Genetically modified maize

Corn varieties resistant to glyphosate herbicides were first commercialized in 1996 by Monsanto, and are known as "Roundup Ready Corn". They tolerate the use of Roundup.{{cite web|title=Roundup Ready System |url=http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx |publisher=Monsanto |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130402204619/http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx |archive-date=2 April 2013 }} Bayer CropScience developed "Liberty Link Corn" that is resistant to glufosinate.{{cite web |url=http://www.bayercropscience.us/products/herbicides/liberty/|title=Bayer LibertyLink official website|publisher=Bayer Crop Science|access-date=28 October 2014}} Pioneer Hi-Bred has developed and markets corn hybrids with tolerance to imidazoline herbicides under the trademark "Clearfield" – though in these hybrids, the herbicide-tolerance trait was bred using tissue culture selection and the chemical mutagen ethyl methanesulfonate, not genetic engineering.{{cite journal | vauthors = Tan S, Evans RR, Dahmer ML, Singh BK, Shaner DL | title = Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status and future | journal = Pest Management Science | volume = 61 | issue = 3 | pages = 246–57 | date = March 2005 | pmid = 15627242 | doi = 10.1002/ps.993 }} Consequently, the regulatory framework governing the approval of transgenic crops does not apply for Clearfield.

As of 2011, herbicide-resistant GM corn was grown in 14 countries.{{cite web | vauthors = James 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=http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp|access-date=27 July 2012}} By 2012, 26 varieties of herbicide-resistant GM maize were authorised for import into the European Union,{{cite web | author = Staff | url = http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm | title = EU register of genetically modified food and feed | work = European Commission, Health and Consumers, EU register of authorised GMOs | access-date = 26 August 2012 }} but such imports remain controversial.{{cite web | vauthors = Hogan M | date = 5 April 2012 | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-gmo-basf-idUSBRE8340Y120120405 | title = BASF to undertake GMO potato trials in Europe | work = Reuters Edition US | access-date = 26 August 2012 }} Cultivation of herbicide-resistant corn in the EU provides substantial farm-level benefits.{{cite journal | vauthors = Wesseler J, Scatasta S, Nillesen E | title = The maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) and other benefits and costs of introducing transgenic maize in the EU-15. | journal = Pedobiologia | date = August 2007 | volume = 51 | issue = 3 | pages = 261–9 | doi = 10.1016/j.pedobi.2007.04.004 | url = https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33229/1/MPRA_paper_33229.pdf }}

Image:Corn borer.jpg, Ostrinia nubilalis, destroys corn crops by burrowing into the stem, causing the plant to fall over.]]

{{visible anchor|Bt maize}}/{{visible anchor|Bt corn}} is a variant of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis including Delta endotoxins. The protein is poisonous to certain insect pests. Spores of the bacillus are widely used in organic gardening,{{cite web |url=http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html|title=Bt Crop Spraying|work=ucsd.edu}} although GM corn is not considered organic. The European corn borer causes about a billion dollars in damage to corn crops each year.{{cite book | vauthors = Witkowski JF, Wedberg JL, Steffey KL, Sloderbeck PE, Siegfried BD, Rice ME, Pilcher CD, Onstad DW, Mason CE, Lewis LC, Landis DA, Keaster AK, Huang F, Higgins RA, Haas MJ, Gray ME, Giles KL, Foster JE, Davis PM, Calvin DD, Buschman LL, Bolin PC, Barry BD, Andow DA, Alstad DN | display-authors = 6 | veditors = Ostlie KR, Hutchison KR, Hellmich RL | chapter = Why manage European corn borer? | title = Bt Corn & European Corn Borer: Long-term Success Through Resistance Management | work = University of Minnesota Extension Office | publisher = North Central Region (NCR) | date = 1997 | url = http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7055.html#ch1 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130928064604/http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7055.html#ch1 | archive-date=28 September 2013 }}

In recent years, traits have been added to ward off corn ear worms and root worms, the latter of which annually causes about a billion dollars in damages.{{cite journal | vauthors = Marra MC, Piggott NE, Goodwin BK | date = 2012 | url = https://agbioforum.org/the-impact-of-corn-rootworm-protected-biotechnology-traits-in-the-united-states/ | title = The impact of corn rootworm protected biotechnology traits in the United States | journal = AgBioForum | volume = 15 | issue = 2 | pages = 217–230 }}{{cite web | vauthors = Hodgson EW | work = Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory | url = http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/western-corn-rootworm.pdf | title = Western corn rootworm }}

The Bt protein is expressed throughout the plant. When a vulnerable insect eats the Bt-containing plant, the protein is activated in its gut, which is alkaline. In the alkaline environment, the protein partially unfolds and is cut by other proteins, forming a toxin that paralyzes the insect's digestive system and forms holes in the gut wall. The insect stops eating within a few hours and eventually starves.{{cite journal | vauthors = Grochulski P, Masson L, Borisova S, Pusztai-Carey M, Schwartz JL, Brousseau R, Cygler M | title = Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(a) insecticidal toxin: crystal structure and channel formation | journal = Journal of Molecular Biology | volume = 254 | issue = 3 | pages = 447–64 | date = December 1995 | pmid = 7490762 | doi = 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0630 }}{{cite web| vauthors = Peairs FB |publisher=Colorado State University Extension Office|year= 2013|url=http://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/crops/00707.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/crops/00707.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Bt Corn: Health and the Environment – 0.707}}

