genetically modified organisms produced by philippine researchers research paper

• Agri-Commodities
• Asean Economic Community
• Banking & Finance
• Business Sense
• Entrepreneur
• Executive Views
• Export Unlimited
• Harvard Management Update
• Monday Morning
• Mutual Funds
• Stock Market Outlook
• The Integrity Initiative
• Editorial cartoon
• Design&Space
• Digital Life
• 360° Review
• Biodiversity
• Climate Change
• Environment
• Envoys & Expats
• Health & Fitness
• Mission: PHL
• Perspective
• Today in History
• Tony&Nick
• When I Was 25
• Wine & Dine
• Live & In Quarantine
• Bulletin Board
• Public Service
• The Broader Look

Today’s front page, Friday, September 20, 2024

• Covid-19 Updates
• Photo Gallery

GMOs in the Philippines

• BusinessMirror
• June 21, 2022
• 7 minute read

Table of Contents Hide

In defense of gmos in the philippines, rice enrichment, the future of gmos in the philippines.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the Philippines have been controversial, with a number of people around the world saying they have negative impacts on the environment, can cause “genetic pollution” and are not good for human consumption.

However, amidst the controversies surrounding this biotechnological development, more than 110 Nobel laureates and over 3,500 scientists all over the world have signed a letter addressing and urging Greenpeace International “to reexamine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology; recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies; and abandon their campaign against GMOs, in general, and Golden Rice, in particular.”

Last year, the Philippines approved Golden Rice—a genetically modified variant of rice–to combat malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency in the country. This makes the Philippines one of the first countries to do so. Fairly recently the number of countries that approved GMO crops has increased to four. Despite this approval, critics have not retracted their criticisms and continue to raise the possible impact of approving GMO in the Philippines.

In this article, we look at the GMO debate holistically and see what experts say about this decision:

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) products were introduced to Philippine agriculture by Filipino researchers as a way to combat nutrient deficiency and malnutrition. According to the World Food Program (WFP), about one out of nine people in the world do not have enough food to live a healthy life. This amounts to 795 million people in the world who are hungry, most of whom come from developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the total population lack food to eat.

In the case of the Philippines, this is an even bigger problem. The Philippines has the highest poverty incidence among its Association of Southeast Asian Nations peers. With a national poverty of 25.8 percent, according to World Bank data, the Philippines has a lot of work to do to alleviate poverty and address issues of public health, such as VAD.

This is where GMO, such as the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn, Bt talong (eggplant) and Golden Rice, enters: as a solution to relieve and, eventually, end the battle against VAD and hunger. Moreover, it also aims to give the farmers a chance to provide food while farming sustainably and efficiently without the threat of having shortage or attacks of insects that kill their crops, GMO experts and advocates say.

Scientifically, there are several researchers and agriculturists who have vouched for the advantages of GMOs in the Philippines. However, its use, production, safety, and sustainability remain in question for many sectors. These issues continue to be a contentious point against GMOs.

“The Good and The Bad”: The Pros and Cons of GMOs

In the field of agriculture and genetic engineering, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have already been studied and tested with careful investigations by renowned scientists. Despite this, people have raised a number of concerns about GMOs, specifically on their impacts. These concerns include: the possible negative economic and environmental impacts of GMOs in the Philippines, “genetic pollution”, and safe human consumption.

In 2017, the Makabayan bloc filed House Resolution 1294 that seeks an inquiry into the development of Golden Rice in the country. In the resolution, Reps. Arile Casilao of Anakpawis, Carlos Isagani Zarate of Bayan Muna, Emmi de Jesus and Arlene Brosas of Gabriela, Antonio Tinio and France Castro of Act Teachers and Sarah Jane Elago of Kabataan have directed the Committee on Agriculture and Food to conduct an inquiry to determine Golden Rice’s impact on health, environment and farmers’ rights.

Most of the contentions against GMOs in the Philippines revolve around their impact. Lawmakers and various sectors see the production and commercialization of GMOs as something that can negatively affect the country’s economy, health, and environment. The biggest concern, however, lies in the sustainability of the crops.

Lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc said agricultural research must be based on the farmers’ capacity and needs. Additionally, they argue that the production and use of GMOs must also take into consideration the diversity and complexity of the environment. They cite the abundance of natural resources, particularly that of local rice varieties, which are better suited for the country and assures a better yield for farmers.

The house resolution further argues that “Genetically modified crops are not sustainable means to provide food for the people, as they greatly compromise the environment, livelihood of the farmers and health of the consumers”.

The Makabayan bloc argued that Golden Rice is “merely” a promotional product of agro-chemical corporations using public institutions “to make possible the social acceptance of genetic engineering in food and agriculture,” further saying that the technology, methodology, seeds and variety to advance the Golden Rice are being owned by Syngenta, an agro-chemical transnational corporation that profits by investing in the global seed industry.

Against these contentions, many experts and lawmakers stand for the use of GMOs, arguing that their production, use, and consumption bring more positive impacts.

Diocesan priest Fr. Emmanuel Alparce, a member of the Department of Agriculture Biotech Program Technical Committee on Information, Education and Communication, commented that lawmakers should be more open minded about GMOs in the Philippines. He made the remark after legislators belonging to the Makabayan bloc filed a resolution seeking to conduct an inquiry on the development of Golden Rice in the country. He cites the evidence and data from various studies that shines light on the benefits of the various genetically modified organisms, such as Bt Maize, and emphasizes how lawmakers should listen to these experts as well.

Leonardo Gonzales, founding president and chairman of Sikpa/Strive Inc., said in a public forum lecture, entitled “Socioeconomic Impact Assessment: The Bt Corn Experience,” Bt is “a naturally occurring soil-borne bacterium where it produces crystal-like proteins that selectively kill specific groups of insects.”

The Bt corn is a GMO which, through genetic engineering, the Bt gene was incorporated in the corn plant’s DNA to enhance its resistance against insect attacks, such as the Asiatic corn borer. This method helped many farmers produce corn resistant to insects and saved them money from using pesticides.

“Bt corn required 54-percent less pesticides than ordinary hybrid [OH] corn in order to produce the same amount of corn grain from 2003 to 2011,” Gonzales said.

He said, “Bt corn adopters, on the average, were 9-percent more efficient in the use of fertilizer than ordinary hybrid corn-seed users.” This, after more than 10 years of planting the GMO plant, has indicated positive environmental impacts among corn producers.

Another finding, according to Gonzales, was that the average yield advantage of Bt corn over OH corn was 19 percent and a cost advantage of 10 percent compared to OH corn, with a 42 percent higher return on investment from 2003 to 2011. Last, Bt corn consistently outperformed OH corn by 29 percent in meeting food and poverty thresholds in the same timeframe.

More recent studies concerning GMOs have further highlighted its positive impacts. Additionally, many individuals in support of GMOs also argue that much of our products already involve the use of GMO, be it in food, vaccines, household products, and even clothing. These considerations, as well as the recent studies, paved the way for further development in biotechnology and GMO rules in the Philippines .

What Can GMOs in the Philippines Do?

While the debate on its usage rages, the use of GMOs is indisputable. This is because the genetic modifications on these crops were made to answer existing problems in the various industries. Unsurprisingly, this translates to agricultural innovations as well.

So what can GMOs bring to the agricultural table of the Philippines? How can GMOs impact the Philippines economically?

Multiple gains from GMOs vary depending on the specific crop, fruit or product modified. Apples, for instance, which turn brownish immediately as they oxidize once exposed to air, have now been modified genetically to prevent this from happening.

“Studies we made in 2014 show that 83.4% of farmers exposed to genetically modified corn declared that it resulted in higher yields and income,” Professor Saturnina C. Halos, a member of the Biotech Coalition of the Philippines and University of Berkeley alumna, said.

About 78.7% of them also said Bt corn reduced their daily costs or expenses, particularly on pesticide use as most GMO crops have been inserted with genes resistant to pests. From 1996 to 2016, when GMO crops grew tremendously, it is estimated globally reduced pesticide usage hit 620 million kilos, and in 2015 alone, 37.4 million kilos.

She estimated that benefits from GMO corn alone has meant additional income for local corn farmers of over P10 billion, which translates to bigger budgets for children’s education, home improvements, additional farm capital or surplus funds for a vehicle and other needs or wants.

Russel Reinke, PhD in plant science and a rice breeder from IRRI, cited IRRI’s successful Golden Rice program, which aims to fortify rice with proteins and vitamins through genetic modification, which perfectly adapts and is carried over in succeeding generations in compliance with Mendel’s law on genetic trait transfer and selection that makes it easier for propagation.

Vitamin A deficiency, which is high in many children of the poor, can be corrected with the insertion of the Beta-carotene gene into what is called “Golden Rice,” because of the goldish color from Beta-carotene, which is nontoxic and converts to vitamin A in the body.

She added that the cotton-based clothes we wear are made of GMO cotton, or the medicines we take and rising obesity among Asians that is traced to excessive intake of bad carbohydrates like rice, white bread, sugary drinks and sweets, can be checked with simple changes in diet behavior, a shift to brown rice and the recent launching of the IRRI’s new thrust towards bio-fortification of rice.

A study by Professor Jeyakumar Henry of the University of Singapore noted that because diets of Asians are 67 percent rice on the average, and much higher among the poor, it is a welcome move to fortify rice itself with protein genes and vitamins, only made possible because of GMO research.

The high percentage of rice consumption and, subsequently, the high glycemic index, which measures bad carbohydrates, have been confirmed scientifically to be the reason behind the rise in obesity among Asians. This means glucose released from excessive carbs can trigger spikes in insulin from the pancreas that could develop into diabetes, which worsens further with sedentary lifestyles of sitting idly most of the time, and lack of exercise. Henry noted that about 1.4 billion people are now struggling with obesity.

GMOs in the Philippines still have a long way to go, whether it be in terms of research, policy, or usage. With the ever-growing innovations and discoveries in science, the current roster of GMO crops can further improve. Time and application will tell us more about genetically modified organisms in the future.

Image credits: Dwnld777 | Dreamstime.com

Related Topics

• Bacillus thuringiensis
• genetically modified organisms
• Golden Rice

Adlai Production in the Philippines: Is it a Viable Alternative for Rice in the Philippines?

Nia eyes ‘greater’ achievements under new government.

• June 22, 2022

DA eyes auction of ports for ships bearing farm goods

• Ada Pelonia
• September 19, 2024

Traders buying palay at lower prices–group

‘uk to regain status as one of phl’s top poultry suppliers’, ‘adherence to biosecurity measures crucial to fighting asf’, up-pcc study seen improving buffalo breeding program.

• Bless Aubrey Ogerio

Parched fields threaten wheat sowing in key Black Sea region

• Bloomberg News
• September 18, 2024

EU degraded-forest ban favors PHL coconut oil exports

• Andrea E. San Juan

PHL seen buying more imported corn, wheat

• September 16, 2024

SRA on alert for possible lahar flows from Mt. Kanlaon 

Fao: global hunger targets remain out of reach , japan’s aeon keen on importing local avocados, coconuts.

India scraps floor price for basmati rice exports to boost appeal

• September 15, 2024

More ASF vaccine makers seek FDA nod–DA

• Ada Pelonia and Butch Fernandez
• September 11, 2024

Wholesale price of regular milled rice up 10.5% in August

Ubra: PHL will have enough poultry this holiday season

Championing hatchery bills

Bees and patrols: how ugandan farmers guard against coffee theft, fta with south korea vital for keeping phl’s banana market.

• September 9, 2024

FAO: Vegetable oil quotations at 20-month high

Red tide warning up in bais bay in negros oriental, 14 comments.

So the choice is fear or “listen to science”? WTF???

