Giammarini |first5=Camilla |last6=Costarelli |first6=Silva |last7=Acuti |first7=Gabriele |last8=Orlandi |first8=Chiara |last9=Filippini |first9=Giovanni |last10=Chiaradia |first10=Elisabetta |last11=Malatesta |first11=Manuela |last12=Crotti |first12=Silvia |last13=Antonini |first13=Chiara |last14=Amagliani |first14=Giulia |last15=Manuali |first15=Elisabetta |date=2008 |title=A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1871141307002442 |journal=[[Livestock Science]] |language=en |volume=113 |issue=2–3 |pages=178–190 |doi=10.1016/j.livsci.2007.03.009}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Buzoianu |first1=S. G. |last2=Walsh |first2=M. C. |last3=Rea |first3=M. C. |last4=Cassidy |first4=J. P. |last5=Ryan |first5=T. P. |last6=Ross |first6=R. P. |last7=Gardiner |first7=G. E. |last8=Lawlor |first8=P. G. |date=2013-01-01 |title=Transgenerational effects of feeding genetically modified maize to nulliparous sows and offspring on offspring growth and health |url=https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/91/1/318/4703041 |journal=[[Journal of Animal Science]] |language=en |volume=91 |issue=1 |pages=318–330 |doi=10.2527/jas.2012-5360 |pmid=23097397 |issn=0021-8812}}</ref> have not identified adverse health effects following the continuous use of transgenic feed. A 2012 literature review of studies evaluating the effect of GM feed on the health of animals did not find evidence that animals were adversely affected, although small biological differences were occasionally found. The studies included in the review ranged from 90 days to two years, with several of the longer studies considering reproductive and intergenerational effects.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Snell |first1=C |last2=Bernheim |first2=A |last3=Berge |first3=JB |last4=Kuntz |first4=M |last5=Pascal |first5=G |last6=Paris |first6=A |last7=Ricroch |first7=AE |year=2012 |title=Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review |journal=Food and Chemical Toxicology |volume=50 |issue=3–4 |pages=1134–48 |doi=10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048 |pmid=22155268 |quote=Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.}}</ref> One study analyzing the [[gut microbiota]] and [[metabolite]] profiles in two generations of [[Crab-eating macaque|cynomolgus monkeys]] that were fed [[Genetically modified maize|GM corn]] found no significant differences in most biological indicators, and the small variations observed did not affect physiological functions during the feeding period.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=Chenyun |last2=Fan |first2=Shengtao |last3=Li |first3=Minghao |last4=Ye |first4=Yousong |last5=Li |first5=Zheli |last6=Long |first6=Weihu |last7=Li |first7=Yongjie |last8=Huang |first8=Zhangqiong |last9=Jiang |first9=Qinfang |last10=Yang |first10=Wanjing |last11=Yang |first11=Rujia |last12=Tang |first12=Donghong |date=2025 |title=A 7-year feed study on the long-term effects of genetically modified maize containing cry1Ab/cry2Aj and EPSPS genes on gut microbiota and metabolite profiles across two generations of cynomolgus macaques |journal=[[Food and Chemical Toxicology]] |language=en |volume=200 |article-number=115419 |doi=10.1016/j.fct.2025.115419 |pmid=40157594 |quote=In conclusion, this study investigated the gut microbiota and metabolite profiles of two generations of cynomolgus macaques fed a GM maize diet and found no significant differences in most indicators. Although there were some statistically significant differences between the GM and non-GM groups, these differences did not disrupt biological functions during the feeding period. |doi-access=free}}</ref> Moreover, available epidemiological data do not demonstrate associations between the consumption of genetically modified foods and the emergence of diseases or chronic conditions.<ref name="NAS2016" /> To date, no harmful effects on human health have been proven following the introduction of genetically modified foods.<ref name="who-gmfaq" />

Some studies purporting to show harm have been discredited, in some cases leading to academic condemnation against the researchers such as the [[Pusztai affair]] and the [[Séralini affair]].<ref name="Freedman-2013" />

There are no [[certification]]s for foods that have been verified to be both genetically modified – in particular in a way that is ensured to be well-understood, [[food safety|safe]] and [[sustainable food|environmentally friendly]] – and otherwise [[organic food|organic]] (i.e. produced without the use of chemical [[pesticide]]s) in the U.S. and possibly the world, giving consumers the binary choice of either genetically modified food or organic food.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://afjare.org/media/articles/2._Owusu__Dadzie.pdf|title=Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for organic and genetically modified food products in Ghana|journal=African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics|access-date=2021-10-28|archive-date=2022-11-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221128193233/https://afjare.org/media/articles/2._Owusu__Dadzie.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products? {{!}} Agricultural Marketing Service |url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/can-gmos-be-used-organic-products |website=www.ams.usda.gov |access-date=28 October 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ashaolu |first1=Tolulope J. |last2=Ashaolu |first2=Joseph O. |title=Perspectives on the trends, challenges and benefits of green, smart and organic (GSO) foods |journal=International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science |date=1 December 2020 |volume=22 |article-number=100273 |doi=10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100273 |pmid=33101552 | pmc=7574864  |language=en |issn=1878-450X}}</ref>