In 1996, the first GM maize producing a Bt Cry protein was approved, which killed the European corn borer and related species; subsequent Bt genes were introduced that killed corn rootworm larvae.{{cite journal | vauthors = Hellmich RL, Hellmich KA | title = Use and impact of Bt maize. | journal = Nature Education Knowledge | date = 2012 | volume = 3 | issue = 10 | pages = 4 | url = http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413 }}

The Philippine Government has promoted Bt corn, hoping for insect resistance and higher yields.{{cite journal | vauthors = Freedman A | title=Rice security in Southeast Asia: beggar thy neighbor or cooperation? | journal=The Pacific Review | publisher=Taylor & Francis | volume=26 | issue=5 | year=2013 | issn=0951-2748 | doi=10.1080/09512748.2013.842303 | pages=433–454| s2cid=153573639 }} p.{{spaces}}443

Approved Bt genes include single and stacked (event names bracketed) configurations of: Cry1A.105 (MON89034), CryIAb (MON810), CryIF (1507), Cry2Ab (MON89034), Cry3Bb1 (MON863 and MON88017), Cry34Ab1 (59122), Cry35Ab1 (59122), mCry3A (MIR604), and Vip3A (MIR162), in both corn and cotton.{{cite web | vauthors = Bessin R | work = University of Kentucky College of Agriculture | orig-date = first published May 1996 | date = November 2010 | url = http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef118.asp | title = Bt-Corn for Corn Borer Control }}{{cite book | vauthors = Castagnola AS, Jurat-Fuentes, JL | chapter = Bt Crops: Past and Future. Chapter 15 | title = Bacillus Thuringiensis Biotechnology | veditors = Sansinenea E | publisher = Springer | date = 2 March 2012 }}{{rp|285ff}} Corn genetically modified to produce VIP was first approved in the US in 2010.{{cite web | vauthors = Hodgson E, Gassmann A | work = Iowa State Extension, Department of Entomology | date = May 2010 | url = http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2010/0510hodgsongassman.htm | title = New Corn Trait Deregulated in the U.S. }}

A 2018 study found that Bt-corn protected nearby fields of non-Bt corn and nearby vegetable crops, reducing the use of pesticides on those crops. Data from 1976 to 1996 (before Bt corn was widespread) was compared to data after it was adopted (1996–2016). They examined levels of the European corn borer and corn earworm. Their larvae eat a variety of crops, including peppers and green beans. Between 1992 and 2016, the amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by 85 percent. Another factor was the introduction of more effective pesticides that were applied less often.{{Cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/planting-gmos-kills-so-many-bugs-that-it-helps-non-gmo-crops/|title=Planting GMOs kills so many bugs that it helps non-GMO crops| vauthors = Gittig D |date=15 March 2018|work=Ars Technica|access-date=13 April 2018|language=en-us}}

GM sweet corn varieties include "Attribute", the brand name for insect-resistant sweet corn developed by Syngenta{{cite web|url=http://www.syngenta-us.com/seeds/vegetables/sweet_corn/Sweet_Corn_Crop_Guide.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.syngenta-us.com/seeds/vegetables/sweet_corn/Sweet_Corn_Crop_Guide.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Syngenta Sweet Corn Products|website=syngenta-us.com|access-date=8 April 2018}} and Performance Series insect-resistant sweet corn developed by Monsanto.{{cite web|url=https://www.seminis.com/global/us/SiteCollectionDocuments/Stewardship/2013_Sweet%20Corn_TUG_.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.seminis.com/global/us/SiteCollectionDocuments/Stewardship/2013_Sweet%20Corn_TUG_.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=U.S. Technology Use Guide|publisher=Monsanto|year=2013}}

While Cuba's agriculture is largely focused on organic production, as of 2010, the country had developed a variety of genetically modified corn that is resistant to the palomilla moth.Anna Glayzer for The Food Commission. 19 July 2010 [http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/articles/cubas_food_production_revolution/ Cuba's food production revolution]

In 2013 Monsanto launched the first transgenic drought tolerance trait in a line of corn hybrids called DroughtGard.{{cite web | work = OECD BioTrack Database | url = http://www2.oecd.org/biotech/Product.aspx?id=MON-8746%C3%98-4 | title = MON87460 | access-date = 15 March 2014 | archive-date = 1 July 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170701140407/http://www2.oecd.org/biotech/Product.aspx?id=MON-8746%C3%98-4 | url-status = dead }} The MON 87460 trait is provided by the insertion of the cspB gene from the soil microbe Bacillus subtilis; it was approved by the USDA in 2011{{cite journal | url = http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/BRS_20111227c.pdf | author = Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | id = APHIS–2011–0023 | title = Monsanto Co.; Determination of Nonregulated Status of Corn Genetically Engineered for Drought Tolerance | journal = Federal Register | volume = 76 | issue = 248 | date = 27 December 2011 }} and by China in 2013.{{cite journal | vauthors = Eisenstein M | title = Plant breeding: Discovery in a dry spell | journal = Nature | volume = 501 | issue = 7468 | pages = S7–9 | date = September 2013 | pmid = 24067764 | doi = 10.1038/501S7a | bibcode = 2013Natur.501S...7E | doi-access = free }}