There are several things wrong with this: 1. Non-gmo techniques for breeding plants ARE BASED ON SCIENCE. Every time you choose non-gmo you are choosing science. 2. There is plenty of evidence showing that when scientists tell you something is safe it can still cause you harm and/or kill you. 3. Choosing products with less risk is not the same thing as “fear”. Are you “afraid” when you put your seatbelt on? Are you trembling with fear when you lock your doors at night? Are you terrified when you take antibiotics? Here’s what you should be afraid of: the things you are eating will be the cause of your death. 4. IF “almost everything you eat is gmo”, then you are going to die from a diet related illness since gmo is mostly ingredients in the same foods that cause the most disease and death. Don’t lump people together like this. There are many people who don’t eat any gmo because they choose a whole plant based diet.

In short, it sounds as if science is your religion. An infallible God who will bless us if we bend the knee.

Your train of logic is just SO screwed up.

His train derailed long ago.

Ask her how many patients she killed. She is telling people she is a doctor now.

Frankly, discussing anything with her is such a waste of time, I just call her out and let it go.

As usual, you repeat the same tired debunked tropes you always spew, knowing full well you are lying. Are you paid to do this?

Except, you’ve never debunked anything. Who’s the liar now? Are you paid to do this?

“There is NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy…It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets.” EASAC 2013 Planting the Future

That report was written by a group of scientists who careers depend on the continued development of GMO technology. The report did not include and information on the food safety issues or the use of cancer causing pesticide in the cultivation of these crops. It was a simple promo piece for the GMO industry and the European Academies Science said it is the views of the authors and doesn’t represent the position of the European Academies Science

What cancer? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-glyphosate/large-u-s-farm-study-finds-no-cancer-link-to-monsanto-weedkiller-idUSKBN1D916C

You posted a link to more junk science. Cohorts are weak o mid range at best and they must be replicated before they can be considered serious science.

Here is what Donna Farmer, Monsanto toxicologist has to say about the study your are referring to here.

“Many groups have been highly critical of the study as being a flawed study, in fact some have gone so far as to call it junk science. It is small in scope and the retrospective questioneer on pesticide usage and self reported diagnoses also from the questioneer is thought to be unreliable” https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Monsanto-communications-re-concerns-over-Hardell-research.pdf

Are you that oblivious and brainwashed? Wow is all I can say.

Straight out of the biotech playbook.

There is compelling evidence that Wager is a Big GMO $hill. Upvoted by his sockpuppets.

I think the article above is unduly rosy, and overstates several things about GMOs (No, golden rice is not yet commercially cultivated, and commercial success of GMO potatoes and apples is yet to be determined), yet the basic fact is that the preponderance of evidence is that GMOs are safe for human and livestock consumption, have not resulted in any demonstrable deleterious health effects, and have several environmental benefits. But the anti-GMO luddites still spew their fear-mongering, with no evidence to support their warnings of dire consequences, as seen in other comments here. The good news is that gene-editing technology continues to thrive, and new products are being accepted in several countries, as shown recently by approval of the GMO bananas in Uganda.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 28 January 2021

Development and characterization of GR2E Golden rice introgression lines

• B. P. Mallikarjuna Swamy 1 ,
• Severino Marundan Jr. 1 ,
• Mercy Samia 1 ,
• Reynante L. Ordonio 2 ,
• Democrito B. Rebong 2 ,
• Ronalyn Miranda 2 ,
• Anielyn Alibuyog 2 ,
• Anna Theresa Rebong 2 ,
• Ma. Angela Tabil 2 ,
• Roel R. Suralta 2 ,
• Antonio A. Alfonso 2 ,
• Partha Sarathi Biswas 3 ,
• Md. Abdul Kader 3 ,
• Russell F. Reinke 1 ,
• Raul Boncodin 1 &
• Donald J. MacKenzie 4  

Scientific Reports volume  11 , Article number:  2496 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

34k Accesses

26 Citations

99 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biotechnology
• Plant sciences

Golden Rice with β-carotene in the grain helps to address the problem of vitamin A deficiency. Prior to commercialize Golden Rice, several performance and regulatory checkpoints must be achieved. We report results of marker assisted backcross breeding of the GR2E trait into three popular rice varieties followed by a series of confined field tests of event GR2E introgression lines to assess their agronomic performance and carotenoid expression. Results from confined tests in the Philippines and Bangladesh have shown that GR2E introgression lines matched the performance of the recurrent parents for agronomic and yield performance, and the key components of grain quality. Moreover, no differences were observed in terms of pest and disease reaction. The best performing lines identified in each genetic background had significant amounts of carotenoids in the milled grains. These lines can supply 30–50% of the estimated average requirements of vitamin A.

Similar content being viewed by others

Molecular mapping and characterization of QTLs for grain quality traits in a RIL population of US rice under high nighttime temperature stress

Development of introgression lines in high yielding, semi-dwarf genetic backgrounds to enable improvement of modern rice varieties for tolerance to multiple abiotic stresses free from undesirable linkage drag

Reverse genetic approaches for breeding nutrient-rich and climate-resilient cereal and food legume crops

Introduction.

Rice ( Oryza sativa ) is the major source of energy and nutrition for more than half the world’s population 1 . However, rice supplies minimal micronutrients in its milled form and completely lacks β-carotene which is the precursor for vitamin A. Thus, resource-poor people primarily dependent on rice with little access to diverse diets suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, also termed hidden hunger 2 , 3 . Even though efforts are being made to address micronutrient deficiencies by supplementation, fortification, and dietary diversification, the problem still persists globally. Biofortification of major staple crops has been recognized as one of the sustainable means to tackle micronutrient deficiencies especially in the vulnerable target groups in rural areas 4 .

Vitamin A is essential for various functions in the human body such as development and functioning of the visual system, differentiation and maintenance of cells, epithelial membrane integrity, and production of red blood cells, immune system, reproduction, and iron metabolism 5 , 6 . An estimated 190 million children and 19 million pregnant women have vitamin A deficiency (VAD), and almost a million children go blind every year 7 . In the Philippines, VAD ranges between 19.6 to 27.9% in infants and preschool children 8 , while in Bangladesh, over half of the preschool age (56.3%) and school age children (53.3%) at the national level were found to exhibit at least a mild grade of VAD 9 .

Several crops such as maize, cassava, and sweet potato have been successfully biofortified with elevated levels of provitamin A 10 , 11 . However, there is no naturally-occurring variation for provitamin A in grains in rice germplasm, so this has been achieved by using genetic engineering approaches. The genetic modification was made by the addition of two genes, phytoene synthase ( Zmpsy1 ) from Zea mays and carotene desaturase ( crtI ) gene from the common soil bacterium, Pantoea ananatis (syn. Erwinia uredovora ) into a temperate japonica rice variety, Kaybonnet, from the USA. This completed the carotenoid pathway in the grain and resulted in the accumulation of β-carotene in the endosperm 12 , 13 . However, the transfer of this golden rice trait from Kaybonnet into additional locally-adapted and widely-grown rice varieties is required for the successful release and adoption of golden rice in Asia.

Among the six second-generation Golden Rice (GR2) events received by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), event GR2E was found to contain a single intact copy of the inserted DNA integrated at a single site within the rice genome, giving rise to agronomically desirable progeny with suitable grain carotenoid content. This event has been transferred into Asian rice varieties through marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC). MABC has been successfully used to transfer high value genes/QTLs for disease resistance, submergence and drought tolerance traits into popular rice varieties without altering their desirable traits 14 , 15 , 16 .

Development of stable golden rice breeding lines with nutritionally relevant levels of provitamin A and without trait-associated yield, grain quality, or disease resistance penalties relative to the recipient parental varieties is essential for the successful adoption of golden rice. Introgression of the GR2E locus from GR2E Kaybonnet into PSBRc82, IR64, and BRRI dhan29 (BR29) was performed at IRRI through MABC along with selections for desirable agronomic and grain quality traits. The phenotypic evaluation was conducted under screen house conditions. Selection of homozygous plants and lines were carried out under field conditions at IRRI. Agronomic evaluations of selected lines were carried out under field conditions in a series of confined field tests (CTs) at IRRI, PhilRice and BRRI.

The main objectives of the present work were to: develop agronomically desirable lines of provitamin A enriched GR2E golden rice in the genetic backgrounds of popular rice varieties from Asia; to understand the effects of genetic background and environment on carotenoid expression, and to identify stable and productive lines of GR2E golden rice for varietal evaluation.

Introgression of event GR2E into multiple genetic backgrounds

A series of five backcrosses of event GR2E Kaybonnet into three widely-grown rice varieties, IR64, PSBRc82, and BR29, resulted in the identification of introgression lines that were agronomically similar to their respective recipient parents. The stability and inheritance of the GR2E locus was confirmed using event-specific PCR in every generation, where it was found to segregate without distortion in a typical 1:1 Mendelian ratio in all the backcross generations (BC 1 to BC 5 ) and genetic backgrounds. All seeds containing the GR2E event showed the typical golden yellow color, indicating the expression of the provitamin A trait in the endosperm. Hemizygous (It is a condition in a diploid organism, where only one copy of the locus is present) plants phenotypically similar to their respective recipient parents were identified, backcrossed and advanced up to BC 5 F 1 , and with each successive backcross there was a progressive increase in similarity of the progenies to their respective recurrent (recipient) parents (Fig.  1 ). A total of 400, 190, and 94 BC 5 F 1 plants of IR64, PSBRc82, and BR29, respectively, were phenotyped and genotyped by event-specific PCR. Yellow BC 5 F 2 seeds were selected and analyzed for total carotenoid content, which ranged from 3.6–6.2 ppm in IR64, 3.1–6.4 ppm in PSBRc82, and 3.2–8.0 ppm in BR29. The BC 5 F 2 plants were closer to respective recipient parents for key agronomic traits with average days to flowering (DTF), plant height (PH) and number of panicles (NP) of the selected BC 5 progenies were 71.5 days, 108 cm and 15 for IR64, 82.5 days, 122.3 cm and 15.4 for PSBRc82 and 83 days, 117 cm and 17 for BR29 respectively. The final set of BC 5 F 3 selected lines had background recovery of more than 98%. Agro-morphological traits, panicle characteristics, and grain parameters were similar to the recipient parents and no unintended, unexpected, effects due to the presence of the GR2E event were observed throughout the backcross breeding program. Based on the overall agronomic performance, carotenoid levels, and genetic background recovery, 40 BC 5 F 1 plants in the IR64 background, and 20 BC 5 F 1 plants in each of the PSBRc82 and BR29 backgrounds were selected. The BC 5 F 2 seeds produced by each of these plants were further evaluated under field conditions in confined tests and plants homozygous for the GR2E locus were selected.

( a – c ) GR2E introgression lines.

Selection of homozygous and agronomically acceptable GR2E lines

The first confined field test of GR2E breeding lines was carried out during the 2015WS at IRRI to make individual homozygous plant selections. From among 8000 BC 5 F 2 plants tested, a total of 602, 439, and 471 plants homozygous for the GR2E locus were identified in IR64, PSBRc82, and BR29, respectively (Fig S1 ). Efforts were focused on the lines homozygous for GR2E; however, hemizygous and null plants were also phenotyped to determine the impact of the presence of the GR2E locus on agronomic traits. The pair-wise t-tests were conducted between families derived from single BC 5 F 1 plants within each of the three genetic backgrounds. Significant differences between families for total carotenoids were noted in a number of the possible pair-wise comparisons (data not shown). The mean comparisons between homozygous, hemizygous and null GR2E plants within each of the three populations did not show any abnormal deviations for key agronomic traits (Fig S2 ). The mean PH of lines carrying GR2E were marginally shorter than the respective recipient parent. For the remaining traits there were no clear differences between plants carrying GR2E and the respective parent variety. A total of 70 BC 5 F 3 ILs similar to their respective parents and having higher levels of carotenoids were selected for IR64 and PSBRc82 genetic backgrounds.