=== Testing ===
{{See also|Substantial equivalence}}
The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.<ref name="loc.gov" /><ref name="Bashshur" /><ref name="Sifferlin" /><ref name="Council on Foreign Relations" /> 

Governments manage the marketing and [[Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms|release of GM foods]] on a case-by-case basis. Countries differ in their [[Risk assessment|risk assessments]] and regulations. Marked differences distinguish the US from Europe. Crops not intended as foods are generally not reviewed for food safety.<ref name="PotatoPro">{{cite web |last=van Eijck |first=Paul |name-list-style=vanc |date=10 March 2010 |title=The History and Future of GM Potatoes |url=http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131012033805/http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm |archive-date=October 12, 2013 |access-date=September 2, 2012 |work=PotatoPro}}</ref> GM foods are not tested in humans before marketing because they are not a single chemical, nor are they intended to be ingested using specific doses and intervals, which complicate [[Clinical studies|clinical study]] design.<ref name="UC-ANR8180">{{cite web |year=2006 |title=Safety of Genetically Engineered Food |url=http://ucfoodsafety.ucdavis.edu/files/26423.pdf |publisher=University of California Agricultural and Natural Resource Service. ANR Publication 8180 |vauthors=Winter CK, Gallegos LK}}</ref> Regulators examine the genetic modification, related protein products and any changes that those proteins make to the food.<ref>{{cite journal |author=EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) |year=2011 |title=Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants |journal=EFSA Journal |volume=9 |issue=5 |page=2150 |doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2150 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Regulators verify whether genetically modified foods are ''"[[Substantial equivalence|substantially equivalent]]"'' to their conventional counterparts in order to detect any unintended negative consequences.<ref name="UC-ANR8180" /><ref>{{Cite journal |date=2003-01-01 |title=The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology |url=https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2 |journal=[[Toxicological Sciences]] |volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=2–8 |doi=10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2 |pmid=12520069 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2001-04-11 |title=Substantial Equivalence in Food Safety Assessment |url=http://foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/497/Substantial_Equivalence.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090206170413/http://foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/497/Substantial_Equivalence.pdf |archive-date=2009-02-06 |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=Council for Biotechnology Information}}</ref><ref name=":22">{{Cite journal |last1=Kok |first1=Esther J |last2=Kuiper |first2=Harry A |date=2003 |title=Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167779903002270 |journal=[[Trends in Biotechnology]] |language=en |volume=21 |issue=10 |pages=439–444 |doi=10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.08.003 |pmid=14512230 }}</ref> To determine this equivalence, the manufacturer conducts tests designed to identify possible unexpected changes in specific components—such as [[Toxin|toxins]], [[Nutrient|nutrients]], or [[Allergen|allergens]]—and usually also evaluates the effects of processing and transformation of the raw food, comparing the genetically modified product with its unmodified conventional counterpart. These data are then analyzed by a regulatory agency. If regulators conclude that there are no significant differences between the modified and conventional products, additional food safety testing is generally not required. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, presents relevant differences compared to the unmodified food, or involves other risk factors—for example, the expression of a protein that did not previously exist in the composition—supplementary safety tests may be required. New proteins or anomalies detected during substantial equivalence analysis undergo additional toxicological assessments, resulting in a final safety evaluation.<ref name="UC-ANR8180" /><ref name=":22" /><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.fao.org/4/i0110e/i0110e00.htm |title=Gm food safety assessment: tools for trainers |date=2009 |publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |isbn=978-92-5-105978-4 |editor-last=FAO |location=Rome}}</ref> Additional tests may also be recommended to assess environmental impacts.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2015-09-09 |title=EPA's Regulation of Biotechnology for Use in Pest Management |url=https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/epas-regulation-biotechnology-use-pest-management |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] |language=en}}</ref>

Substantial equivalence is the underlying principle in GM food safety assessment for a number of national and international agencies, including the [[Canadian Food Inspection Agency]] (CFIA), Japan's [[Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare]] (MHLW), the US [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA), and the [[United Nations]]' [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] (FAO) and [[World Health Organization]].<ref name="councilforbiotechinfo">{{cite web |date=March 2001 |title=Substantial Equivalence in Food Safety Assessment |url=http://thebeuselaer.weebly.com/uploads/6/3/8/4/6384873/substantial_equivalence.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160207101449/http://thebeuselaer.weebly.com/uploads/6/3/8/4/6384873/substantial_equivalence.pdf |archive-date=7 February 2016 |access-date=6 February 2016 |publisher=Council for Biotechnology Information}} () ([https://web.archive.org/web/20131227220643/http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/schauzu.pdf Page archive])</ref> In the U.S. the FDA determined that GMOs are "[[generally recognized as safe]]" (GRAS) and therefore do not require additional testing if the GMO product is substantially equivalent to the non-modified product.<ref name="Marden">Emily Marden, [http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2236&context=bclr Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture] 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2003).</ref> If new substances are found, further testing may be required to satisfy concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms.<ref name="who-gmfaq" />