In regular corn crops, insects promote fungal colonization by creating "wounds," or holes, in corn kernels. These wounds are favored by fungal spores for germination, which subsequently leads to mycotoxin accumulation in the crop that can be carcinogenic and toxic to humans and other animals. This can prove to be especially devastating in developing countries with drastic climate patterns such as high temperatures, which favor the development of toxic fungi. In addition, higher mycotoxin levels leads to market rejection or reduced market prices for the grain. GM corn crops encounter fewer insect attacks, and thus, have lower concentrations of mycotoxins. Fewer insect attacks also keep corn ears from being damaged, which increases overall yields.{{cite journal | vauthors = Pellegrino E, Bedini S, Nuti M, Ercoli L | title = Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data | journal = Scientific Reports | volume = 8 | issue = 1 | pages = 3113 | date = February 2018 | pmid = 29449686 | pmc = 5814441 | doi = 10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2 | bibcode = 2018NatSR...8.3113P }}

In 2007, South African researchers announced the production of transgenic maize resistant to maize streak virus (MSV), although it has not been released as a product.{{cite journal | vauthors = Shepherd DN, Mangwende T, Martin DP, Bezuidenhout M, Kloppers FJ, Carolissen CH, Monjane AL, Rybicki EP, Thomson JA | display-authors = 6 | title = Maize streak virus-resistant transgenic maize: a first for Africa | journal = Plant Biotechnology Journal | volume = 5 | issue = 6 | pages = 759–67 | date = November 2007 | pmid = 17924935 | doi = 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00279.x | citeseerx = 10.1.1.584.7352 }} While breeding cultivars for resistance to MSV isn't done in the public, the private sector, international research centers, and national programmes have done all of the breeding.{{cite journal |vauthors=Pratt R, Gordon S, Lipps P, Asea G, Bigirwa G, Pixley K |title=Use of IPM in the control of multiple diseases in maize: strategies for selection of host resistance |journal= African Crop Science Journal |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=189–98 |date=June 2003 |doi=10.4314/acsj.v11i3.27570|url=http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?cs03022 |doi-access=free |hdl=1807/47314 |hdl-access=free }} As of 2014, there have been a few MSV-tolerant cultivars released in Africa. A private company Seedco has released 5 MSV cultivars.{{cite web |url=https://www.seedcogroup.com/zm/search/node/msv%20tolerance |title=Search Results:MSV tolerance |website=Seed Co-The African Seed Company |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=30 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630195149/https://www.seedcogroup.com/zm/search/node/msv%20tolerance |url-status=dead }}

Research has been done on adding a single E. coli gene to maize to enable it to be grown with an essential amino acid (methionine).{{cite journal | vauthors = Planta J, Xiang X, Leustek T, Messing J | title = Engineering sulfur storage in maize seed proteins without apparent yield loss | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 114 | issue = 43 | pages = 11386–11391 | date = October 2017 | pmid = 29073061 | pmc = 5664557 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.1714805114 | bibcode = 2017PNAS..11411386P | doi-access = free }}{{cite web|url=https://news.rutgers.edu/genetically-boosting-nutritional-value-corn-could-benefit-millions/20171009|title=Genetically Boosting the Nutritional Value of Corn Could Benefit Millions - Rutgers Today|website=news.rutgers.edu|date=9 October 2017}}

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require farmers who plant Bt corn to plant non-Bt corn nearby (called a refuge), with the logic that pests will infest the non-Bt corn and thus will not evolve a resistance to the Bt toxin.{{cite book | vauthors = Witkowski JF, Wedberg JL, Steffey KL, Sloderbeck PE, Siegfried BD, Rice ME, Pilcher CD, Onstad DW, Mason CE, Lewis LC, Landis DA, Keaster AK, Huang F, Higgins RA, Haas MJ, Gray ME, Giles KL, Foster JE, Davis PM, Calvin DD, Buschman LL, Bolin PC, Barry BD, Andow DA, Alstad DN | display-authors = 6 | veditors = Ostlie KR, Hutchison KR, Hellmich RL | chapter = How does resistance develop? | title = Bt Corn & European Corn Borer: Long-term Success Through Resistance Management | work = University of Minnesota Extension Office | publisher = North Central Region (NCR) | date = 1997 | url = http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7055.html#ch11 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130928064604/http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7055.html#ch11 | archive-date=28 September 2013 }} Typically, 20% of corn in a grower's fields must be refuge; refuge must be at least 0.5 miles from Bt corn for lepidopteran pests, and refuge for corn rootworm must at least be adjacent to a Bt field.{{cite report |author=E. Cullen|author2=R. Proost, D. Volenberg|date=2008|title=Insect resistance management and refuge requirements for Bt corn|url=http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Management/pdfs/A3857.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Management/pdfs/A3857.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live}} EPA regulations also require seed companies to train farmers how to maintain refuges, to collect data on the refuges and to report that data to the EPA. A study of these reports found that from 2003 to 2005 farmer compliance with keeping refuges was above 90%, but that by 2008 approximately 25% of Bt corn farmers did not keep refuges properly, raising concerns that resistance would develop.

Unmodified crops received most of the economic benefits of Bt corn in the US in 1996–2007, because of the overall reduction of pest populations. This reduction came because females laid eggs on modified and unmodified strains alike, but pest organisms that develop on the modified strain are eliminated.

