What are gmos in science?

Only a few commercial versions of corn, cotton and soybeans have reached the market with two main characteristics: being resistant to herbicides and toxic to some insects. A panel of independent experts led by Fred Gould, an entomologist at North Carolina State University, supervised the analysis of 900 scientific studies on the impact of this type of crop. These are the main consequences of it.

Human health effects

According to a note issued by the Academy, the committee has analyzed all the available studies and has not found any proof that the health of the population is harmed by the use of genetically modified organisms.

There is no difference in health between consuming a non-GMO plant and consuming a genetically modified one.

There is evidence that Genetically modified organisms have a benefit for human health by decreasing pesticide poisoning. The work also highlights that there are transgenic variants that can have an overwhelming impact on global health and cites the case of golden rice, a modified variant to contain high levels of beta carotene and which continues to go by the wayside despite being able to avoid millions of cases of blindness and infant deaths due to malnutrition in developing countries.

The impact on the environment.

The report says that the use of transgenics does not reduce the plant or insect diversity in the fields where they are planted.

The work shows that the genes of transgenics end up in fields that are not, but that they have not caused any harm to the environment. The study acknowledges that it can be difficult to reach definitive conclusions.

There are effects on agriculture.

The only aspect where the Academy can detect worrying impacts and further questions its supposed benefits is in this area. There are insects that are evolving resistance to pesticides.

In places where management rules are not followed, resistances can appear. The work confirms that there are weeds that have developed resistance toGlyphosate.

There is a version of the benefits of these products for farmers that the report gives.

He acknowledges that the economic benefits have been brought about by Genetically modified organisms. Small-scale farmers were able to benefit from these types of crops during the early years of adoption. To maintain those profits, producers need to receive support from institutions, access to credit, and access to local and global markets.

What genes are used in crops and products?

GM crops and foods are mostly derived frombacteria, but there are many possibilities. Mouse genes in pigs, fish genes in tomatoes, and human genes in rice are some of the genes being researched.

What are they different from traditional breeding?

The crossing of the best specimen of each species has been used for centuries to improve crops and livestock breeds.

GM crops and foods are different because they jump across species barriers and introduce genes from other species.

Are commercial transgenics resistant to the elements?

No, not at all.

The only characteristics present in commercial crops are tolerance to the pesticide glyphosate, pest resistance, and a mixture of the two.

There are no crops that are more productive, or that are more healthy.

The majority of crops are tolerant of pesticides. They are the majority of the world's transgenic crops.

Large amounts ofGlyphosate can be applied, a product marketed by Monsanto, whose toxicity has been shown to be widespread. The adaptation of pests and weeds is being triggered by the use of these agrochemicals.

What type of crops exist?

Almost all of the surface cultivated with Genetically modified organisms worldwide is accounted for by soybeans, corn, cotton, and rapeseed.

Does opposing GM crops and foods mean opposing the applications of technology?

No. Genetic engineering can be used in medicine or basic research. There are many medicines obtained through genetic engineering, but in confined environments.

We are releasing foods and crops into the environment and introducing them into our diet living beings that are not well known, from how they interact in a complex environment to their possible effects on health.

Is it true that they are the safest foods ever?

There is no impartial study that supports the harmlessness of genetically modified food. Studies done with mice in European universities show the damage that can be done to their health.

The false idea that foods are the safest in history is spread by the industry because they need a report from the European Food Safety Agency before they can be marketed on European soil.

These reports are based on data provided by the industry and not independent scientific research.

The science of genetic engineering is the manipulation of genes in a way that makes it possible to remove genes from a taxon and include them in another. The first strategy is genetic engineering, which modifies the genes of a population through directed crossing. It should be noted that the use of plant biotechnology techniques that are not considered genetic engineering can be used to insert groups of genes.