Some medical organizations, including the [[British Medical Association]], advocate greater caution in the regulation of GMOs based on the [[precautionary principle]].<ref name="BMA2004" /> This principle recommends that, in the face of potential risks or significant scientific uncertainty, preventive measures should be taken or the proposed action should be suspended or re-evaluated, rather than waiting for conclusive proof of harm.<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal |last=Guida |first=Alessandra |date=2021-04-10 |title=The precautionary principle and genetically modified organisms: A bone of contention between European institutions and member states |journal=Journal of Law and the Biosciences |language=en |volume=8 |issue=1 |article-number=lsab012 |doi=10.1093/jlb/lsab012 |issn=2053-9711 |pmc=8132481 |pmid=34040782}}</ref> In its strict formulation, the principle can only be relaxed when robust evidence has been obtained showing that no harm will result.<ref name=":23" /> The precautionary principle was incorporated into the [[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety]], developed under the [[Convention on Biological Diversity]].<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2025-10-31 |title=The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety |url=http://bch.cbd.int/protocol |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=The Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) |language=en}}</ref>

In 1997, the [[European Union]] established a [[novel food]] evaluation procedure under which, once the producer has confirmed substantial equivalence with an existing food, government notification—accompanied by supporting scientific evidence—is the only requirement for commercial release. However, foods containing genetically modified organisms are excluded from this simplified process and require mandatory authorization.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schauzu |first=Marianna |date=2000 |title=The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms |url=http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/schauzu.pdf |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=AgBiotechNet}}</ref> In the EU, the precautionary principle is applied, as the potential risks of GMOs are not yet fully known. Therefore, a rigorous demonstration of safety is required prior to approval, along with prior authorization for commercialization and environmental monitoring after the product enters the market.<ref name=":23" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Fact Sheet: Questions and Answers on EU\'s policies on GMOs |url=https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/https:////ec.europa.eu//commission//presscorner//detail//en//memo_15_4778 |access-date=2025-11-05 |website=European Commission}}</ref>

==Regulation==
{{See also|Regulation of genetic engineering}}
[[File:Genetically Engineered (GE) Food labeling laws map 2.png|thumb|Green: Mandatory labeling required; Red: Ban on import and cultivation of genetically engineered food.]]
Government regulation of GMO development and release varies widely between countries. Marked differences separate [[Genetic engineering in the United States#Regulation|GMO regulation in the U.S.]] and [[Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union|GMO regulation in the European Union]].<ref name="Council on Foreign Relations" /> Regulation also varies depending on the intended product's use. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm |title=The History and Future of GM Potatoes |publisher=PotatoPro.com |date=2013-12-11 |access-date=2012-09-17 |archive-date=2013-10-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131012033805/http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm }}</ref> European and EU regulation has been far more restrictive than anywhere else in the world: In 2013 only 1 cultivar of maize/corn and 1 cultivar of potato were approved, and eight EU member states did not allow even those.<ref name="Freedman-2013" />

===United States regulations===
{{Main|Genetic engineering in the United States#Regulation}}

In the U.S., three government organizations regulate GMOs. The [[FDA]] checks the chemical composition of organisms for potential [[allergens]]. The [[United States Department of Agriculture]] (USDA) supervises field testing and monitors the distribution of GM seeds. The [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) is responsible for monitoring pesticide usage, including plants modified to contain proteins [[insecticide|toxic to insects]]. Like USDA, EPA also oversees field testing and the distribution of crops that have had contact with pesticides to ensure environmental safety.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-safety.aspx#q3 |title=Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs |author=APPDMZ\ccvivr |work=monsanto.com}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=needs more independent, neutral source|date=August 2015}} In 2015 the Obama administration announced that it would update the way the government regulated GM crops.<ref>{{cite news |first=Andrew |last=Pollack |title=White House Orders Review of Rules for Genetically Modified Crops |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/business/white-house-orders-review-of-biotechnology-regulations.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=2015-07-02 |access-date=2015-07-03 }}</ref>

In 1992 FDA published "Statement of Policy: Foods derived from New Plant Varieties". This statement is a clarification of FDA's interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to foods produced from new plant varieties developed using [[Molecular cloning|recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology]]. FDA encouraged developers to consult with the FDA regarding any bioengineered foods in development. The FDA says developers routinely do reach out for consultations. In 1996 FDA updated consultation procedures.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/default.htm |title=Food from Genetically Engineered Plants |publisher=FDA |access-date=18 October 2015}}{{dead link|date=May 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130604080322/http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm |archive-date=June 4, 2013 |title=Statement of Policy – Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties |website=[[Food and Drug Administration]] |access-date=18 October 2015}}</ref>

The StarLink corn recalls occurred in the autumn of 2000, when over 300 food products were found to contain a [[genetically modified maize|genetically modified maize/corn]] that had not been approved for human consumption.<ref>Andrew Pollack for ''The New York Times''. September 23, 2000 [https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/business/kraft-recalls-taco-shells-with-bioengineered-corn.html "Kraft Recalls Taco Shells With Bioengineered Corn"]</ref> It was the first-ever recall of a genetically modified food.