Seed bags containing both Bt and refuge seed have been approved by the EPA in the United States. These seed mixtures were marketed as "Refuge in a Bag" (RIB) to increase farmer compliance with refuge requirements and reduce additional work needed at planting from having separate Bt and refuge seed bags on hand. The EPA approved a lower percentage of refuge seed in these seed mixtures ranging from 5 to 10%. This strategy is likely to reduce the likelihood of Bt-resistance occurring for corn rootworm, but may increase the risk of resistance for lepidopteran pests, such as European corn borer. Increased concerns for resistance with seed mixtures include partially resistant larvae on a Bt plant being able to move to a susceptible plant to survive or cross pollination of refuge pollen on to Bt plants that can lower the amount of Bt expressed in kernels for ear feeding insects.{{cite journal | vauthors = Siegfried BD, Hellmich RL | title = Understanding successful resistance management: the European corn borer and Bt corn in the United States | journal = GM Crops & Food | volume = 3 | issue = 3 | pages = 184–93 | year = 2012 | pmid = 22688691 | doi = 10.4161/gmcr.20715 | doi-access = free }}{{cite journal | vauthors = Devos Y, Meihls LN, Kiss J, Hibbard BE | title = Resistance evolution to the first generation of genetically modified Diabrotica-active Bt-maize events by western corn rootworm: management and monitoring considerations | journal = Transgenic Research | volume = 22 | issue = 2 | pages = 269–99 | date = April 2013 | pmid = 23011587 | doi = 10.1007/s11248-012-9657-4 | s2cid = 10821353 | url = https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2247&context=usdaarsfacpub }}

Resistant strains of the European corn borer have developed in areas with defective or absent refuge management.{{cite journal | vauthors = Tabashnik BE | title = Plant science. Communal benefits of transgenic corn | journal = Science | volume = 330 | issue = 6001 | pages = 189–90 | date = October 2010 | pmid = 20929767 | doi = 10.1126/science.1196864 | s2cid = 36595050 }} In 2012, a Florida field trial demonstrated that army worms were resistant to Bt maize produced by Dupont-Dow; armyworm resistance was first discovered in Puerto Rico in 2006, prompting Dow and DuPont to voluntarily stop selling the product on the island.{{cite web | vauthors = Kaskey J | work = Bloomberg News | date = 16 November 2012 | url = https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/dupont-dow-corn-defeated-by-armyworms-in-florida-study.html | title = DuPont-Dow Corn Defeated by Armyworms in Florida: Study |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150305033718/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-16/dupont-dow-corn-defeated-by-armyworms-in-florida-study|archivedate=2015-03-05|url-status=live}} {{subscription required}}

{{main|Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms}}

Regulation of GM crops varies between countries, with some of the most-marked differences occurring between the US and Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on intended uses.Wesseler, J. and N. Kalaitzandonakes (2011): Present and Future EU GMO policy. In Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meesters and Huib Silvis (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas. Second Edition, pp. 23-323 – 23-332. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic PublishersBeckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, J. Wesseler (2011): Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-modified (non GM) crops: Are the two main property rights regimes equivalent with respect to the coexistence value? In "Genetically modified food and global welfare" edited by Colin Carter, GianCarlo Moschini and Ian Sheldon, pp 201-224. Volume 10 in Frontiers of Economics and Globalization Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing

{{Main|Genetically modified food controversies}}

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. 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.

The scientific rigor of the studies regarding human health has been disputed due to alleged lack of independence and due to conflicts of interest involving governing bodies and some of those who perform and evaluate the studies.{{cite news |title=Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research | vauthors = Pollack A |date=19 February 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html |newspaper=New York Times }}{{cite web |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/european-food-safety-official-resigns-amidst-conflict-interest-controversy|title=European Food Safety Official Resigns Amidst Conflict of Interest Controversy|publisher=Science Magazine|access-date=28 October 2014|date=9 May 2012}}{{cite journal | vauthors = | title = Fields of gold | journal = Nature | volume = 497 | issue = 7447 | pages = 5–6 | date = May 2013 | pmid = 23646363 | doi = 10.1038/497005b | doi-access = free }} However, no reports of ill effects from GM food have been documented in the human population.{{cite web | publisher = American Medical Association | date = 2012 | url = http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf | title = Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf | archive-date = 7 September 2012 }}{{cite book | author = United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council | date = 2004 | title = Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. | publisher = National Academies Press | doi = 10.17226/10977 | pmid = 25009871 | isbn = 978-0-309-09209-8 | url = http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc }} See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.{{cite journal | vauthors = Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM | title = Genetically modified plants and human health | journal = Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine | volume = 101 | issue = 6 | pages = 290–8 | date = June 2008 | pmid = 18515776 | pmc = 2408621 | doi = 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372 }}

GM crops provide a number of ecological benefits, but there are also concerns for their overuse, stalled research outside of the Bt seed industry, proper management and issues with Bt resistance arising from their misuse.{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/|title=Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It|magazine=WIRED|access-date=28 October 2014|date=17 March 2014}}{{cite web | vauthors = Pollack A | work = The New York Times | date = 13 April 2010 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/energy-environment/14crop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 | title = Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops }}{{cite web | vauthors = Lochhead C |url=http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Genetically-modified-crops-results-raise-concern-3520087.php|title=Genetically modified crops' results raise concern|date=30 April 2012|work=SFGate|access-date=28 October 2014}}

Critics have objected to GM crops on ecological, economic and health grounds. The economic issues derive from those organisms that are subject to intellectual property law, mostly patents. The first generation of GM crops lose patent protection beginning in 2015. Monsanto has claimed it will not pursue farmers who retain seeds of off-patent varieties.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html| title=As Patent Ends, a Seed's Use Will Survive | vauthors = Pollack A |date=17 December 2009 |newspaper=New York Times}} These controversies have led to litigation, international trade disputes, protests and to restrictive legislation in most countries.Wesseler, J. (ed.) (2005): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Press