Evaluation of GR2E introgression lines in multi-location replicated confined tests

Agronomic performance of GR2E Introgression Lines (ILs) and their respective control varieties were assessed in a series of CTs at IRRI (2015WS, 2016DS and 2016WS), PhilRice (2015WS and 2016DS) and BRRI in Bangladesh (2016 Boro). A total of 70 ILs similar to their respective parents in agronomic performance and having the greatest levels of carotenoids were selected from each of IR64 and PSBRc82 backgrounds. A total of 14 agronomic, yield and yield-related traits and carotenoid content were measured from the different confined tests. Among the 70 ILs tested during the 2015WS at IRRI, PSBRc82 GR2E ILs showed small but statistically significant differences from non-transgenic PSBRc82 for eight traits including days to flowering (DTF), plant height (PH), Flag leaf length (FL), flag leaf width (FW), filled spikelets (FS), total number of spikelets per plant (TSP), grain length (GL) and hundred seed weight (HSW) (Table 1 ). However, in successive CTs conducted using 32 GR2E PSBRc82 ILs at IRRI and PhilRice, only FL, GL and HSW (2016DS), and GL, HSW and plot yield (PY) (2016WS; IRRI) showed significant differences. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed during the 2016DS and only GL and HSW showed significant differences at PhilRice in 2016WS (Table 2 ). Similarly GR2E IR64 ILs showed small but significant differences to the recipient parent for FL, TSP, GL, GW and HSW in 2015DS and for FW, FS, spikelet fertility (SF) and PY in 2016DS, while only GL showed significant difference in 2016WS. For the CT conducted with GR2E BR29 ILs in Bangladesh in the 2016 Boro season there were no significant differences from BR29 for all the traits measured (Table 3 ). Significant variations in total carotenoids among different families were observed in all backgrounds. The highest concentration of total carotenoids was observed in the BR29 background, followed by the PSBRc82 background, while the IR64 background had the lowest concentration of total caroteneoids (Tables 1 , 2 , 3 ). The grain samples of GR2E ILs along with recipient parents are shown in Fig.  2 . Grain quality traits amylose content (AC), gel consistency (GC) and alkali spreading value (ASV) were measured for PSBRc82, IR64 and BR29 (Tables 1 , 2 , 3 ). There were no significant differences for AC between GR2E PSBRc82 ILs and PSBRc82 in all the trials. There were no significant differences in ASV and AC between GR2E IR64 ILs and the IR64 parent, while for BR29 there were no differences between the transgenic and the control except for AC. The background recovery of final set of selected BC 5 F 3 ILs showed more than 98% recipient genome in all the three genetic backgrounds (Fig S3 – S5 ). There was no significant difference in AC except in BR29, similarly for GC some minor significant differences were observed in PSBRc82 and IR64 in some seasons.

Grain samples of GR2E golden rice and respective recipient parents.

Correlation between yield, yield related traits and carotenoid content

The correlation among yield and yield related traits; and with total carotenoid content is presented in the Figs S6 – S8 . Over all there was no specific trend in correlations among different yield and yield related traits. Except in one environment carotenoid content was negatively but non-significantly associated with PY in all the three genetic backgrounds. The correlation analysis of carotenoid content between different seasons showed highly significant correlation in all the three genetic backgrounds.

Effect of genetic background and environment on expression of carotenoids

The combined analysis of variance for carotenoid content at two months after harvest showed that there were significant genotypic, seasonal and location effects on the expression of carotenoid content. However, there were no significant genotype and environmental interactions (G × E) for carotenoid content except CT2 PR vs CT4 (Table 4 ). However, among the three genetic backgrounds, expression of carotenoids was higher in GR2E BR29 ILs followed by PSBRc82 and lowest in GR2EIR64 ILs (Fig.  3 , Fig S9 ). There were very highly positive significant correlations for carotenoid content estimated in different locations both within and between seasons (Figs S10 – S12 ). In general carotenoids expression was bit higher in WS than in DS, but also among most of the CTs no significant G × E interaction was observed (Table 4 ).

Carotenoid levels in different genetic backgrounds.

Identification of superior GR2E NILs for multi-location evaluation

We selected five GR2E introgression lines each for PSBRc82 and IR64, for BR29 eight lines were selected from the CTs. These lines will be further evaluated in multi-location field testing in the Philippines and Bangladesh respectively. The list of selected lines and their corresponding agronomic performance is provided in Table 5 . The ILs were similar to the respective recipient parents in all the agronomic, yield and yield traits measured, and the total carotenoids ranged from 3.8 to 5.5 ppm in the DS and 4.1 to 6.1 in the WS. Among the eight selected GR2E BR29 ILs no significant variation was observed in any trait except yield, with an advantage of 12.8% over BR29.

Most of the dietary vitamin A is of plant origin in the form of provitamin A that is converted to vitamin A in the body 17 . VAD is persistent in most of the rice eating countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America 18 , 19 . Therefore, enriching rice with provitamin A through biofortification is a viable and complementary intervention to tackle the VAD. The provitamin A trait was introduced into the rice variety Kaybonnet through genetic engineering 13 , which has a temperate japonica genetic background and is not well adapted to the tropical conditions in most rice growing Asian countries. We developed GR2E event introgressed golden rice ILs in the genetic backgrounds of IR64, PSBRc82 and BR29.

Introgression of the GR2E produced agronomically superior plants

Golden rice GR2E is genetically stable and molecularly clean event useful for breeding ( https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qpiz0cftefcaceq/AAByIpj_HED3zgqH7ufW7A-ta?dl=0 ; https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/Documents/A1138%20Application_Redacted.pdf ). The breeding process to develop GR2E introgression lines did not show any abnormal plant phenotypes both in homozygous and hemizygous conditions indicating the genetic stability of the GR2E gene and trait expression. Both the phenotypic and genotypic based segregation analysis showed typical Mendelian segregation ratio in different segregating generations. GR2E advance backcross progenies were phenotypically very similar to their respective recipient parents. Transgenic events with single copy, clean integration and showing normal Mendelian segregation are considered ideal for research and breeding purposes, as they do not alter the host plant genome 20 , 21 , 22 .

Agronomic performance at field level and G × E studies showed that the GR2E gene did not alter any of the traits of the recipient parents in all its zygosity conditions. Overall plant performance was better during DS and among the genetic backgrounds the GR2EPSBRc82 lines performed better than the GR2EIR64 lines. Morphological traits such as panicle type, panicle exertion, grain shape, flag leaf length and width were similar for the GR2E ILs. Many lines performed equally similar to the respective recurrent parents, allowing the selection of advanced lines in all backgrounds for further testing in multi-location trials. The results showed that back cross process recovered almost all the desirable agronomic, yield and grain quality traits of the respective parents with significant expression of vitamin A. Despite many typhoons, heavy rains and high winds during the trials. There were no severe lodging incidences observed. Insects and diseases incidences were monitored during the two growing seasons at two different plant growth stages: maximum tillering stage (vegetative stage) and 50% flowering. Generally, crop stand was good with manageable level of insect pests and diseases during the growing seasons. Insects observed (both pest and beneficial insects) were found to be present in both test materials. We did not notice any difference between GR2E introgression lines and their respective recipient parents for the pest or diseases pressure on the crop across the confined field tests.

Woodfield and White 23 , and Badenhorst et al . 24 opined that development of transgenic product is not limited only to transformation, but also includes breeding through further backcrossing of transgenes with recipient parents and selection for desired traits of interest, in order to expedite commercial product development. For commercial deployment of any new variety with one or more introduced new trait(s) of a staple crop, in parallel to yield and other key agronomic traits, the newly developed variety should have essentially similar or better performance against biotic and abiotic stresses and grain quality traits compared to recipient variety; the introduced trait(s) should not alter these traits of the recipient variety 25 , 26 .

Grain quality and proximate composition of GR is similar to recipient rice varieties

Furthermore, different cooking and eating quality traits like, AC and ASV did not show any significant difference between the ILs and their respective recipient parents in any CTs. The golden rice breeding lines with significant amount of provitamin A accumulated in the grains helps to tackle VAD in high risk countries such as Bangladesh and the Philippines. However, it is a requirement to assess the composition of genetically modified crops to see if any significant changes in grain quality, nutrients and anti-nutrients contents in comparison to traditional counterpart and to assess the safety of the intended or unintended changes 27 , 28 . The compositional analysis of golden rice showed that all the compounds measured are within the biologically acceptable range and does not pose any risk to human health 29 . Earlier reports on transgenic products for insect and herbicide tolerance have also shown that little biologically meaningful changes in grain quality, nutrient and anti-nutrient composition 30 . There was a clear environmental effect, even though total carotenoids varied with environments, the genotypes with high carotenoids were always the best in all the locations. Such variations in trait expression due to environmental and agronomic factors and genetic basis have been well explained 31 , 32 .

Genetic background and environment influences carotenoid expression

Stable trait expression and minimal G × E for any trait of importance, especially for grain micronutrients and vitamins is essential for varietal release as well as for their successful adoption 4 , 33 , 34 . Total carotenoids were well correlated across the sites and generations; and expressed stably across the environments but there is a genetic background effect. Carotenoids expression varied even within segregating lines of different generations in each of the genetic backgrounds. So targeted breeding and careful selection of progenies with carotenoids test in each generation is necessary for advancing the lines. Mapping background QTLs and genes and using them in MAB can provide opportunity for precise development of GR lines with highest expression. The carotenoid levels were found to vary across the genetic backgrounds, locations and seasons but there were no significant G × E interactions. The highest expression of carotenoids was observed in BR29 background and the lowest in IR64 background. Several earlier attempts to develop golden rice events and introgression lines had to face the genetic background effects. Transgenic events developed in the indica backgrounds of IR64 and BR29 reported lower expression of GR genes in IR64 and higher expression in BR29 transformants, even ILs developed in IR64 showed lesser expression 35 . Moreover, ILs did not show any significant difference in yield when expressing the genes in the carotenoid pathway 36 . In our study also lowest expression was noticed in IR64. Simultaneously efforts are being made to develop next generation golden rice events with elevated levels of carotenoids with longer stability 37 , 38 , 39 . However, a genetic background effect is still a major bottle neck for introgression of carotenoid trait. Background effect on the expression of introduced traits was reported in rice for submergence tolerance, yield and related traits, disease resistance and drought tolerance 15 , 16 , 40 , 41 .

The variation in carotenoid concentration in grains might be due to variations in sunlight exposure and intensity across the locations and seasons 42 . Differential accumulation of β-carotene due to variation in exposure period and intensity of sunlight was also observed in algae, carrots, pumpkin and maize 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 . Moreover, like other carotenoids containing crops the carotenoid concentration in the grains of golden rice degrades over time after harvest. The degradation rate is very high at first few weeks after harvest and it becomes very slow after 6–8 weeks (data not shown). The carotenoids degradation rate is highly influenced by the storage temperature, moisture and exposure to light of the storage environment 22 , 47 . So, development of golden rice varieties with stable carotenoids expression is essential to achieve the impact 37 . However, there might be genotypic effect on the retention ability for carotenoids in rice grain. Understanding background effect and standardization of post-harvest handling is needed to achieve desired level of carotenoids in the introgression lines of multiple backgrounds.

Superior introgression lines were identified for multi-location trials

The five back crosses of GR2E gene into three genetic backgrounds resulted in identification of ILs similar to respective recipient parents. Adoption by the farmers and preference by the consumers for a specific crop variety particularly rice introduced with a new trait largely depends on its yield, grain quality and eating quality parameters. The introduced trait should be stable over locations and seasons to expedite the adoption level. Considering the present levels of carotenoids and per capita consumption in these target countries, the resulting ILs would be able to supply 30–50% of the EAR for vitamin A for the high risk population group if GR2E rice is consumed regularly.

Materials and methods

Development of gr2e near isogenic lines.