The improvement of the species that will be used as food has been a common motive. Artificial selection of plants improved between 12,000 and 4,000 B.C. C. In 1876, the first intergeneric crossing was carried out between species of different genera. In 1909 the first fusion was carried out and in 1927 the first X-ray irradiation of seeds increased productivity

The first transgenic plant was produced in 1983. At this time, biotechnologists were able to isolate a gene and introduce it into a genome of the Escherichia coli (E. Coli) bacterium. Three years later, in 1986 , Monsanto, a multinational company dedicated to biotechnology, creates the first genetically modified plant. A resistance gene for the antibiotic Kanamycin was added to the tobacco plant. Finally, in 1994, the commercialization of the first genetically modified food was approved, Flavr Savr tomatoes, created by Calgene, a biotechnology company. These were introduced with an antisense gene with respect to the normal polygalacturonase gene, an enzyme that it causes the degradation of the cell walls in ripe fruits, so that the fruit lasts longer without spoiling once harvested, and it is more resistant to damage from handling, such as scratches or blows.

In 1996, this product was withdrawn from the fresh produce market because it was unappetizing, with a soft skin, a strange taste and changes in its composition, and because it was not good for eating. Tomatoes are still used to make juices and preserves.

In the United States in 2015, cotton and corn plantations were 98% and 89%, respectively, of being genetically modified (GM).

Improved resistance to pests and the introduction of new quality characteristics are some of the benefits of introducing genetic engineering into species intended for the production of food. Transgenic foods correspond to derivatives of plants due to the development of genetic manipulation. It is possible to use a frequently used character to affect only the flora that is foreign to the crop. It should be noted that the use of modified and herbicide-resistant varieties has reduced contamination due to these products in aquifers and soil, although in some cases, the use of these herbicides (glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium) can be accompanied by other more polluting herbicides.

The introduction of genes that cause the development of resistance to one or several orders of insects has been a common element to many patented varieties. The benefits of this method include less use of pesticides in the fields planted with these varieties, which results in less impact on the environment and on the health of the workers who handle the products.

Due to the interbreeding of pollen carried out by the wind or pollinating insects, it is difficult to coexist with genetically modified crops.

However, the government of Catalonia, Spain, demonstrated that with the isolation of the crops, establishing a distance of 30 meters between one and the other, as well as a delay of 11 days in the sowing dates, the simultaneous existence of the two alternatives in the cultivation of corn .

Climate change will cause a decrease in agricultural productivity from 9 to 12% by the year 2050, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization.

The use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture increases productivity by decreasing insect and weed pests, but also makes use of pesticides more rational, reducing health and environmental costs. Transgenic crops can grow on dry and salty soil, which could be a solution to the problem of reduced yields.

The director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest assures that today's GM crops are safe to eat and their planting does not pose risks to the environment.

Over a hundred GM crops have been approved for both human and animal consumption in the last 15 years, and according to the World Health Organization, they are as safe as conventional ones.

The first animals that are genetically modified are being developed.

The first salmon to be approved for human consumption in the United States was an AquaBounty salmon, which was able to grow in half the time and during the winter, thanks to the growth hormone genes from other salmon species.

On the other hand, the practice of genetically modifying species for human use has accompanied humanity since its origins (see domestication), which is why sectors in favor of biotechnology use scientific studies to support their positions, and accuse the anti-GMO sectors to hide or ignore facts in front of the public.

The scientists emphasize that the danger to health has been studied in detail in each and every one of these types of products that to date have obtained marketing permission and that, without a doubt, are the ones that have undergone the greatest number of controls.

The Food and Agriculture Organization indicates with respect to the purpose of transgenics.

The World Health Organization has something to say about it.

The role of transgenic foods in the spread of antibiotic resistance has been postulated, since the insertion of foreign DNA into transgenic varieties can be done (and in most cases is done) by inserting antibiotic resistance markers. . However, alternatives have been developed to not use these types of genes or to cleanly eliminate them from the final variety and, since 1998, the FDA has required that the industry generate these types of plants without markers in the final product. The concern is therefore the possible horizontal transfer of these resistance genes to other species, such as bacteria from the soil microbiota (rhizosphere) or from the gut microbiota of mammals (such as humans). . The process could be carried out by transduction, conjugate, and transformation, although the latter is the most likely phenomenon. It has been suggested that the appearance of resistance to pathogenicbacteria could be achieved by using the use of transgenics.