Introduction of Bt maize led to significant reduction of mycotoxin-related poisoning and cancer rates, as they were significantly less prone to contain mycotoxins (29%), fumonisins (31%) and thricotecens (37%), all of which are toxic and carcinogenic.{{cite journal | vauthors = Smyth SJ | title = The human health benefits from GM crops | journal = Plant Biotechnology Journal | volume = 18 | issue = 4 | pages = 887–888 | date = April 2020 | pmid = 31544299 | pmc = 7061863 | doi = 10.1111/pbi.13261 }}

Critics claim that Bt proteins could target predatory and other beneficial or harmless insects as well as the targeted pest. These proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with no ill effects on the environment reported.{{cite web |url= http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html |title=History of Bt |publisher= University of California|access-date=8 February 2010}} While cyt proteins are toxic towards the insect order Diptera (flies), certain cry proteins selectively target lepidopterans (moths and butterflies), while other cyt selectively target Coleoptera.{{Cite journal| vauthors = Al-Deeb MA, Wilde GE, Blair JM, Todd TC |title=Effect of Bt Corn for Corn Rootworm Control on Nontarget Soil Microarthropods and Nematodes|journal=Environmental Entomology|language=en-US|volume=32|issue=4|pages=859–865|doi=10.1603/0046-225x-32.4.859|year=2003|doi-access=free}} As a toxic mechanism, cry proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut (epithelial) cells, resulting in rupture of those cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate gut receptors cannot be affected by the cry protein, and therefore Bt.{{cite web |title=Bt corn: is it worth the risk?|url=http://www.scq.ubc.ca/bt-corn-is-it-worth-the-risk/| vauthors = Hall H |date=30 May 2006|publisher=The Science Creative Quarterly}}{{cite journal | vauthors = Dorsch JA, Candas M, Griko NB, Maaty WS, Midboe EG, Vadlamudi RK, Bulla LA | title = Cry1A toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis bind specifically to a region adjacent to the membrane-proximal extracellular domain of BT-R(1) in Manduca sexta: involvement of a cadherin in the entomopathogenicity of Bacillus thuringiensis | journal = Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology | volume = 32 | issue = 9 | pages = 1025–36 | date = September 2002 | pmid = 12213239 | doi = 10.1016/s0965-1748(02)00040-1 }} Regulatory agencies assess the potential for the transgenic plant to impact nontarget organisms before approving commercial release.{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A, Gatehouse AM, Herman RA, Huesing JE, McLean MA, Raybould A, Shelton AM, Waggoner A | display-authors = 6 | title = Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants | journal = Transgenic Research | volume = 20 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–22 | date = February 2011 | pmid = 20938806 | pmc = 3018611 | doi = 10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x }}{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MM, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD | display-authors = 6 | title = Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods | journal = Nature Biotechnology | volume = 26 | issue = 2 | pages = 203–8 | date = February 2008 | pmid = 18259178 | doi = 10.1038/nbt1381 | s2cid = 1159143 | url = https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=ent_pubs }}

A 1999 study found that in a lab environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto milkweed could harm the monarch butterfly.{{cite journal | vauthors = Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME | title = Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae | journal = Nature | volume = 399 | issue = 6733 | pages = 214 | date = May 1999 | pmid = 10353241 | doi = 10.1038/20338 | bibcode = 1999Natur.399..214L | s2cid = 4424836 | doi-access = free }}{{cite news | title=Engineered corn kills monarch butterflies | date=19 May 1999 | publisher=Cornell News | url=http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html}} Several groups later studied the phenomenon in both the field and the laboratory, resulting in a risk assessment that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible.{{cite journal | vauthors = Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP | display-authors = 6 | title = Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 98 | issue = 21 | pages = 11937–42 | date = October 2001 | pmid = 11559842 | pmc = 59819 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.211329998 | bibcode = 2001PNAS...9811937S | jstor = 3056827 | doi-access = free }} A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population".{{cite journal | vauthors = Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ | title = The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned | journal = Trends in Genetics | volume = 18 | issue = 5 | pages = 249–51 | date = May 2002 | pmid = 12047949 | doi = 10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02664-1 }}{{cite web|title=Monarch butterflies: A threat to individual caterpillars, but not to the population as a whole |date=Dec 2004 |publisher=GMO Safety |url=http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173513/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |archive-date=21 July 2011 }}{{cite web| title=Butterflies and Bt Corn| work=United States Department of Agriculture| url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| access-date=19 June 2005| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050318233043/http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| archive-date=18 March 2005| url-status=dead}} A 2007 review found that "nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields."{{cite journal | vauthors = Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P | title = A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates | journal = Science | volume = 316 | issue = 5830 | pages = 1475–7 | date = June 2007 | pmid = 17556584 | doi = 10.1126/science.1139208 | s2cid = 23172622 | bibcode = 2007Sci...316.1475M }}

Gene flow is the transfer of genes and/or alleles from one species to another. Concerns focus on the interaction between GM and other maize varieties in Mexico, and of gene flow into refuges.