Kaybonnet is a high yielding japonica rice variety with blast resistance and excellent milling quality commercially cultivated in the USA. The genetic modification was made by the addition of two genes, phytoene synthase (Zmpsy1) from Zea mays and carotene desaturase (crtI) gene from the common soil bacterium, Pantoea ananatis (syn. Erwinia uredovora ). The GR2E Kaybonnet was crossed with the popular high yielding and adopted rice varieties such as IR64, PSBRc82, and BR29. IR64 is popular in most of the Asian countries, PSBRc82 in the Philippines, and BR29 in Bangladesh. In each generation, segregating materials were genotyped using GR2E event specific molecular marker. Plants containing the GR2E event and phenotypically similar to respective recipients were selected and backcrossed in each backcross generation to advance the materials to BC 5 F 2 . Background selections were performed using 100 randomly selected SSR markers in BC 1 and BC 2 , while selected plants from BC 3 , BC 4 and BC 5 were genotyped using the 6 K SNPs set at Genotyping Service Laboratory, IRRI. Only yellow-colored BC 5 F 2 seeds were separated and analyzed for total carotenoid content. A total of 40 BC 5 F 2 families for IR64 and 20 families each for PSBRc82 and BR29 were selected for evaluation in the confined test at IRRI. We have provided details of MAB scheme and evaluation of introgression lines in the Fig.  4 .

Development and evaluation of GR2E introgression lines.

Experimental materials used in the confined tests

A total of 8000 individual plants comprised of 4000 BC 5 F 2 plants from GR2E IR64, 2000 plants each from GR2E PSBRc82 and GR2E BR29 were included in a CT in the dry season of 2015 (2015DS). Plants were genotyped using GR2E specific markers and homozygous plants were selected. Selected BC 5 F 3 homozygous plants from each genetic background along with the respective recipient and donor parents were evaluated in a series of CTs at IRRI and PhilRice in the Philippines and at BRRI in Bangladesh. The list of GR2E materials evaluated and the details of the CTs is provided in the Supplementary Table S1 . Three CTs were conducted for GR2E IR64 and GR2E PSBRc82 at IRRI, while the selected lines of GR2E PSBRc82 were evaluated for two seasons at PhilRice. Further, BC 5 F 3 seeds of GR2E BR29 were sent to Bangladesh, multiplied in the screen house, and further evaluated in a CT at BRRI, Gazipur, for one season in 2016.

Crop management and observations

Seeds of the selected plants of GR2E introgression lines, recipient and donor parents were seeded in trays. Seedlings were transplanted at 21 days after sowing with a standard spacing of 20 × 20 cm. Details of the experimental design and layout are provided in Tables S1 and S2 . Standard agronomic practices were followed to raise a good crop, including the application of need-based plant protection measures to protect the crop from diseases and insect pests. Data were gathered on key agronomic, yield and yield-related traits; and total carotenoid content was measured two months after harvest. Grain quality data were generated from the selected lines of CT2 and from all lines included in CT3 and CT4. Insect pest infestations and disease incidences were recorded at maximum tillering and at 50% flowering. Agronomic traits were measured on five random plants from each entry. Days to 50% flowering was recorded on a whole plot basis. At maturity, five selected plants were harvested from individual plots and the remaining inner plants were harvested in bulk. Final plot yield was adjusted to a uniform grain moisture content of 14%.

DNA was extracted using fresh leaf samples and following a modified cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) protocol 48 . Nanopore was used to check the quality and quantity of the DNA extracted. The DNA samples were diluted with distilled water into an equal concentration of 25 ng/µl. Amplification of event specific markers using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was carried out with a 10 µl reaction mixture that contained 1.5 µl of DNA template, 1.0 µl of 10 × PCR buffer with MgCl 2 , 0.5 µl each of forward and reverse primers, 0.2 µl of 1 mM dNTP and 0.1 µl of Taq DNA polymerase and 5.7 µl distilled water. The amplification reaction was carried out in a 96-well PCR plate in a thermocycler using the following temperature profile: denaturation, 95 °C for 5 min; 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 45 s, annealing at 55 °C for 45 s and extension at 72 °C for 45 s; and final extension at 72 °C for 8 min and long-term storage at 10 °C. Amplification products were separated by gel electrophoresis on 1.2% agarose (0.5 × TBE; 160 V for 45 min) and visualized using SYBR Safe DNA stain and imaging using an AlphaImager HP (Protein Simple, San Jose, CA) gel documentation system. The GR2E specific primer sequences as follows.

ZD-E1-P1 5′-GCTTAAACCGGGTGAATCAGCGTTT-3′

ZD-E1-P2 5′-CGAGAGGAAGGGAAGAGAGGCCACCAA-3′

ZD-E1-P3 5′-CTCCCTCACTGGATTCCTGCTACCCATAGTAT-3′

Grain quality analysis

Grain quality analysis was carried out at the Analytical Service Laboratory (ASL) of IRRI. We measured/analyzed grain length and width, amylose content, alkali spreading value and gel consistency, using standard protocols 49 . Similar analyses were performed at BRRI on grain samples of GR2E BR29.

Amylose content

Amylose content (AC) was determined on milled rice extracts using a segmented flow analyzer. Rice samples were ground to a fine powder using a cyclone mill. Sodium Hydroxide and Ethanol were added to a test portion of the sample and heated in a boiling bath for 10 min. Acetic acid and Iodine solution was mixed with the aliquot of the test solution to form a blue starch iodine complex and its absorbance was measured at 620 nm using a colorimeter 49 . The result of the analysis was reported as apparent amylose to take into account the contribution of amylopectin present in the rice, which also forms a blue color starch iodine complex.

Gelatinization temperature

Rice starch gelatinization temperature (GT) was estimated by determining the alkali spreading value (ASV) of milled rice grains in potassium hydroxide solution. Six kernels of whole milled rice were incubated with 10 ml of 1.7% KOH for 23 h at ambient temperature (25 °C). The appearance and disintegration of the endosperm was visually rated depending on the intensity of spreading and swelling. ASV of 1–2 was classified as high GT, 3 for intermediate to high GT, 4–5 for intermediate GT and 6–7 for low GT.

Gel consistency

Samples of milled rice were ground to a fine powder, placed in a culture tube and suspended in a mixture of ethanol and 0.2 N KOH containing thymol blue and incubated in a boiling water bath for 15 min, followed by cooling to room temperature (15 min) and placing in an ice bath (20 min). Gel consistency of the rice paste (4.4% w/v) was determined by measuring the length of the cold gel in the culture tube after placing horizontally for 1 h. Rice was differentiated into three consistency types—soft (61 to 100 mm), medium (41 to 60 mm) and hard (27 to 40 mm).

Carotenoid concentrations

Total carotenoid concentration was estimated following the protocol developed by Gemmecker et al . 50 . Dehulled and polished rice seeds were ground to a fine powder using a modified paint shaker and accurately weighed amounts (ca. 500 mg) were dispensed into 15-ml Falcon tubes, mixed by sonication with 2 ml distilled water and incubated for 10 min at 60 °C. Cooled samples were centrifuged (3000 g , 5 min) and the supernatant fractions were transferred to new 15-ml tubes. Acetone (2 ml) and 100 μl of the lipophilic metallo organic dye, VIS682A (20 μg/ml; QCR Solutions Corp.), as an internal standard were added to each sample followed by mixing with short pulses of sonication and centrifugation (3000 g , 5 min). Supernatants were transferred to 15-ml tubes and the pellets were re-extracted twice more with 2-ml volumes of acetone and the resulting supernatant fractions were combined. Two ml petroleum ether (PE): di-ethyl ether (DE) (2:1 v/v) was added to each combined supernatant fraction (ca. 8 ml) and volumes were adjusted to 14 ml with distilled water. After vortexing, phase separation was achieved by centrifugation (3000 g , 5 min). The organic phase was recovered by pipetting out and transferred into a 2 ml graduated Eppendorf tube and the remaining aqueous phase was re-extracted with another 2 ml PE:DE (2:1 v/v), followed by centrifugation (3000 g , 5 min). The combined organic phases were dried using a vacuum-concentrator (Eppendorf concentrator 5301) and re-dissolved in 1 ml acetone. Maximum absorbance of sample extract at 450 nm and maximum absorbance of internal standard at 680 nm was determined using DU730 Beckman Coulter UV/VIS spectrophotometer. Concentrations of total carotenoids were determined from A450 nm assuming an average E450  nm = 142, 180 l mol −1  cm −1 in acetone using the Beer-Lambert law corrected for sample dilution and normalized to the internal standard.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed as a linear mixed model using R 51 and PB Tools v1.0 52 .

Mixed model for single site analysis:

where µi denotes the mean of the ith entry (fixed effect), bj denotes the effect of the jth block, and eij denotes the residual error.

Mixed model for multiple site analysis:

where µi denotes the mean of the ith entry (fixed effect), lk denotes the effect of the kth site, bj(k) denotes the effect of the jth block within the kth site, (µl)ik denotes the interaction between the entries and sites (random effect), and eijk denotes the residual error.

Mean comparison and correlation analysis

The differences in least square (LS)-mean values between GR2E rice and the control rice were tested at first step followed by significant difference (p < 0.05) was identified in the multi-year combined-sites analysis 53 . Correlation among different traits from all the replicated trials was carried out using R Program 51 .

Muthayya, S., Sugimoto, J. D., Montgomery, S. & Maberly, G. F. An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1324 , 7–14 (2014).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kennedy, E. Healthy lifestyles, healthy people-the mega country health promotion network. Asian Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 11 , S738–S739 (2003).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Alavi, S. et al. Rice fortification in developing countries: A critical review of the technical and economic feasibility (A2Z Project/Academy for Educational Development, Washington DC, 2008).

Google Scholar  

Bouis, H. E. & Welch, R. M. Biofortification-A sustainable agricultural strategy for reducing micronutrient malnutrition in the global South. Crop Sci. 50 , 20–32 (2010).

Article   Google Scholar  

Bates, C. V. Vitamin A. Lancet 345 , 31–35 (1995).

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

De Pee, S. Proposing nutrients and nutrient levels for rice fortification. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1324 , 55–66 (2014).

Article   ADS   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

WHO. Global Prevalence of Vitamin A Deficiency in Populations at Risk 1995–2005. WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2009).

FNRI. Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) among Filipino preschool children, pregnant, and lactating women: 1993–2013. In 42nd FNRI Seminar Series, First 100 Days , 1–12, Los Banos (2016).

ICDDRB. National micronutrients status survey 2011–2012. Technical report January. Centre for Nutrition and Food Security, icddr,b; UNICEF; GAIN; IPHN, Dhaka (2013).

La Frano, M. R., Woodhouse, L. R., Burnett, D. J. & Burri, B. J. Biofortified cassava increases β-carotene and vitamin A concentrations in the TAG-rich plasma layer of American women. Br. J. Nutr. 110 , 310–320 (2013).

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

De Moura, F. F. et al. Are biofortified staple food crops improving vitamin A and iron status in women and children? New evidence from efficacy trials. Adv. Nutr. 5 , 568–570 (2014).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ye, X. et al. Engineering the provitamin A (β-Carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoids free) rice endosperm. Science 287 , 303–305 (2000).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Paine, J. A. et al. Improving the nutritional value of golden rice through increased provitamin A content. Nat. Biotechnol. 23 , 482–487 (2005).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Das, G. & Rao, G. J. N. Molecular marker assisted gene stacking for biotic and abiotic stress resistance genes in an elite rice cultivar. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00698 (2015).

Septiningsih, E. M. et al. Development of submergence-tolerant rice cultivars: the Sub1 locus and beyond. Ann. Bot. 103 , 151–160 (2009).

Swamy, B. P. M. et al. Genetic, physiological, and gene expression analyses reveal multiple QTLs that enhance yield of rice mega-variety IR64 under drought. PLoS ONE 8 , e62795 (2013).