=== European regulations ===
The European Union's control of genetically modified organisms is a particular part of an image of the promise and limitations of debate as a framework for supranational regulation.<ref name=":18" /> The issues posed by the EU's GMO regulation have caused major problems in agriculture, politics, societies, status, and other fields.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":18" /> 12 The EU law regulates the development and use of GMOs by allocating responsibilities to different authorities, public and private, accompanied by limited recognition of public information, consultation, and participation rights.<ref name=":18" /> The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provided certain rights and protection for GM biotechnology in the EU. However, the value of human dignity, liberty, equality, and solidarity, as well as the status of democracy and law, as emphasized in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, are considered the ethical framework governing the employment of scientific and technological research and development.<ref name=":16" />

Due to the political, religious, and social differences in EU countries, the EU's position on GM has been divided geographically, including more than 100 "GM-free" regions. Different regional attitudes to GM foods make it nearly impossible to reach a common agreement on GM foods.<ref name=":18" /> In recent years, however, the sense of crisis that this has generated for the European Union has intensified.<ref name=":19" /> Some member states, including Germany, France, Austria, Italy, and Luxembourg, have even banned the planting of certain GM food in their countries in response to public resistance to GM foods.<ref name=":18" /><ref name=":19" /> The whole thing is set against a backdrop of consumers holding the attitude that GM foods are harmful to both the environment and human health, revolting against GM foods in an anti-biotech coalition.<ref name=":15" /> The current political deadlock over GM foods is also a consequence of the ban and has yet to be resolved by scientific methods and processes.<ref name=":19" /> Public opinion tends to politicize the GM issue, which is the main obstacle to an agreement in the EU.<ref name=":18" />
[[File:Use of GM crops throughout the globe.jpg|thumb|Application of genetically modified food throughout the globe]]

In the United Kingdom, the [[Food Standards Agency]] assesses GM foods for their toxicity, nutritional value, and potential to cause allergic reactions. GM foods can be authorised for sale where they present no risk to health, do not mislead consumers, and have nutritional value at least equivalent to non-modified counterparts.<ref>[https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/genetically-modified-foods Genetically modified foods]. ''Food Standards Agency''. Retrieved 27 May 2024.</ref> The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act passed into law on 23 March 2023. The UK government said it would allow farmers to "grow crops which are drought and disease resistant, reduce use of fertilisers and pesticides, and help breed animals that are protected from catching harmful diseases".<ref>[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/genetic-technology-act-key-tool-for-uk-food-security Genetic Technology Act key tool for UK food security]. ''GOV.UK''. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 27 May 2024.</ref>

===Labeling===
As of 2015, 64 countries require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace.

US and Canadian national policy is to require a label only given significant composition differences or documented health impacts, although some individual US states (Vermont, Connecticut and Maine) enacted laws requiring them.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Chokshi |first1=Niraj |title=Vermont just passed the nation's first GMO food labeling law. Now it prepares to get sued|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/29/how-vermont-plans-to-defend-the-nations-first-gmo-law/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=9 May 2014 |access-date=19 January 2016}}</ref><ref name=RegGMFood>{{cite web |url=http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php |title=The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food |access-date=2013-11-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170610170104/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php |archive-date=2017-06-10 }}</ref><ref name="CAST-2014-04">{{cite journal |title=The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States |journal=Council for Agricultural Science and Technology |year=2014 |last1=Van Eenennaam |first1=Alison |last2=Chassy |first2=Bruce |last3=Kalaitzandonakes |first3=Nicholas |last4=Redick |first4=Thomas |volume=54 |issue=April 2014 |issn=1070-0021 |url=https://www.cast-science.org/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_Issue_Paper_54_web_optimized_29B2AB16AD687.pdf |access-date=2014-05-28 |quote=To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized GE crops have been identified that would justify a label based on the GE nature of the product. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140529142024/http://www.cast-science.org/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_Issue_Paper_54_web_optimized_29B2AB16AD687.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-29 }}</ref><ref name="Burlington-2014">{{cite news |last=Hallenbeck |first=Terri |url=https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/27/gmo-labeling-came-pass-vermont/8166519/ |title=How GMO labeling came to pass in Vermont |work=Burlington Free Press |date=2014-04-27 |access-date=2014-05-28}}</ref> In July 2016, [[Public Law 114-214]] was enacted to regulate labeling of GMO food on a national basis.

In some jurisdictions, the labeling requirement depends on the relative quantity of GMO in the product. A study that investigated voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.<ref name="Botha">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.06.050 |title=South Africa: A case study for voluntary GM labelling |year=2009 |last1=Botha |first1=Gerda M. |last2=Viljoen |first2=Christopher D. |journal=Food Chemistry |volume=112 |issue=4 |pages=1060–64}}</ref>

In the European Union all food (including [[processed food]]) or [[Compound feed|feed]] that contains greater than 0.9% GMOs must be labelled.<ref name="Davison2010">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005 |title=GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations |year=2010 |last1=Davison |first1=John |journal=Plant Science |volume=178 |issue=2 |pages=94–98|bibcode=2010PlnSc.178...94D }}</ref>

At the same time, due to lack of [[Genetically modified organism#Definition|single, clear definition of GMO]], a number of foods created using genetic engineering techniques (such as [[mutation breeding]]) are excluded from labelling and regulation based on "convention" and traditional usage.<ref name=":17" />