In 2009 the government of Mexico created a regulatory pathway for genetically modified maize,{{cite web | work = GMO Compass | date = 5 June 2009 | url = http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/447.mexico_controlled_cultivation_genetically_modified_maize.html | title = Mexico: controlled cultivation of genetically modified maize | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131005010033/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/447.mexico_controlled_cultivation_genetically_modified_maize.html | archive-date = 5 October 2013 }} but because Mexico is the center of diversity for maize, gene flow could affect a large fraction of the world's maize strains.{{cite web | vauthors = Shanahan M | work = Science and Development Network | date = 10 November 2004 | url = http://www.scidev.net/en/news/warning-issued-on-gm-maize-imported-to-mexico.html | title = Warning issued on GM maize imported to Mexico }}{{cite web | vauthors = Mantell K | work = Science and Development Network | date = 30 November 2001 | url = http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-maize-found-contaminating-wild-strains.html | title = GM maize found 'contaminating' wild strains }} A 2001 report in Nature presented evidence that Bt maize was cross-breeding with unmodified maize in Mexico.{{cite journal | vauthors = Quist D, Chapela IH | title = Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico | journal = Nature | volume = 414 | issue = 6863 | pages = 541–3 | date = November 2001 | pmid = 11734853 | doi = 10.1038/35107068 | s2cid = 4403182 | bibcode = 2001Natur.414..541Q }} The data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact. Nature later stated, "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper".{{cite journal | vauthors = Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M | title = Biodiversity (Communications arising): maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts | journal = Nature | volume = 416 | issue = 6881 | pages = 601–2; discussion 600, 602 | date = April 2002 | pmid = 11935145 | doi = 10.1038/nature739 | s2cid = 195690886 | bibcode = 2002Natur.416..601K }} A 2005 large-scale study failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca.{{cite journal | vauthors = Ortiz-García S, Ezcurra E, Schoel B, Acevedo F, Soberón J, Snow AA | title = Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003-2004) | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 102 | issue = 35 | pages = 12338–43 | date = August 2005 | pmid = 16093316 | pmc = 1184035 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0503356102 | bibcode = 2005PNAS..10212338O | doi-access = free }} However, other authors also found evidence of cross-breeding between natural maize and transgenic maize.{{cite journal | vauthors = Piñeyro-Nelson A, Van Heerwaarden J, Perales HR, Serratos-Hernández JA, Rangel A, Hufford MB, Gepts P, Garay-Arroyo A, Rivera-Bustamante R, Alvarez-Buylla ER | display-authors = 6 | title = Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations | journal = Molecular Ecology | volume = 18 | issue = 4 | pages = 750–61 | date = February 2009 | pmid = 19143938 | pmc = 3001031 | doi = 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03993.x }}

A 2004 study found Bt protein in kernels of refuge corn.{{cite journal | vauthors = Chilcutt CF, Tabashnik BE | title = Contamination of refuges by Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes from transgenic maize | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 101 | issue = 20 | pages = 7526–9 | date = May 2004 | pmid = 15136739 | pmc = 419639 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0400546101 | bibcode = 2004PNAS..101.7526C | doi-access = free }}

In 2017, a large-scale study found "pervasive presence of transgenes and glyphosate in maize-derived food in Mexico"{{cite journal | vauthors = González-Ortega E, Piñeyro-Nelson A, Gómez-Hernández E, Monterrubio-Vázquez E, Arleo M, Dávila-Velderrain J, Martínez-Debat C, Álvarez-Buylla ER | title = Pervasive presence of transgenes and glyphosate in maize-derived food in Mexico. | journal = Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems | date = November 2017 | volume = 41 | issue = 9–10 | pages = 1146–61 | doi = 10.1080/21683565.2017.1372841 | s2cid = 44076727 | url = https://www.uccs.mx/images/library/file/Agricultura_y_alimentacion/alisa/2017_gmo/Pervasive_presence_of_transgenes_in_maize_food_2017.pdf | access-date = 5 November 2017 | archive-date = 7 November 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171107023747/https://www.uccs.mx/images/library/file/Agricultura_y_alimentacion/alisa/2017_gmo/Pervasive_presence_of_transgenes_in_maize_food_2017.pdf | url-status = dead }}

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois et al. study and concluded that it "presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."{{cite web|url=http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp9612a2 |title=Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled 'A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health' |publisher=UK Food Standards Agency |page=2 |access-date=11 November 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105222929/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp9612a2 |archive-date=5 November 2013 }} However, the French government applies the precautionary principle with respect to GMOs.{{cite journal|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669870050043116|title=France: broadening precautionary expertise?|journal=Journal of Risk Research|volume=3|issue=3|pages=247–254|date=15 April 2011|access-date=23 October 2021|doi=10.1080/13669870050043116|first1=Alexis|last1=Roy|first2=Pierre-Benoit|last2=Joly|s2cid=144316140 }}{{cite journal | vauthors = Kuntz M | title = The GMO case in France: politics, lawlessness and postmodernism | journal = GM Crops & Food | volume = 5 | issue = 3 | pages = 163–9 | date = July 2014 | pmid = 25437234 | pmc = 5033180 | doi = 10.4161/21645698.2014.945882 }}{{cite journal|journal=South African Journal of Science|eissn=1996-7489|issn=0038-2353|doi=10.17159/sajs.2015/20130255|last1=W. Jansen van Rijssen|first1=Fredrika|last2=N. Eloff|first2=Jacobus|last3=Jane Morris|first3=E.|title=The precautionary principle: making managerial decisions on GMOs is difficult|year=2015 |volume=111 |issue=3/4 |pages=1–9 |doi-access=free|hdl=2263/45681|hdl-access=free}}