Sivakumar, B. Current controversies in carotene nutrition. Ind. J. Med. Res 108 , 157–166 (1998).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Sommers, A. New imperatives for an old vitamin (A). J. Nutr. 119 , 96–100 (1988).

Gillespie, S. & Haddad, L. Attacking the double burden of malnutrition in Asia and the Pacific. ADB Nutrition and Development Series 4 (2001).

Yin, Z., Plader, W. & Malepszy, S. Transgenic inheritance in plants. J. Appl. Genet. 45 , 127–144 (2004).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Trijatmiko, K. R. et al. Biofortified indica rice attains iron and zinc nutrition dietary targets in the field. Sci. Rep. 6 , 19792 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bollinedi, H. S. et al. Molecular and functional characterization of GR2-R1 event based backcross derived lines of Golden Rice in the genetic background of a mega rice variety Swarna. PLoS ONE 12 , e0169600 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Woodfield, D. R. & White, D. W. R. Breeding strategies for developing transgenic white clover cultivars. Agron. Soc. 11 , 125–130 (1996).

Badenhorst, P. E., Smith, K. F. & Spangenberg, G. Development of a molecular breeding strategy for the integration of transgenic traits in outcrossing perennial grasses. Agronomy 6 , 56 (2016).

Collard, B. C. Y. & Mackill, D. J. Marker-assisted selection: An approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363 , 557–572 (2008).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hasan, M. M. et al. Marker-assisted backcrossing: a useful method for rice improvement. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 29 , 237–254 (2015).

Codex. Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants CAC/GL 45-2003 (2003).

Jiao, Z., Si, X. X., Li, G. K., Zhang, Z. M. & Xu, X. P. Unintended compositional changes in transgenic rice seeds ( Oryza sativa L.) studied by spectral and chromatographic analysis coupled with chemometrics methods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58 , 1746–1754 (2010).

Swamy, B. P. M. et al. Compositional analysis of genetically engineered GR2E “Golden Rice” compared to conventional rice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67 , 7986–7994 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Herman, R. A. & Price, W. D. Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61 , 11695–70110 (2013).

Harrigan, G. G. et al. Impact of genetics and environment on nutritional and metabolite components of maize grain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55 , 6177–6185 (2007).

Ricroch, A. E. Assessment of GE food safety using ‘-omics’ techniques and long-term animal feeding studies. New Biotechnol. 30 , 349–354 (2013).

Bishaw, Z. & van Gastel, A. J. G. Variety release and policy options. In Plant Breeding and Farmer Participation (eds Ceccarelli, S. et al. ) (FAO, Rome, 2009).

Inabangan-Asilo, M. A. et al. Stability and G × E analysis of zinc-biofortified rice genotypes evaluated in diverse environments. Euphytica 215 , 61 (2019).

Datta, S. K. et al. Golden rice: Introgression, breeding, and field evaluation. Euphytica 154 , 271–278 (2007).

Baisakh, N. et al. Marker-free transgenic MFT near-isogenic introgression lines NIILs of ‘golden’ indica rice cv IR64 with accumulation of provitamin A in the endosperm tissue. Plant Biotechnol. J. 4 , 467–475 (2006).

Datta, K., Sahoo, G., Krishnan, S., Ganguly, M. & Datta, S. K. Genetic stability developed for β-carotene synthesis in BR29 rice line using dihaploid homozygosity. PLoS ONE 9 , e100212 (2014).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tian, Y. S. et al. Enhancing carotenoid biosynthesis in rice endosperm by metabolic engineering. Plant Biotechnol. J. 17 , 849 (2019).

Bai, C. et al. Bottlenecks in carotenoid biosynthesis and accumulation in rice endosperm are influenced by the precursor–product balance. Plant Biotechnol. J. 14 , 195–205 (2016).

Xie, X. W. et al. Genetic background and environmental effects on QTLs for sheath blight resistance revealed by reciprocal introgression lines in rice. Acta Agron. Sin. 34 , 1885–1893 (2008).

Wang, X. et al. Genetic background effects on QTL and QTL × environment interaction for yield and its component traits as revealed by reciprocal introgression lines in rice. Crop J. 2 , 345–357 (2014).

Jaswir, I. et al. Effects of season and storage period on accumulation of individual carotenoids in pumpkin flesh ( Cucurbita moschata ). J. Oleo Sci. 63 , 761–767 (2014).

Horváth, G., Kissimon, J. & Faludi-Dániel, Á. Effect of light intensity on the formation of carotenoids in normal and mutant maize leaves. Phytochemistry 11 , 183–187 (1972).

Ben-Amotz, A. & Avron, M. On the factors which determine massive beta-carotene accumulation in the halotolerant alga Dunaliella bardawil . Plant Physiol. 72 , 593–597 (1983).

Fuentes, P. et al. Light-dependent changes in plastid differentiation influence carotenoid gene expression and accumulation in carrot roots. Plant Mol. Biol. 79 , 47–59 (2012).

Norshazila, S., Othman, R., Jaswir, I. & Yumi Zuhanis, H. H. Effect of abiotic stress on carotenoids accumulation in pumpkin plants under light and dark conditions. Int. Food Res. J. 24 , S387–S394 (2017).

Bechoff, A. et al. Effect of drying and storage on the degradation of total carotenoids in orange-fleshed sweet potato cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 90 , 622–629 (2010).

Murray, M. G. & Thompson, W. F. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 8 , 4321–4326 (1980).

Juliano, B. Physicochemical Properties of Starch and Protein in Relation to Grain Quality and Nutritional Value of Rice 389–405 (International Rice Research Institute. Rice Breeding, Los Baños, 1972).

Gemmecker, S. et al. Phytoene Desaturase from Oryza sativa : Oligomeric assembly, membrane association and preliminary 3D-analysis. PLoS ONE 10 , e0131717 (2015).

R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2012).

IRRI 2014. Plant Breeding Tools (PB Tools), Version: 1.4, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos.

Lenth, R. lsmeans: Least-squares means. R package version 1.06-05. R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Technical report (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible through support of grants provided from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and US Agency for International Development.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

B. P. Mallikarjuna Swamy, Severino Marundan Jr., Mercy Samia, Russell F. Reinke & Raul Boncodin

Philippines Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), Maligaya, Science City of Munoz, Philippines

Reynante L. Ordonio, Democrito B. Rebong, Ronalyn Miranda, Anielyn Alibuyog, Anna Theresa Rebong, Ma. Angela Tabil, Roel R. Suralta & Antonio A. Alfonso

Plant Breeding Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), Gazipur, Bangladesh

Partha Sarathi Biswas & Md. Abdul Kader

Institute for International Crop Improvement, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Donald J. MacKenzie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.P.M.S. designed the study, conducted experiments, analyzed data, prepared manuscript, S.M. conducted experiments, data analysis, draft preparation, M.S. involved in genotyping, data collection, carotenoid analysis, R.L.O., D.B.R., R.M., R.R.S., A.A., A.T.R., M.A.T., A.A.A., P.S.B. and M.A.K. conducted field experiments, reviewed manuscript; R.F.R., R.B. and D.J.M. involved in experimental design and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. P. Mallikarjuna Swamy .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mallikarjuna Swamy, B.P., Marundan, S., Samia, M. et al. Development and characterization of GR2E Golden rice introgression lines. Sci Rep 11 , 2496 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82001-0

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2019

Accepted : 14 January 2021

Published : 28 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82001-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A study on genetically engineered foods: need, benefits, risk, and current knowledge.

• Venkteshwar Yadav
• Anil Kumar Poonia

Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics (2024)

Genomic prediction and QTL analysis for grain Zn content and yield in Aus-derived rice populations

• Tapas Kumer Hore
• C. H. Balachiranjeevi
• B. P. Mallikarjuna Swamy

Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2024)

GEnZ explorer: a tool for visualizing agroclimate to inform research and regulatory risk assessment

• Rachel L. Melnick
• Larissa Jarvis
• Andrew Roberts

Transgenic Research (2023)

Removing politics from innovations that improve food security

• Stuart J. Smyth
• Alan McHughen
• Wayne Parrott

Transgenic Research (2021)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Assessment of benefits and risk of genetically modified plants and products: current controversies and perspective.

1. Introduction

2. literature search method, 3. plant genetic transformation methods, 3.1. agrobacterium-mediated transformation of the plant, 3.2. biolistics method of genetic transformation of the plant, 3.3. electroporation method of genetic transformation of the plant, 4. benefits of genetically modified plants and products, 4.1. biofortification, 4.2. transgenic approaches for improving phytochemicals and biological activities in plants.