The Non-GMO Project is the sole U.S. organization that does verifiable testing and places seals on labels for presence of GMO in products. The "Non-GMO Project Seal" indicates that the product contains 0.9% or less GMO ingredients, which is the European Union's standard for labeling.<ref name=sw1>{{Cite journal|last1=Wunderlich|first1=Shahla|last2=Kelsey A. Gatto|date=November 2015|title=Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information|journal=Advances in Nutrition |pages=842–851|volume=6|issue=6|doi=10.3945/an.115.008870|pmid=26567205|pmc=4642419}}</ref>

Efforts across the world that are being made to help restrict and label GMO's in food involve anti-genetic engineering campaigns and in America the "Just Label It" movement is joining organizations together to call for mandatory labeling.<ref name=sw1/>

===Detection===
{{Main|Detection of genetically modified organisms}}

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as [[Polymerase chain reaction|PCR]] and [[bioinformatics]].<ref>{{cite web |publisher=European Commission Join Research Centre |url=https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/gmos |title=EU GMO testing homepage |access-date=May 31, 2015|date=2012-11-20 }}</ref>

In a January 2010 paper, the extraction and detection of DNA along a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was described to monitor the presence of [[Roundup Ready]] (RR) soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, washing and bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before and represents an important accomplishment regarding the traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Costa |first1=Joana |last2=Mafra |first2=Isabel |last3=Amaral |first3=Joana S. |last4=Oliveira |first4=M.B.P.P. |title=Monitoring genetically modified soybean along the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining processes by polymerase chain reaction techniques |journal=Food Research International |volume=43 |pages=301–06 |year=2010 |doi=10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.003}}</ref>

According to Thomas Redick, detection and prevention of cross-pollination is possible through the suggestions offered by the [[Farm Service Agency]] (FSA) and [[Natural Resources Conservation Service]] (NRCS). Suggestions include educating farmers on the importance of coexistence, providing farmers with tools and incentives to promote coexistence, conducting research to understand and monitor gene flow, providing assurance of quality and diversity in crops, and providing compensation for actual economic losses for farmers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals%2Fdragl19&div=6&start_page=39&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults|title=Redirecting...|website=heinonline.org|access-date=2019-01-23|archive-date=2019-01-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123223231/https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals%2Fdragl19&div=6&start_page=39&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults}}</ref>

=== Regulation methodology design ===
{{See also|#Health and safety}}
{{Expand section|date=November 2022}}
{{Excerpt|Genetically modified food controversies|Process-based regulation}}

==Controversies==
{{Main|Genetically modified food controversies}}

The genetically modified foods controversy consists of a set of disputes over the use of food made from genetically modified crops. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, environmental and political activists and scientists. The major disagreements include whether GM foods can be safely consumed, harm the human body and the environment and/or are adequately tested and regulated.<ref name="IDEA" /><ref>[[American Medical Association]] (2012). [http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf |date=2012-09-07 }} "To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement." p. 7</ref> The objectivity of scientific research and publications has been challenged.<ref name="CAPE" /> Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms,<ref name="CIEH">[[Chartered Institute of Environmental Health]] (2006) [http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles/Core/Policy/CIEH_consultation_responses/Response_GM_final.pdf Proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops Response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation paper.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525043126/http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles/Core/Policy/CIEH_consultation_responses/Response_GM_final.pdf |date=2017-05-25 }} October 2006</ref> and potential control of the GM food supply by seed companies.<ref name="CAPE" />

The conflicts have continued since GM foods were invented. They have occupied the media, the courts,<ref>Paull, John (2013) [https://www.academia.edu/13681599/The_threat_of_genetically_modified_organisms_GMOs_to_organic_agriculture_A_case_study_update "The threat of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic agriculture: A case study update"]. ''Agriculture & Food'', 3:.56-63</ref> local, regional, national governments, and international organizations.{{citation needed|date=March 2019}}

"GMO-free" labelling schemes are causing controversies in farming community due to [[Genetically modified organism#Definition|lack of clear definition]], inconsistency of their application and are described as "deceptive".<ref>{{Cite web|title=About|url=https://peelbackthelabel.org/about/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181030011726/https://peelbackthelabel.org/about/|url-status=usurped|archive-date=October 30, 2018|access-date=2021-07-09|website=Peel Back The Label|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|first1=Jonathan|last1=Knutson|date=May 22, 2018|title=Dairy farmers fight back against deceptive advertising|url=https://www.agweek.com/business/agriculture/4447554-dairy-farmers-fight-back-against-deceptive-advertising|access-date=2021-07-09|website=Agweek|language=en}}</ref>