A review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and others of the same study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.{{cite web | url = http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event/gmo100127-m.pdf | title = EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Mofified Organisms | date = 27–28 January 2010 | location = Parma, Italy | quote = Annex 1, Vendemois et al. 2009, European Food Safety Authority report, | access-date = 27 July 2012 }}{{cite journal | vauthors = Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC | title = Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863) | journal = Food and Chemical Toxicology | volume = 45 | issue = 11 | pages = 2073–85 | date = November 2007 | pmid = 17900781 | doi = 10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033 | quote = The Se´ralini et al. reanalysis does not advance any new scientific data to indicate that MON 863 caused adverse effects in the 90-day rat study. }}

A 2011 Canadian study looked at the presence of CryAb1 protein (BT toxin) in non-pregnant women, pregnant women and fetal blood. All groups had detectable levels of the protein, including 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses at concentrations of 0.19 ± 0.30 and 0.04 ± 0.04 mean ± SD ng/ml, respectively.{{cite journal | vauthors = Aris A, Leblanc S | title = Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada | journal = Reproductive Toxicology | volume = 31 | issue = 4 | pages = 528–33 | date = May 2011 | pmid = 21338670 | doi = 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004 | s2cid = 16144327 }} The paper did not discuss safety implications or find any health problems. FSANZ agency published a comment pointing out a number of inconsistencies in the paper, most notably that it "does not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein".{{cite web |url=http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/fsanzresponsetostudy5185.cfm |title=FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods - Food Standards Australia New Zealand |publisher=foodstandards.gov.au |date=27 May 2011 |access-date=7 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120103123151/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/fsanzresponsetostudy5185.cfm |archive-date=3 January 2012 |url-status=dead }}

In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority released all data submitted by Monsanto in relation to the 2003 authorisation of maize genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance.{{cite press release |title=EFSA promotes public access to data in transparency initiative|date=14 January 2013|publisher=European Food Safety Authority|url=http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130114}}

{{main|Starlink corn recall}}

StarLink contains Cry9C, which had not previously been used in a GM crop.{{cite web | work = Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University | date = 11 March 2004 | url = http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | title = What is StarLink Corn | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060907235951/http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | archive-date = 7 September 2006 }} Starlink's creator, Plant Genetic Systems, had applied to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to market Starlink for use in animal feed and in human food.{{cite web | vauthors = Taylor MR, Tick JS | work = Resources for the Future, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology | url = http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/food_and_biotechnology/hhsbiotechstarcasepdf.pdf | title = The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future }}{{rp|14}} However, because the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.{{cite web | quote = While EPA had no specific data to indicate that Cry9C was an allergen, the protein expressed in StarLink corn did exhibit certain characteristics (i.e. relative heat stability and extended time to digestion) that were common to known food allergens such as those found in peanuts, eggs, etc. EPA's concern was that StarLink corn may be a human food allergen and in the absence of more definitive data, EPA has not made a decision whether or not to register the human food use. | author = Staff | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | date = November 2000 | url = http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf | title = Executive Summary: EPA Preliminary Evaluation of Information Contained in the October 25, 2000 Submission from Aventis Cropscience }}{{rp|3}} As a result, PGS split its application into separate permits for use in food and use in animal feed.{{cite journal | url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-11-26/pdf/97-31131.pdf | title = Plant Genetic Systems (America) Inc.: PP 7G4921 | journal = Federal Register | volume = 62 | issue = 228 | date = 26 November 1997 | page = 63169 }} bottom of middle column - 63170 right column; see especially p63169 top of right column Starlink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed only in May 1998.{{rp|15}}

StarLink corn was subsequently found in food destined for consumption by humans in the US, Japan, and South Korea.{{rp|20–21}} This corn became the subject of the widely publicized Starlink corn recall, which started when Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain the corn. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued.{{cite web | vauthors = King D, Gordon A | collaboration = Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition | url = http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | title = Contaminant found in Taco Bell taco shells. Food safety coalition demands recall | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20001209004300/http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | archive-date=9 December 2000 | location = Washington, DC | publisher = Friends of the Earth | date = 3 November 2001 }}{{cite web | vauthors = Fuler M | date = 23 September 2000 |url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-23-mn-25314-story.html |title=Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn | work = The Los Angeles Times |access-date=31 December 2013}} The registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Pioneer had been bought by AgrEvo which then became Aventis CropScience at the time of the incident,{{rp|15–16}} which was later bought by Bayer.{{cite web | vauthors = Carpenter JE, Gianessi LP | title = Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. | location = Washington, DC | publisher = National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy | date = January 2001 | url = http://ucbiotech.org/biotech_info/PDFs/Carpenter_2001_Updated_Benefits.pdf }}

Fifty-one people reported adverse effects to the FDA; US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink.{{cite web | author = Staff, EPA review committee. | url = http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx | title = LLP Incidents | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency }} However, the CDC studied the blood of these 28 individuals and concluded there was no evidence of hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein.{{cite web |url=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/default.htm |title= Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn | work = CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | location = Atlanta, GA | publisher = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | date = 2001 |access-date=28 October 2014}}

A subsequent review of these tests by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel points out that while "the negative results decrease the probability that the Cry9C protein is the cause of allergic symptoms in the individuals examined ... in the absence of a positive control and questions regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the assay, it is not possible to assign a negative predictive value to this."{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001|website=epa.gov|access-date=8 April 2018}}

The US corn supply has been monitored for the presence of the Starlink Bt proteins since 2001.{{cite web|title=Starlink Corn Regulatory Information |url=http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |date=April 2008 |publisher=Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115215719/http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |archive-date=15 January 2013 }}