4.3. Transgenic Approaches for Environmental Protection

4.4. transgenic approaches for removing allergens, 4.5. transgenic approaches for phytoremediation, 4.6. transgenic approaches for vaccine production, 4.7. transgenic approach for increased biofuel capacity in plants, 4.8. increased stress resistance capacity in plants, 5. disadvantages of genetically modified plants and products, 5.1. human health hazards, 5.2. environmental risks, 5.3. gene flow, 5.4. increased antibiotic resistance, 5.5. gmo products can trigger immune reactions and allergies, 6. biosafety regulatory of gmo foods and products, 7. controversies of gm foods and products, 8. final considerations and future prospects, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Shiferaw, B.; Smale, M.; Braun, H.-J.; Duveiller, E.; Reynolds, M.; Muricho, G. Crops that feed the world Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Secur. 2013 , 5 , 291–317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• UN News. Over 820 Million People Suffering from Hunger; New UN Report Reveals Stubborn Realities of ‘Immense’ Global Challenge. UN News 2019 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013 , 8 , e66428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Alexandratos, N.B.J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050. The 2012 Revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ESA Working Paper no. 12-03. 2012. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ap106ee.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
• Oliver, M.J. Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. MO Med. 2014 , 111 , 492–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moeller, L.; Wang, K. Engineering with Precision: Tools for the New Generation of Transgenic Crops. BioScience 2008 , 58 , 391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chandler, S.; Tanaka, Y. Genetic modifi cation in floriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2007 , 26 , 169–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paiva, M.J.M.; Damasceno, I.A.M. O uso de dos alimentos geneticamente modificados: Principais desafios. Rev. Multidebates 2020 , 4 , 90–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres, A.C.; Ferreira, A.T.; Sa, F.G.; Buso, J.A.; Caldas, L.S.; Nascimento, A.S.; Brigido, M.M.; Romano, E. Glossário De Biotecnologia Vegetal ; Em Brapa-CNPH: Brasília, Brazil, 2000; p. 128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welch, R.M. Biotechnology, biofortification and global health. Food Nutr Bull. 2005 , 26 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nanjundan, J.; Singh, K.H.; Parmar, N.; Kumar, P.; Chauhan, D.K.; Khan, Y.J.; Thaku, A.K.; Sharma, D.; Singh, L. Genetic Engineering Strategies for Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance and Quality Enhancement in Horticultural Crops: A Comprehensive Review. 3 Biotech 2017 , 7 , 1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer, R.; Emans, N. Molecular farming of pharmaceutical proteins. Transgenic Res. 2000 , 9 , 279–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, T.H.; Ho, H.K.; Leung, T.F. Genetically modified foods and allergy. Hong Kong Med. J. 2017 , 23 , 5–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Clive, J. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops ; ISAAA Briefs 43; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2016. GM. Crops Food 2018 , 9 , 59–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Gatew, H.; Mengistu, K. Genetically modified foods (GMOs); a review of genetic engineering. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 2019 , 9 , 157–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ventura, M.V.A.; Batista, H.R.F.; Bessa, M.M.; Pereira, L.S.; Costa, E.M.; de Oliveira, M.H.R. Comparison of conventional and transgenic soybean production costs in different regions in Brazil. Res. Soc. Dev. 2020 , 9 , e154973977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuiper, H.A.; Davies, H.V. The safe foods risk analysis framework suitable for GMOs? A case study. Food Control. 2010 , 21 , 1662–1676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Twyman, R.M.; Kohli, A.; Stoger, E.; Christou, P. Foreign DNA: Integration and Expression in Transgenic Plants. In Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods ; Setlow, J.K., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2002; Volume 24, pp. 107–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Che1, P.; Chang, S.; Simon, M.K.; Zhang, Z.; Shaharyar, A.; Ourada, J.; O’Neill, D.; Torres-Mendoza, M.; Guo, Y.; Marasigan, K.M.; et al. Developing a rapid and highly efficient cowpea regeneration, transformation and genome editing system using embryonicaxis explants. Plant J. 2021 , 106 , 817–830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okpe, A.O.; Nka, F.A. Comparative Review of Plant Transformation Techniques. J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol. 2021 , 24 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matveeva, T.V.; Lutova, L.A. Horizontal gene transfer from Agrobacteriumto plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2014 , 5 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Xia, P.; Hu, W.; Liang, T.; Yang, D.; Liang, Z. An attempt toestablish an Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression system inmedicinal plants. Protoplasma 2020 , 257 , 1497–1505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ziemienowicz, A. Agrobacterium -mediated plant transformation: Factors, applications and recent advances. Bio Catal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2014 , 3 , 95–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghimire, B.K.; Seong, E.S.; Lim, J.D.; Heo, K.; Kim, M.J.; Chung, I.M.; Juvik, J.A.; Yu, C.Y. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Codonopsis lanceolata using the c-TMT gene. Plant Cell. Tiss. Organ. Cult. 2008 , 95 , 265–274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niazian, M.; Sadat Noori, S.A.; Galuszka, P.; Mortazavian, S.M.M. Tissue culture-based Agrobacterium-mediated and in planta transformation methods. Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2017 , 53 , 133–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Christou, P. Genetic transformation of crops using microprojectile bombardment. Plant J. Oxf. 1992 , 2 , 275–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lacroix, B.; Citovsky, V. Biolistic Approach for Transient Gene Expression Studies in Plants. Methods Mol. Biol. 2020 , 2124 , 125–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez-Garcia, C.; Bouchard, R.; Rushton, P.; Jones, M.; Chen, X.; Timko, M.; Finer, J. High level transgenic expression of soybean (Glycine max) GmERF and Gmubi gene promoters isolated by a novel promoter analysis pipeline. BMC Plant Biol. 2010 , 10 , 237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taylor, N.J.; Fauquet, C.M. Microparticle bombardment as a tool in plant science and agricultural biotechnology. DNA Cell Biol. 2002 , 21 , 963–977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Dosari, M.S.; Gao, X. Non-viral Gene Delivery: Principle, limitations, and recent progress. AAPS J. 2009 , 11 , 671–681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rubinsky, B. Irreversible electroporation in medicine. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2007 , 6 , 255–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• United Naations. United Naations. United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN). In 5th Report on the World Nutrition Situation Nutrition for Improved Development Outcomes ; SCN: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Szenkovics, D.; Tonk, M.; Balog, A. Can genetically modified (GM) crops act as possible alternatives to mitigate world political conflicts for food? Food Energy Secur. 2021 , 10 , e268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamthan, A.; Chaudhuri, A.; Kamthan, M.; Datta, A. Genetically modified (GM) crops: Milestones and new advances in crop improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2016 , 129 , 1639–1655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, O.V.; Ghai, S.; Paul, D.; Jain, R.K. Genetically modified crops: Success, safety assessment, and public concern. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006 , 71 , 598–607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Taylor, S.L.; Goodman, R.E.; Hefle, S.L. The development of safety assessment for genetically modified foods. Asia Pac. Biotech. News 2006 , 10 , 614–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• American Medical Association. Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods ; American Medical Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert, P.R. Biotechnology Industries and Entrepreneurs ; Darya Ganj: New Delhi, India, 2008; pp. 25–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdebine, L.M. Impacts of genetically modified animals on the ecosystem and human activities. Glob. Bioeth. 2014 , 25 , 3–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Schubert, D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat. Biotechnol. 2002 , 20 , 969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wong, M.S.; Hawthorne, W.J.; Manolios, N. Gene therapy in diabetes. Self Nonself Pharm. 2010 , 1 , 165–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matsuda, Y.; Toyoda, H.; Sawabe, A.; Maeda, K.; Shimizu, N.; Fujita, N.; Fujita, T.; Nonomura, T.; Ouchi, S. A hairy root culture of melon produces aroma compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000 , 48 , 1417–1420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oller, A.L.W.; Agostini, E.; Talano, M.A.; Capozucca, C.; Milrad, S.R.; Tigier, H.A.; Medina, M.I. Overexpression of a basic peroxidase in transgenic tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Pera) hairy roots increases phytoremediation of phenol. Plant Sci. 2005 , 169 , 1102–1111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garagounis, C.; Beritza, K.; Georgopoulou, M.E.; Sonawane, P.; Haralampidis, K.; Goossens, A.; Aharoni, A.; Papadopoulou, K.K. A hairy-root transformation protocol for Trigonella foenum - graecum L. as a tool for metabolic engineering and specialised metabolite pathway elucidation. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020 , 154 , 451–462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kundua, S.; Salma, U.; Ali, M.N.; Hazra, A.K.; Mandal, N. Development of transgenic hairy roots and augmentation of secondary metabolites by precursor feeding in Sphagneticola calendulacea (L.) Pruski. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018 , 121 , 206–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xin, Y.; Ma, B.; Zeng, Q.; He, W.; Qin, M.; He, N. Dynamic changes in transposable element and gene methylation in mulberry ( Morus notabilis ) in response to Botrytis cinerea . Hortic. Res. 2021 , 8 , 154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paine, J.A.; Shipton, C.A.; Chaggar, S.; Howells, R.M.; Kennedy, M.J.; Vernon, G.; Wright, S.Y.; Hinchliffe, E.; Adams, J.L.; Silverstone, A.L.; et al. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005 , 23 , 482–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gao, Y.; Ma, Y.; Li, M.; Cheng, T.; Li, S.W.; Zhang, J.; Xia, N.S. Oral immunization of animals with transgenic cherry tomatillo expressing HbsAg. World J. Gastroenterol. 2003 , 9 , 996–1002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Eenennaam, A.L.; Lincoln, K.; Durrett, T.P.; Valentin, H.E.; Shewmaker, C.K.; Thorne, G.M. Engineering vitamin E content: From Arabidopsis mutant to soil oil. Plant Cell. 2003 , 5 , 3007–3019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Suzuki, Y.A.; Shin, K.; Lönnerdal, B. Molecular cloning and functional expression of a human intestinal lactoferrin receptor. Biochemistry 2001 , 40 , 15771–15779. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiaoyan, S.; Yan, Z.; Shubin, W. Improvement Fe content of wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) grain by soybean ferritin expression cassette without vector backbone sequence. J. Agric. Food Biochem. 2012 , 20 , 766–773. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drakakaki, G.; Marcel, S.; Glahn, R.P.; Lund, E.K.; Pariagh, S.; Fischer, R.; Christou, P.; Stoger, E. Endosperm-specific co-expression of recombinant soybean ferritin and Aspergillus phytase in maize results in significant increases in the levels of bioavailable iron. Plant Mol. Biol. 2005 , 59 , 869–880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goto, F.; Yoshihara, T. Improvement of micronutrient contents by genetic engineering development of high iron content crops. Plant Biotechnol. 2001 , 18 , 7–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Masuda, H.; Usuda, K.; Kobayashi, T.; Ishimaru, Y.; Kakei, Y.; Takahashi, M.; Higuchi, K.; Nakanishi, H.; Mori, S.; Nishizawa, N.K. Overexpression of the barley nicotianamine synthase gene HvNAS1 increases iron and zinc concentrations in rice grains. Rice 2009 , 2 , 155–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ghimire, B.K.; Seong, E.S.; Lee, C.O.; Lim, J.D.; Lee, J.G.; Yoo, J.H.; Chung, I.M.; Kim, N.Y.; Yu, C.Y. Enhancement of α-tocopherol content in transgenic Perilla frutescens containing the γ-TMT gene. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011 , 10 , 2430–2439. [ Google Scholar ]