=== Allergenicity ===
New allergies could be introduced inadvertently, according to scientists, community groups, and members of the public concerned about the genetic variation of foods.<ref name=":3" /> An example involves the methionine rich soybean production.<ref name=":9" /> Methionine is an amino acid obtained by synthesizing substances derived from Brazil nuts, which could be an allergen.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":20">{{cite book |last1=Paparini |first1=Andrea |chapter=Public health issues related with the consumption of food obtained from genetically modified organisms |date=2004 |pages=85–122 |publisher=Elsevier |last2=Romano-Spica |first2=Vincenzo|title=Biotechnology Annual Review |volume=10 |doi=10.1016/s1387-2656(04)10004-5 |pmid=15504704 |isbn=978-0-444-51749-4 }}</ref> A gene from the Brazil nut was inserted into soybeans during laboratory trials.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":20" /> Because it was discovered that those who were allergic to Brazil nuts could also be allergic to genetically modified soybeans, the experiment was stopped.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Prescott |first1=Vanessa E. |last2=Hogan |first2=Simon P. |date=August 2006 |title=Genetically modified plants and food hypersensitivity diseases: Usage and implications of experimental models for risk assessment |journal=Pharmacology & Therapeutics |volume=111 |issue=2 |pages=374–383 |doi=10.1016/j.pharmthera.2005.10.005 |pmid=16364445 |issn=0163-7258}}</ref> In vitro assays such as RAST or serum from people allergic to the original crop could be applied to test the allergenicity of GM goods with known source of the gene.<ref name=":3" /> This was established in GM soybeans that expressed Brazil nut 2S proteins and GM potatoes that expressed cod protein genes.<ref name=":4" /> The expression and synthesis of new proteins that were previously unavailable in parental cells were achieved by gene transfer from the cells of one organism to the nuclei of another organism. The potential risks of allergy that may develop with the intake of transgenic food come from the amino acid sequence in protein formation.<ref name=":14" /> However, there have been no reports of allergic reactions to currently approved GM foods for human consumption, and experiments showed no measurable difference in allergenicity between GM and non-GM soybeans.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":14" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ahmed |first=Farid E. |date=November 2003 |title=Genetically modified probiotics in foods |journal=Trends in Biotechnology |volume=21 |issue=11 |pages=491–497 |doi=10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.09.006 |pmid=14573362 |issn=0167-7799}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=D'Agnolo |first=G. |date=August 2005 |title=GMO: Human Health Risk Assessment |journal=Veterinary Research Communications |volume=29 |issue=S2 |pages=7–11 |doi=10.1007/s11259-005-0003-7 |pmid=16244917 |s2cid=12709929 |issn=0165-7380}}</ref>

=== Resistance genes ===
Scientists suggest that consumers should also pay attention to the health issues associated with the utilizations of pesticide-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants.<ref name=":4" /> The 'Bt' genes cause insect resistance in today's GM crops; however, other methods to confer insect resistance are in the works.<ref name=":13">{{Cite book |last=Watson |first=Ronald R. |title=Genetically modified organisms in food production, safety, regulation and public health |date=2016 |publisher=Elsevier Science |isbn=978-0-12-802530-7 |oclc=1281814112}}</ref> The Bt genes are usually obtained from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, and they can generate a protein that breaks down in the insect's gut, releasing a toxin called delta-endotoxin, which causes paralysis and death.<ref name=":19" /> Concerns about resistance and off-target effects of crops expressing Bt toxins, consequences of transgenic herbicide-tolerant plants caused by the use of herbicide, and the transfer of gene expression from GM crops via vertical and horizontal gene transfer are all related to the expression of transgenic material.<ref name=":16" />

=== Environmental impacts ===
Another concern raised by ecologists is the possible spread of the pest-resistant genes to wildlife.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":19" /> This is an example of gene pollution, which is often associated with a decrease in biodiversity, proliferation resistant weeds, and the formation of new pests and pathogens.<ref name=":11">{{Cite book |last=Walters |first=Reece |title=Eco Crime and Genetically Modified Food |date=2010-10-04 |publisher=Routledge-Cavendish |doi=10.4324/9780203844151 |isbn=978-1-136-91813-1}}</ref><ref name=":13" />

Studies have proven that herbicide resistant pollen from transgenic rapeseed could spread up to 3&nbsp;km, while the average gene spread of transgenic crops is 2&nbsp;km and even reach to maximum 21 kilometers.<ref name=":11" /> The high aggressiveness of these GM crops could cause certain disasters by competing with traditional crops for water, light, and nutrients.<ref name=":20" /> Crossbreeding of spreading pollens with the surrounding organisms has led to the introduction of the modified resistant genes.<ref name=":4" /> An international database that demonstrated genetic contaminations with undesired seeds has been a major problem due to the expansion of field trials and commercially viable cultivation of GM crops around the world.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":20" />  Even a decrease in the number of one pest under the impact of a pest-resistant weed could increase the population of other pests that compete with it.<ref name=":4" /> Beneficial insects, so named because they prey on crop pests, were also exposed to dangerous doses of Bt.<ref name=":3" />

=== Other concerns ===
The introduction of GM crops in place of more locally adapted varieties could lead to long-term negative effects on the entire agricultural system.<ref name=":10" /> Much of the concern with GM technology involves encoding genes that increase or decrease biochemicals. Alternatively, the newly programmed enzyme might result in the consumption of the substrate, forming and accumulating the products.<ref name=":3" /><!-- Also, it might lead to the conversion of metabolites between secondary biochemical pathways, resulting in metabolic disorders are disrupted in unpredictable ways and an increase in toxin concentrations.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dona |first1=Artemis |last2=Arvanitoyannis |first2=Ioannis S. |date=2009-02-02 |title=Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods |journal=Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition |volume=49 |issue=2 |pages=164–175 |doi=10.1080/10408390701855993 |pmid=18989835 |s2cid=6861474 |issn=1040-8398}}</ref> Toxin evaluation is usually done in animals, but differences between animals make it difficult to assess the effects on humans according to GM food effect of the ingestion of GM foods in animals. Insertional mutagenesis is associated with a series of consequences; for example, mutations occur when existing genes of the host plant are rewritten, and endogenous genes are inactivated.<ref name=":3" />-->