In 2005, aid sent by the UN and the US to Central American nations also contained some StarLink corn. The nations involved, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala refused to accept the aid.{{cite web | date = 16 February 2005 | work = Environment News Service |url=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-16-09.asp#anchor2 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080905025904/http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-16-09.asp | archive-date = 5 September 2008 |title=Banned as Human Food, StarLink Corn Found in Food Aid |publisher=Ens-newswire.com |access-date=31 December 2013}}

On 19 December 2013 six Chinese citizens were indicted in Iowa on charges of plotting to steal genetically modified seeds worth tens of millions of dollars from Monsanto and DuPont. Mo Hailong, director of international business at the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., part of the Beijing-based DBN Group, was accused of stealing trade secrets after he was found digging in an Iowa cornfield.{{cite news | vauthors = Cronin Fisk M |title=Six Chinese Accused of Stealing Genetically Modified Corn|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/six-chinese-accused-of-stealing-genetically-modified-corn-1-.html|access-date=24 March 2014|newspaper=Bloomberg News|date=19 December 2013}}

• Genetically modified food
• Genetically modified crops
• Genetically modified food controversies

{{Reflist|refs=

{{cite journal | vauthors = Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D | title = An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research | journal = Critical Reviews in Biotechnology | volume = 34 | issue = 1 | pages = 77–88 | date = March 2014 | pmid = 24041244 | doi = 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 | 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.

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. | s2cid = 9836802 }}

{{Cite web|url=http://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=30 August 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).}}

{{cite journal | vauthors = Ronald P | title = Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security | journal = Genetics | volume = 188 | issue = 1 | pages = 11–20 | date = May 2011 | pmid = 21546547 | pmc = 3120150 | doi = 10.1534/genetics.111.128553 | 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)." }}

But see also:

{{cite journal | vauthors = Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J | title = A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants | journal = Environment International | volume = 37 | issue = 4 | pages = 734–42 | date = May 2011 | pmid = 21296423 | doi = 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003 | 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. }}

{{Cite journal|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment| vauthors = Krimsky S |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.}}

And contrast:

{{cite journal | vauthors = Panchin AY, Tuzhikov AI | title = Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons | journal = Critical Reviews in Biotechnology | volume = 37 | issue = 2 | pages = 213–217 | date = March 2017 | pmid = 26767435 | doi = 10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684 | 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.

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. | s2cid = 11786594 }}

and

{{Cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=20 October 2012|access-date=30 August 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."}}

{{Cite web|url=https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"| vauthors = Pinholster G |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=25 October 2012|access-date=30 August 2019}}

{{Cite book|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|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=30 August 2019|date=2010|author1=European Commission. Directorate-General for Research}}

{{Cite web|url=https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm|title=AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)|publisher=American Medical Association|date=January 2001|access-date=30 August 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. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "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.}}

{{cite web | work = American Medical Association | title = Featured CSA Report, Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (I-00) Full Text | url = http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010610122221/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html | archive-date = 10 June 2001 }}{{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|url-status=dead|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=30 August 2019|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.|archive-date=7 September 2012}}

{{Cite web|url=http://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=30 June 2015|access-date=30 August 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."}}

{{Cite book|url=http://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=30 August 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}}

{{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=30 August 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.

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.}}

{{cite journal | vauthors = Haslberger AG | title = Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects | journal = Nature Biotechnology | volume = 21 | issue = 7 | pages = 739–41 | date = July 2003 | pmid = 12833088 | doi = 10.1038/nbt0703-739 | quote = These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects. | s2cid = 2533628 }}

Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:

{{Cite web|url=http://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=30 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302225407/http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf|archive-date=2 March 2020|url-status=live|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.

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.

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.

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.}}

{{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|vauthors=Funk C, Rainie L|publisher=Pew Research Center|date=29 January 2015|access-date=30 August 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=9 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190109232405/http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/|url-status=dead}}

{{cite journal | vauthors = Marris C | title = Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public? | journal = EMBO Reports | volume = 2 | issue = 7 | pages = 545–8 | date = July 2001 | pmid = 11463731 | pmc = 1083956 | doi = 10.1093/embo-reports/kve142 }}

{{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=25 May 2017|access-date=30 August 2019}}

{{cite journal | vauthors = Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P | title = Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States | journal = Perspectives on Psychological Science | volume = 11 | issue = 3 | pages = 315–24 | date = May 2016 | pmid = 27217243 | doi = 10.1177/1745691615621275 | s2cid = 261060 }}

{{Cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms|publisher=Library of Congress|date=9 June 2015|access-date=30 August 2019}}

{{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=21 June 2018|access-date=30 August 2019}}

{{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=3 October 2015|access-date=30 August 2019}}

{{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=5 April 2001|access-date=30 August 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=29 September 2016|url-status=dead}}

}}

• {{cite web | url = http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/crop/default.asp?CropID=6&Crop=Maize | title = List of approved varieties }}
• {{cite web | url = http://www.gmo-safety.eu/topic/42 | title = GMO Safety - Overview on biosafety research projects on genetically modified maize funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173410/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/topic/42 | archive-date = 21 July 2011 }}
• {{cite web | url = http://www.coextra.eu/ | title = Co-Extra | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070228010322/http://www.coextra.eu/ | archive-date = 28 February 2007 }} - research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains
• {{cite web | url = https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5163 | title = EFSA GMO Panel deliberations on the Austrian report "Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603 x MON 810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice" | date = 26 February 2018 }} (Part of the minutes of the plenary meeting held on 3–4 December 2008, see on page 9)

{{Genetic engineering}}

{{Corn}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Transgenic Maize}}

Category:Genetically modified organisms in agriculture