There are many elements that limit the transfer of genes from one product to another. The simple processing of food prior to consumption degrades DNA. In addition, in the particular case of the transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, environmental bacteria have restriction enzymes that degrade DNA that could transform them (this is a mechanism they use to maintain their genetic stability). Furthermore, in the event that the DNA could be introduced without having been degraded in the steps of food processing and during digestion itself, it should definitively recombine into its own genetic material, which, for a linear fragment of DNA from a plant, would require very high sequence homology, or else the formation of an independent replicon. However, it has been cited the penetration of intact DNA into the bloodstream of mice that had ingested a type of DNA called M13 DNA that may be in transgenic constructs, and even its passage through the plata barrier. centaria to the offspring. Regarding gastrointestinal degradation, it has been shown that the transgenic soybean epsps gene remains intact in the intestine. Therefore, since the presence of some types of transgenic DNA in the intestine of mammals, the possibility of integration into the genome of the intestinal microbiota (that is, of the bacteria found in the intestine naturally without being pathogenic) must be taken into account, although this event would require of the existence of a very similar sequence in the DNA of the bacteria exposed to the foreign DNA. The US FDA, the competent authority for public health and food, declared that there is a potential possibility that this transfer could take place at the gastrointestinal epithelial cells.

It is necessary to remove antibiotic selection markers from plants prior to commercialization in order to increase development cost but eliminate the risk of problematic DNA integration.

One aspect that causes controversy is the use of DNA from a different species than the one used in the transgenic organisms, for example, that a gene from a soil bacterium be incorporated into corn, and that it is intended for human consumption. In any feeding process, the introduction of DNA frombacteria and Viruses occurs.

In fact, food preparation processes often fragment DNA molecules in such a way that the ingested product already lacks coding sequences (that is, with complete genes capable of encoding information. Even more, because the Ingested DNA is from a chemical point of view the same whether it comes from one species or another, the species from which it comes has no influence.

This concern has spread with regard to the antibiotic resistance markers mentioned in the previous section, but also with respect to the transcription promoter sequence, which is located in a large part of the DNA constructs that are introduced into the plants of interest. food, called the 35S promoter and which comes from the cauliflower mosaic virus (cauliflower mosaic virus). Since this promoter produces constitutive expression (that is, continuous and throughout the plant) in several species, its possible horizontal transfer between species was suggested, as well as its recombination in plants and even in viruses, postulating a possible role in the generation of new viral strains. However, the human genome itself contains in its sequence a multitude of DNA repetitions that come from retroviruses (a type of virus) and that, by definition, is foreign DNA without having been fatal in the evolution of the species (in fact these viral sequences have been of great importance in the evolution of the species, both humans and other animals ); these repetitions are estimated at around 98,000 or, according to other sources, at 400,000. Given that, in addition, these sequences do not have to be adaptive, it is common that they have a high mutation rate and that , in the course of the generations, lose their function.

The promoter of the cauliflower mosaic virus has been consumed by humans for many years without any adverse effects.

derivatives of genetically transformed foods may be toxic.

In the first case, a harmless substance could cause an allergic reaction in some susceptible individuals, while in the second it would cause a widespread reaction. The study was published by Exwen and Pustzai. They indicated that the intestine of rats fed genetically modified potatoes (expressing a Galanthus nivalis agglutinin, which is a lectin) was severely damaged. However, this study was severely criticized by several researchers for flaws in the experimental design and data handling.

For example, few animals were included in each experimental group (resulting in high statistical uncertainty), and the different varieties of potatoes used were not accurately analyzed for chemical composition, nor were controls included in the experiments, and finally, the statistical analysis of the results was incorrect. These criticisms were quick: the scientific community responded the same year, stressing the shortcomings of the article; In addition, the search for celebrity and advertising in journalistic media were also censored for the authors.