In terms of socioeconomics, GM crops are usually dependent on high levels of external products, for example, pesticides and herbicides, which limit GM crops to high-input agriculture. This, coupled with the widespread patents held on GM crops, limited farmers' trading rights over the harvested seeds without paying royalties. Other arguments against GM crops held by some opponents are based on the high costs of isolating and distributing GM crops over non-GM crops.<ref name=":10" />

Consumers could be categorized based on their attitudes regarding genetically modified foods.<ref name=":15" /> The 'attitudinal' sector of US consumers could be explained in part by cognitive characteristics that are not always observable. Individual characteristics and values, for example, can play a role in shaping consumer acceptance of biotechnology. The concept of transplanting animal DNA into plants is unsettling for many people.<ref name=":4" /> Studies have shown that consumers' attitudes towards GM technology are positively correlated to their knowledge about it.<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal |last1=Hwang |first1=Hyesun |last2=Nam |first2=Su-Jung |date=2020-11-02 |title=The influence of consumers' knowledge on their responses to genetically modified foods |journal=GM Crops & Food |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=146–157 |doi=10.1080/21645698.2020.1840911 |pmid=33138666 |pmc=7644159 |issn=2164-5698}}</ref> It was found that elevated acceptance of genetic modification is usually associated with a high education level, whereas high levels of perceived risks are associated with the opposite.<ref name=":15" /><ref name=":21" /> People tend to worry about unpredictable dangers due to the lack of sufficient knowledge to predict or avoid negative impacts.<ref name=":21" />

Another crucial link of the change in consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods has been shown to be closely related to their interaction with socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, for example, age, ethnicity, residence, and level of consumption.<ref name=":15" /><ref name=":20" /> Opposition to genetically modified foods could also include religious and cultural groups, because the nature of GM foods goes against what they believe are natural products.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":20" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lucht |first=Jan |date=2015-07-30 |title=Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops |journal=Viruses |volume=7 |issue=8 |pages=4254–4281 |doi=10.3390/v7082819 |pmid=26264020 |pmc=4576180 |issn=1999-4915|doi-access=free }}</ref> On the one hand, it was found that consumers in most European countries, especially in northern Europe, the UK and Germany, believe that the benefits of GM foods do not outweigh the potential risks. On the other hand, consumers in the United States and other European countries generally hold to view that the risks of GM foods could be far less than the benefits it brought.<ref name=":14" /> GM foods are then expected to be supported by more appropriate policies and clearer regulations.<ref name=":20" />

==See also==
* [[List of genetically modified crops]]
* [[Genetically modified crops]]
* [[Genetically modified food controversies]]
* [[Genetically modified organisms]]
* [[California Proposition 37 (2012)]] - rejected labeling [[Popular initiative|initiative]]
* [[Pharming (genetics)]] – use of genetically modified mammals to produce drugs
* [[Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms]]
* [[StarLink corn recall]] in 2000

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em|refs=<ref name="Nicolia2013">{{Cite journal|url=https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20study%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|first1=Alessandro|last1=Nicolia|first2=Alberto|last2=Manzo|first3=Fabio|last3=Veronesi|first4=Daniele|last4=Rosellini|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume=34|issue=1|date=2013|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|pmid=24041244|s2cid=9836802|quote=We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.<br /><br/>The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.}}</ref>
<ref name="FAO">{{Cite web|url=https://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The|title=State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).}}</ref>
<ref name="Ronald2011">{{Cite journal|title=Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security|first=Pamela|last=Ronald|journal=Genetics|date=May 1, 2011|volume=188|issue=1|pages=11–20|doi=10.1534/genetics.111.128553|pmid=21546547|pmc=3120150|quote="There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."}}</ref>
<ref name="Also"><p>But see also:</p><p>{{Cite journal|url=https://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants|first1=José L.|last1=Domingo|first2=Jordi Giné|last2=Bordonaba|journal=Environment International|date=2011|volume=37|issue=4|pages=734–742|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003|pmid=21296423|bibcode=2011EnInt..37..734D |quote=In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.}}</p><p>{{Cite journal|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment|first=Sheldon|last=Krimsky|s2cid=40855100|journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values|volume=40|issue=6|pages=883–914|doi=10.1177/0162243915598381|date=2015|quote=I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.}}</p><p>And contrast:</p><p>{{Cite journal|title=Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons|first1=Alexander Y.|last1=Panchin|first2=Alexander I.|last2=Tuzhikov|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume = 37|issue = 2|pages = 213–217|date=January 14, 2016|issn=0738-8551|doi=10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684|pmid = 26767435|s2cid=11786594|quote=Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. <br /><br/> The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.}}</p><p>and</p>{{Cite journal|title=Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health|first1=Y.T.|last1=Yang|first2=B.|last2=Chen|journal=Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture|volume=96|issue = 4|pages=1851–1855|date=2016|doi=10.1002/jsfa.7523|pmid=26536836|bibcode=2016JSFA...96.1851Y |quote=It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA ''(citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011)''. Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.<br /><br/>Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.}}</ref>
<ref name="AAAS2012">{{Cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf|title=Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=October 20, 2012|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote="The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."}}<br /><br/>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf|title=AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"|first=Ginger|last=Pinholster|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=October 25, 2012|access-date=August 30, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="ECom2010">{{Cite book|url=https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf|title=A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)|publisher=Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union.|doi=10.2777/97784|isbn=978-92-79-16344-9|access-date=August 30, 2019|date=2010|author1=European Commission. Directorate-General for Research}}</ref>
<ref name="ISAAA">{{Cite web|url=https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm|title=ISAAA Summary of AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods|publisher=[[International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications|ISAAA]]|date=January 2001|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote="A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts."}}</ref>
<ref name="AMA2001">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html|title=Featured CSA Report: Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (I-00) Full Text|publisher=[[American Medical Association]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010610122221/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html|archive-date=10 June 2001|quote="Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts."}}</ref>
<ref name="AMA2012">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf|title=Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods|publisher=American Medical Association|date=2012|access-date=August 30, 2019|archive-date=2012-09-07|quote="Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature".}}</ref>
<ref name="LoC2015">{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php#Opinion|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion|publisher=Library of Congress|date=June 30, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote="Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs."}}</ref>
<ref name="NAS2016">{{Cite book|url=https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/7#149|title=Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects|publisher=The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US)|page=149|date=2016|access-date=August 30, 2019|doi=10.17226/23395|pmid=28230933|quote="''Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops:'' On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts."|isbn=978-0-309-43738-7|last1=National Academies Of Sciences |first1=Engineering |author2=Division on Earth Life Studies |author3=Board on Agriculture Natural Resources |author4=Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects |bibcode=2016nap..book23395N }}</ref> 
<ref name="WHOFAQ">{{Cite web|url=https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/|title=Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods|publisher=World Health Organization|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.<br /><br/>GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.}}</ref>
<ref name="Haslberger2003">{{Cite journal|title=Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects|first=Alexander G.|last=Haslberger|journal=Nature Biotechnology|volume=21|issue=7|pages=739–741|date=2003|doi=10.1038/nbt0703-739|pmid=12833088|s2cid=2533628|quote=These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.}}</ref>
<ref name="BMA2004">Some medical organizations, including the [[British Medical Association]], advocate further caution based upon the [[precautionary principle]]:<br /><br/>{{Cite web|url=https://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf|title=Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement|publisher=British Medical Association|date=March 2004|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.<br /><br/>When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.<br /><br/>Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.<br /><br/>The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.}}</ref>
<ref name="PEW2015">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/|title=Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society|first1=Cary|last1=Funk|first2=Lee|last2=Rainie|publisher=Pew Research Center|date=January 29, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.|archive-date=January 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190109232405/http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/}}</ref>
<ref name="Marris2001">{{Cite journal|title=Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths|first=Claire|last=Marris|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=2|issue=7|pages=545–548|date=2001|doi=10.1093/embo-reports/kve142|pmid=11463731|pmc=1083956}}</ref>
<ref name="PABE">{{Cite web|url=http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc|title=Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe|date=December 2001|author=Final Report of the PABE research project|publisher=Commission of European Communities|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525042822/http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc |archive-date=2017-05-25|access-date=August 30, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="Scott2016">{{Cite journal|url=https://yoelinbar.net/papers/gmo_absolute.pdf|title=Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States|first1=Sydney E.|last1=Scott|first2=Yoel|last2=Inbar|first3=Paul|last3=Rozin|journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science|date=2016|volume=11|issue=3|pages=315–324|doi=10.1177/1745691615621275|pmid=27217243|s2cid=261060}}</ref>
<ref name="loc.gov">{{Cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms|publisher=Library of Congress|date=June 9, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="Bashshur">{{Cite web|url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html|title=FDA and Regulation of GMOs|first=Ramona|last=Bashshur|publisher=American Bar Association|date=February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621044554/https://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html|archive-date=June 21, 2018|access-date=August 30, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="Sifferlin">{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/4060476/eu-gmo-crops-european-union-opt-out/|title=Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs|first=Alexandra|last=Sifferlin|magazine=Time|date=October 3, 2015|access-date=August 30, 2019}}</ref>
<ref name="Council on Foreign Relations">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688|title=The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics|first1=Diahanna|last1=Lynch|first2=David|last2=Vogel|publisher=Council on Foreign Relations|date=April 5, 2001|access-date=August 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160929200540/http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688|archive-date=September 29, 2016}}</ref>}}

==External links==
* {{Library resources about|onlinebooks=no}}
* {{Commons category-inline|Genetically modified food}}

{{Genetic engineering}}
{{Consumer Food Safety}}
{{emerging technologies|topics=yes|ag=yes}}
{{Public health}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Genetically Modified Food}}
[[Category:Food industry]]
[[Category:Genetic engineering]]
[[Category:Genetically modified organisms in agriculture]]
[[Category:Molecular biology]]