• Long, M.; Millar, D.J.; Kimura, Y.; Donovan, G.; Rees, J.; Fraser, P.D.; Bramley, P.M.; Bolwell, G.P. Metabolite profiling of carotenoid and phenolic pathways in mutant and transgenic lines of tomato: Identification of a high antioxidant fruit line. Phytochemistry 2006 , 67 , 1750–1757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lim, J.D.; Yang, D.C.; Yun, S.J.; Chung, I.M.; Sung, E.S.; Kim, M.J.; Heo, K.; Yu, C.Y. Isolation and Biological Activity of Resveratrol−3−O−β−D−GlucosideResveratrol−3−O−β−D−Glucoside in Transgenic Rehmannia glutinosa L. Transformed by Peanut Resveratrol Synthase Gene (RS3). Korean J. Med. Crop Sci. 2004 , 12 , 406–414. [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Introno, A.; Paradiso, A.; Scoditti, E.; D’Amico, L.; De Paolis, A.; Carluccio, M.A.; Nicoletti, I.; De Gara, L.; Santino, A.; Giovinazzo, G. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of tomato fruits synthesizing different amounts of stilbenes. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2000 , 7 , 422–429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Beasley, J.T.; Bonneau, J.P.; Sánchez-Palacios, J.T.; Moreno-Moyano, L.T.; Callahan, D.L.; Tako, E.; Glahn, R.P.; Lombi, E.; Johnson, A.A.T. Metabolic engineering of bread wheat improves grain iron concentration and bioavailability. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019 , 17 , 1514–1526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Narayanan, N.; Beyene, G.; Chauhan, R.D.; Gaitán-Solís, E.; Gehan, J.; Butts, P.; Siritunga, D.; Okwuonu, I.; Woll, A.; Jiménez- Aguilar, D.M.; et al. Biofortification of field-grown cassava by engineering expression of an iron transporter and ferritin. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019 , 37 , 144–151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Broad, R.C.; Bonneau, J.P.; Beasley, J.T.; Roden, S.; Sadowski, P.; Jewell, N.; Brien, C.; Berger, B.; Tako, E.; Glahn, R.P.; et al. Effect of Rice GDP-L-Galactose Phosphorylase Constitutive Overexpression on Ascorbate Concentration, Stress Tolerance, and Iron Bioavailability in Rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2020 , 11 , 595439. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, W.-S.; Sun-Hyung, J.; Oehrle, N.W.; Jez, J.M.; Krishnan, H.B. Overexpression of ATP sulfurylase improves the sulfur amino acid content, enhances the accumulation of Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor and suppresses the accumulation of the β-subunit of β-conglycinin in soybean seeds. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 14989. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, C.K.; Chang, K.S.; Lin, Y.C.; Liu, S.Y.; Chen, C.Y. Hairy root cultures of Gynostemma pentaphyllum (Thunb.) Makino: A promising approach for the production of gypenosides as an alternative of ginseng saponins. Biotechnol Lett. 2005 , 27 , 1165–1169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thiruvengadam, M.; Praveen, N.; Kim, S.H.; Chung, I.M. Establishment of Momordica charantia hairy root cultures for the production of phenolic compounds and the determination of their biological activities. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2014 , 118 , 545–557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thiruvengadam, M.; Rekha, K.; Chung, I.M. Induction of hairy roots by Agrobacterium rhizogenes -mediated transformation of spine gourd ( Momordica dioica Roxb. ex. willd) for the assessment of phenolic compounds and biological activities. Sci. Hortic. 2016 , 198 , 132–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoon, J.Y.; Chung, I.M.; Thiruvengadam, M. Evaluation of phenolic compounds, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities from transgenic hairy root cultures of gherkin ( Cucumis anguria L.). S. Afr. J. Bot. 2015 , 100 , 80–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le Gall, G.; DuPont, M.S.; Mellon, F.A.; Davis, A.L.; Collins, G.J.; Verhoeyen, M.E.; Colquhoun, I.J. Characterization and Content of Flavonoid Glycosides in Genetically Modified Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) Fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003 , 51 , 2438–2446. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, C.J.; Kim, S.E.; Park, S.U.; Lim, Y.H.; Choi, H.Y.; Kim, W.G.; Ji, C.Y.; Kim, H.S.; Kwak, S.S. Tuberous roots of transgenic sweet potato overexpressing IbCAD1 have enhanced low-temperature storage phenotypes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021 , 166 , 549–557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yoo, J.H.; Seong, E.S.; Ghimire, B.K.; Heo, K.; Jin, X.; Yamada, T.; Clark, L.V.; Sacks, E.J.; Yu, C.Y. Establishment of Miscanthus sinensis with decreased lignin biosynthesis by Agrobacterium –mediated transformation using antisense COMT gene. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2018 , 133 , 359–369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, F.; Kong, W.; Wong, G.; Fu, L.; Peng, R.; Li, Z.; Yao, Q. AtMYB12 regulates flavonoids accumulation and abiotic stress tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana . Mol. Gen. Genom. 2016 , 291 , 1545–1559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, B.; Li, X.; Tabudravu, J.; Wang, S.; Deng, H.; Pan, L. The chemical profile of activated secondary metabolites by overexpressing LaeA in Aspergillus niger . Microbiol. Res. 2021 , 248 , 126735. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Prashant, S.; Srilakshmi Sunita, M.; Pramod, S.; Gupta, R.K.; Anil Kumar, S.; Karumanchi, S.R.; Rawal, S.K.; Kavi Kishor, P.B. Down-regulation of Leucaena leucocephala cinnamoyl CoA reductase (LlCCR) gene induces significant changes in phenotype, soluble phenolic pools and lignin in transgenic tobacco. Plant Cell Rep. 2011 , 30 , 2215–2231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chung, I.M.; Rekha, K.; Rajakumar, G.; Thiruvengadam, M. Production of glucosinolates, phenolic compounds and associated gene expression profiles of hairy root cultures in turnip ( Brassica rapa ssp. rapa). 3 Biotech 2016 , 6 , 175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tusevski, O.; Petreska Stanoeva, J.; Stefova, M.; Pavokovic, D.; Gadzovska Simic, S. Identification and quantification of phenolic compounds in Hypericum perforatum L. transgenic shoots. Acta Physiol. Plant 2014 , 36 , 2555–2569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Galis, I.; Kakiuchi, Y.; Simek, P.; Wabiko, H. Agrobacterium tumefaciens AK-6b gene modulates phenolic compound metabolism in tobacco. Phytochemistry 2004 , 65 , 169–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Landtag, J.; Baumert, A.; Degenkolb, T.; Schmidt, J.; Wray, V.; Scheel, D.; Strack, D.; Rosahl, S. Accumulation of tyrosol glucoside in transgenic potato plants expressing a parsley tyrosine decarboxylase. Phytochemistry 2002 , 60 , 683–689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, R.; Shi, M.; Deng, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Kai, G. Improved phenolic acid content and bioactivities of Salvia miltiorrhiza hairy roots by genetic manipulation of RAS and CYP98A. Food Chem. 2020 , 331 , 1273652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schnablova, T.; Synkova, H.; Vicankova, A.; Burketova, L.; Eder, J.; Cvikrova, M. Transgenic ipt tobacco over producing cytokinins over accumulates phenolic compounds during in vitro growth. Physiol. Bio Chem. 2006 , 44 , 526–534. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dilshad, E.; Cusido, R.M.; Estrada, K.R.; Bonfill, M.; Mirza, B. Genetic Transformation of Artemisia carvifolia Buch with rol Genes Enhances Artemisinin Accumulation. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0140266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Sahayarayan, J.; Udayakumar, R.; Arun, M.; Ganapathi, A.; Alwahibi, M.S.; Aldosari, N.S.; Morgan, A.M.A. Effect of different Agrobacterium rhizogenes strains for in-vitro hairy root induction, total phenolic, flavonoids contents, antibacterial and antioxidant activity of ( Cucumis anguria L.). Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020 , 27 , 2972–2979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, D.; Chen, F.; Dixon, R.A. Monolignol biosynthesis in microsomal preparations from lignifying stems of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.). Phytochemistry 2002 , 61 , 657–667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cha, T.S.; Chen, C.F.; Yee, W.; Aziz, A.; Loh, S.H. Cinnamic acid, coumarin and vanillin: Alternative phenolic compounds for efficient Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of the unicellular green alga, Nannochloropsis sp . J. Microbiol. Methods 2011 , 84 , 430–434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lorenc-Kukuła, K.; Amarowicz, R.; Oszmiański, J.; Doer_mann, P.; Starzycki, M.; Skała, J.; Zuk, M.; Kulma, A.; Szopa, J. Pleiotropic Effect of Phenolic Compounds Content Increases in Transgenic Flax Plant. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005 , 53 , 3685–3692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ayaz, M.; Ali, Q.; Farzand, A.; Khan, A.R.; Ling, H.; Gao, X. Nematicidal volatiles from bacillus atrophaeus gbsc56 promote growth and stimulate induced systemic resistance in tomato against meloidogyne incognita. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 , 22 , 5049. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, D.; Wan, D.; Cheng, C.; Ye, X.; Sun, M. Nematode-specific cadherin CDH-8 acts as a receptor for Cry5B toxin in Caenorhabditis elegans . Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018 , 102 , 3663–3673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stewart, C.N., Jr.; Adang, M.J.; All, J.N.; Raymer, P.L.; Ramachandran, S.; Parrott, W.A. Insect control and dosage effects in transgenic canola containing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cryIAc gene. Plant Physiol. 1996 , 112 , 115–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Singh, S.; Kumar, N.R.; Maniraj, R.; Lakshmikanth, R.; Rao, K.Y.S.; Muralimohan, N.; Arulprakash, T.; Karthik, K.; Shashibhushan, N.B.; Vinutha, T. Expression of Cry2Aa, a Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal protein in transgenic pigeon pea confers resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera . Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 8820. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Bríza, J.; Pavingerová, D.; Vlasák, J.; Niedermeierová, H. Norway spruce ( Picea abies ) genetic transformation with modified Cry3A gene of Bacillus thuringiensis . Acta Biochim. Pol. 2013 , 60 , 395–400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Heimlich, R.E.; Fernandez-Cornejo, J.F.; McBride, W.; Klotz-Ingram, C.; Jans, S.; Brooks, N. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Seed in US Agriculture: Implication for Pesticide Use ; sld001; USDA Publication: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Department of Agriculture. Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook August. 2000. Available online: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/aug2000/ao273f.pdf (accessed on 31 August 2000).
• Tohidfar, M.; Zare, N.; Jouzani, G.S.; Eftekhari, S.M. Agrobacterium mediated transformation of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) using a synthetic cry3a gene to enhance resistance against alfalfa weevil. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. (PCTOC) 2013 , 113 , 227–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alfonso-Rubí, J.; Ortego, F.; Castañera, P.; Carbonero, P.; Díaz, I. Transgenic expression of trypsin inhibitor CMe from barley in Indica and Japonica rice, confers resistance to the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae. Transgenic Res. 2003 , 12 , 2331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tougou, M.; Furutani, N.; Yamagishi, N.; Shizukawa, Y.; Takahata, Y.; Hidaka, S. Development of resistant transgenic soybeans with inverted repeat-coat protein genes of soybean dwarf virus. Plant Cell Rep. 2006 , 25 , 1213–1218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Franco, M.C.; Gomes, K.A.; de Carvalho Filho, M.M.; Ricardo Harakava, R.; Carels, N.; Siqueira, W.J.; Latado, R.R.; de Argollo Marques, D. Agrobacterium -mediated transformation of Jatropha curcas leaf explants with a fungal chitinase gene. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2016 , 15 , 2006–2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macrae, T.C.; Baur, M.E.; Boethel, D.J.; Fitzpatrick, B.J.; Gao, A.G.; Gamundi, J.C.; Harrison, L.A.; Kabuye, V.T.; Mcpherson, R.M.; Miklos, J.A.; et al. Laboratory and field evaluations of transgenic soybean exhibiting highdose expression of a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A gene for control of Lepidoptera. J. Econ. Entomol. 2005 , 98 , 577–587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tohidfar, M.; Ghareyazie, B.; Mosavi, M.; Yazdani, S.; Golabchian, R. Agrobacterium -mediated transformation of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) using a synthetic cry1Ab gene for enhanced resistance against Heliothis armigera . Iran. J. Biotechnol. 2008 , 6 , 164–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Papolu, P.K.; Dutta, T.K.; Tyagi, N.; Urwin, P.E.; Lilley, C.J.; Rao, U. Expression of a cystatin transgene in eggplant provides resistance to root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita. Front Plant. Sci. 2016 , 7 , 1122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhang, H.Y.; Liu, H.M.; Liu, X.Z. Production of transgenic kiwifruitplants harboring the SbtCry1Ac gene. Genet. Mol. Res. 2015 , 14 , 8483–8489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heydarian, Z.; Yu, M.; Gruber, M.; Glick, B.R.; Zhou, R.; Hegedus, D.D. Inoculation of soil with plant growth promoting bacteria producing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase or expression of the corresponding acdS gene in transgenic plants increases salinity tolerance in Camelina sativa . Front. Microbiol. 2016 , 7 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, L.; Gao, J.; Qin, X.; Shi, X.; Luo, L.; Zhang, G.; Yu, H.; Li, C.; Hu, M.; Liu, Q.; et al. JcCBF2 gene from Jatropha curcas improves freezing tolerance of Arabidopsis thaliana during the early stage of stress. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2015 , 42 , 937–945. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Park, W.; Feng, Y.; Ahn, S.J. Alteration of leaf shape, improved metal tolerance, and productivity of seed by overexpression of CsHMA3 in Camelina sativa . Biotechnol. Biofuels 2014 , 7 , 96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Losada, O.A.; Fonseca, C.A.G. Alimentos transgenicosy alergenicidad. Rev. Fac. Med. 2007 , 55 , 251–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodo, H.W.; Konan, N.K.; Chen, F.C.; Egnin, M.; Viquez, O.M. Alleviating peanut allergy using genetic engineering: The silencing of the immunodominant allergen Ara h 2 leads to its significant reduction and a decrease in peanut allergenicity. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2008 , 6 , 135–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, L.Q.; Mahler, V.; Lorenz, Y.; Scheurer, S.; Biemelt, S.; Vieths, S.; Sonnewald, U. Reduced allergenicity of tomato fruits harvested from Lyc e 1-silenced transgenic tomato plants. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2006 , 118 , 1176–1183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gilissen, L.J.; Bolhaar, S.T.; Matos, C.I.; Rouwendal, G.J.; Boone, M.J.; Krens, F.A.; Zuidmeer, L.; Van Leeuwen, A.; Akkerdaas, J.; Hoffmann-Sommergruber, K.; et al. Silencing the major apple allergen Mal d 1 by using the RNA interference approach. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2005 , 115 , 364–369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herman, E.M.; Helm, R.M.; Jung, R.; Kinney, A.J. Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean. Plant Physiol. 2003 , 132 , 36–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bhalla, P.L.; Swoboda, I.; Singh, M.B. Reduction in allergenicity of grass pollen by genetic engineering. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 2001 , 124 , 51–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garbisu, C.; Hernandez, A.J.; Barrutia, O.; Alkorta, I.; Becerril, J.M. Phytoremediation: A technology using green plants to remove contaminants from polluted areas. Rev. Environ. Health 2002 , 17 , 173–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, L.; Ma, Y.; Wang, H.; Huang, W.; Wang, X.; Han, L.; Sun, W.; Han, E.; Wang, B. Overexpression of PtABCC1 contributes to mercury tolerance and accumulation in Arabidopsis and poplar. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018 , 497 , 997–1002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pilon-Smits, E. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2005 , 56 , 15–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gisbert, C.; Ros, R.; Haro, A.D.; Walker, D.J.; Bernal, M.P.; Serrano, R.; Avino, J.N. A plant genetically modified that accumulates Pb is especially promising for phytoremediation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2003 , 303 , 440–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, Y.; Dhankher, O.P.; Carreira, L.; Lee, D.; Chen, A.; Schroeder, J.I.; Balish, R.S.; Meagher, R.B. Overexpression of phytochelatin synthase in Arabidopsis leads to enhanced arsenic tolerance and cadmium hypersensitivity. Plant Cell Physiol. 2004 , 45 , 1787–1797. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Moreno, F.N.; Anderson, C.W.; Stewart, R.B.; Robinson, B.H. Mercury volatilisation and phytoextraction from base-metal mine tailings. Environ. Pollut. 2005 , 136 , 341–352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bizily, S.P.; Rugh, C.L.; Meagher, R.B. Phytodetoxification of hazardous organomercurials by genetically engineered plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000 , 18 , 213–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Huysen, T.; Abdel-Ghany, S.; Hale, K.L.; LeDuc, D.; Terry, N.; Pilon-Smits, E.A. Overexpression of cystathionine-gamma- synthase enhances selenium volatilization in Brassica juncea . Planta 2003 , 218 , 71–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolfe, N.L.; Hoehamer, C.F. Enzymes used by plants and microorganisms to detoxify organic compounds. In Phytore-Mediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants ; McCutcheon, S.C., Schnoor, J.L., Eds.; New Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 159–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins, C.; Laturnus, F.; Nepovim, A. Remediation of BTEX and trichloroethene. Current knowledge with special emphasis on phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2002 , 9 , 86–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gullner, G.; Komives, T.; Rennenberg, H. Enhanced tolerance of transgenic poplar plants overexpressing g-glutamylcysteine synthetase towards chloroacetanilide herbicides. J. Exp. Bot. 2001 , 52 , 971–979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flocco, C.G.; Lindblom, S.D.; Smits, E.A. Overexpression of enzymes involved in glutathione synthesis enhances tolerance to organic pollutants in Brassica juncea . Int. J. Phytochem. 2004 , 6 , 289–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Migocka, M.; Papierniak, A.; Kosieradzka, A.; Posyniak, E.; Maciaszczyk-Dziubinska, E.; Biskup, R.; Garbiec, A.; Marchewka, T. Cucumber metal tolerance protein CsMTP9 is a plasma membrane H1-coupled antiporter involved in the Mn21 and Cd21 efflux from root cells. Plant J. 2015 , 84 , 10451058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Das, N.; Bhattacharya, S.; Maiti, M.K. Enhanced cadmium accumulation and tolerance in transgenic tobacco overexpressing rice metal tolerance protein gene OsMTP1 is promising for phytoremediation. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 2016 , 105 , 297309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, J.; Chen, Z.; Wu, S.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, L.; Dong, H. Overexpression of the Tamarix hispida ThMT3 gene increases copper tolerance and adventitious root induction in Salix matsudana Koidz. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. (PCTOC) 2015 , 121 , 469479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zanella, L.; Fattorini, L.; Brunetti, P.; Roccotiello, E.; Cornara, L.; D’Angeli, S.; Della Rovere, F.; Cardarelli, M.; Barbieri, M.; Sanità di Toppi, L. Overexpression of AtPCS1 in tobacco increases arsenic and arsenic plus cadmium accumulation and detoxification. Planta 2016 , 243 , 605622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ai, T.N.; Naing, A.H.; Yun, B.W.; Kim, C.K. Overexpression of RsMYB1 enhances heavy metal stress tolerance in transgenic petunia by elevating the transcript levels of stress tolerant and antioxidant genes. bioRxiv 2018 , 3028 , 286849. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, J.; Yang, L.; Yan, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, R.; Fan, T.; Ren, Y.; Tang, X.; Xiao, F.; Liu, Y.; et al. Zinc-finger transcription factor ZAT6 positively regulates cadmium tolerance through glutathionedependent pathway in Arabidopsis . Plant Physiol. 2016 , 171 , 01882.2015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, D.; An, Z.; Mao, Z.; Ma, L.; Lu, Z. Enhanced heavy metal tolerance and accumulation by transgenic sugar beets expressing Streptococcus thermophilus StGCSGS in the presence of Cd, Zn and Cu alone or in combination. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0128824. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, J.W.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.X.; Chai, T.Y. Molecular cloning and characterization of a Brassica juncea yellow stripe-like gene, BjYSL7, whose overexpression increases heavy metal tolerance of tobacco. Plant Cell Rep. 2013 , 32 , 651662. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brunetti, P.; Zanella, L.; Paolis, A.D.; Litta, D.D.; Cecchetti, V.; Falasca, G.; Barbieri, M.; Altamura, M.M.; Costantino, P.; Cardarelli, M. Cadmium-inducible expression of the ABC-type transporter AtABCC3 increases phytochelatin-mediated cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis . J. Exp. Bot. 2015 , 66 , 38153829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Meng, J.G.; Zhang, X.D.; Tan, S.K.; Yang, Z.M. Genome-wide identification of Cd-responsive NRAMP transporter genes and analyzing expression of NRAMP 1 mediated by miR167 in Brassica napus . Biometals 2017 , 30 , 917931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banuelos, G.; Terry, N.; LeDuc, D.L.; Pilon-Smits, E.A.; Mackey, B. Field trial of transgenic Indian mustard plants shows enhanced phytoremediation of selenium-contaminated sediment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005 , 39 , 1771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dominguez-Solis, J.R.; Lopez-Martin, M.C.; Ager, F.J.; Ynsa, M.D.; Romero, L.C.; Gotor, C. Increased cysteine availability is essential for cadmium tolerance and accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Biotechnol. J. 2004 , 2 , 469–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Bai, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, R.; Wang, J.; Le, S.; Zhao, Y. Overexpression of Three Duplicated BnPCS Genes Enhanced Cd Accumulation and Translocation in Arabidopsis thaliana Mutant cad1 . Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019 , 102 , 146–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nehnevajova, E.; Mireddy, E.; Stolz, A.; Gerdemann-Knörck, M.; Novák, O.; Strnad, M.; Schmülling, T. Root enhancement in cytokinin-deficient oilseed rape causes leaf mineral enrichment, increases the chlorophyll concentration under nutrient limitation and enhances the phytoremediation capacity. BMC Plant Biol. 2019 , 19 , 83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yoshida, T.; Kimura, E.; Koike, S.; Nojima, J.; Futai, E.; Sasagawa, N.; Watanabe, Y.; Ishiura, S. Transgenic rice expressing amyloid βpeptide for oral immunization. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2011 , 7 , 301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rybicki, E.P. Plant-made vaccines for humans and animals. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2010 , 8 , 620–637. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xu, J.; Ge, X.; Dolan, M.C. Towards high-yield production of pharmaceutical proteins with plant cell suspension cultures. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011 , 29 , 278–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sala, F.; Rigano, M.M.; Barbante, A.; Basso, B.; Walmsley, A.M.; Castiglione, S. Vaccine antigen production in transgenic plants: Strategies, gene constructs and perspectives. Vaccine 2003 , 21 , 803–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daniell, H.; Kumar, S.; Dufourmantel, N. Breakthrough in chloroplast genetic engineering of agronomically important crops. Trend. Biotechnol. 2005 , 23 , 238–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Scotti, N.; Rigano, M.M.; Cardi, T. Production of foreign proteins using plastid transformation. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012 , 30 , 387–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marsian, J.; Fox, H.; Bahar, M.W.; Kotecha, A.; Fry, E.E.; Stuart, D.I.; Macadam, A.J.; Rowlands, D.J.; Lomonossoff, G.P. Plant-made polio type 3 stabilized VLPs—A candidate synthetic polio vaccine. Nat. Commun. 2017 , 8 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Richter, L.J.; Thanavala, Y.; Arntzen, C.J.; Mason, H.S. Production of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic plants for oral immunization. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000 , 18 , 1796–1799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yusibov, V.; Hooper, D.C.; Spitsin, S.V.; Fleyish, N.; Kean, R.B.; Mikheeva, T.; Deka, D.; Karasev, A.; Cox, S.; Randall, J.; et al. Expression in plants and immunogenecity of plant virus based experimental rabies vaccine. Vaccine 2002 , 20 , 3155–3164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tacket, C.O. Plant-based vaccines against diarrheal diseases. Trans. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 2007 , 118 , 79–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason, H.S.; Warzecha, H.; Tsafir, M.S.; Arntzen, C.J. Edible plant vaccines: Applications for prophylactic and therapeutic molecular medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 2002 , 8 , 324–329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Makarkov, A.I.; Chierzi, S.; Pillet, S.; Murai, K.K.; Landry, N.; Ward, B.J. Plant-made virus-like particles bearing influenza hemagglutinin (HA) recapitulate early interactions of native influenza virions with human monocytes/macrophages. Vaccine 2017 , 35 , 4629–4636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abha, K.; Shaila, M.S.; Lakshmi, S.G. Transgenic plants as a source of “edible vaccines” for two morililiviral animal diseases. In Proceedings of the Abstracts of 10th IAPTC&B Congress 72-A, Orlando, FL, USA, 23–28 June 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dennis, S.J.; O’Kennedy, M.M.; Rutkowska, D.; Tsekoa, T.; Lourens, C.W.; Hitzeroth, I.I.; Meyers, A.E.; Rybicki, E.P. Safety and immunogenicity of plant-produced African horse sickness virus-like particles in horses. Vet. Res. 2018 , 49 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yusibov, V.; Streatfield, S.J.; Kushnir, N. Clinical development of plant-produced recombinant pharmaceuticals: Vaccines, antibodies and beyond. Hum. Vaccin. 2011 , 7 , 313–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Watson, J.; Koya, V.; Leppla, S.H.; Daniell, H. Expression of Bacillus anthracis protective antigen in transgenic chloroplasts of tobacco, a non-food/feed crop. Vaccine 2004 , 22 , 4374–4384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lamphear, B.J.; Jilka, J.M.; Kesl, L.; Welter, M.; Howard, J.A.; Streatfield, S.J. A corn-based delivery system for animal vaccines: An oral transmissible gastroenteritis virus vaccine boosts lactogenic immunity in swine. Vaccine 2004 , 22 , 2420–2424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, T.G.; Gruber, A.; Langridge, W.H.R. HIV-1 gp120 V3 cholera toxin B subunit fusion gene expression in transgenic potato. Protein Expres. Purif. 2004 , 37 , 196–202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Maloney, B.J.; Takeda, N.; Suzaki, Y.; Ami, Y.; Li, T.C.; Miyamura, T.; Arntzen, C.J.; Mason, H.S. Challenges in creating a vaccine to prevent hepatitis E. Vaccine 2005 , 23 , 1870–1874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gressel, J. Transgenics are imperative for biofuel crops. Plant Sci. 2008 , 174 , 246–263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, A.M. Prospects for increasing starch and sucrose yields for bioethanol production. Plant J. 2008 , 54 , 546–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vanden Wymelenberg, A.; Sabat, G.; Mozuch, M.; Kersten, P.J.; Cullen, D.; Blanchette, R.A. Structure, organization, and transcriptional regulation of a family of copper radical oxidase genes in the lignin-degrading basidiomycete Phanerochaete chrysosporium . Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006 , 72 , 4871–4877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.; Zhou, Y.; Cheng, X.; Sun, J.; Marita, J.; Ralph, J.; Chiang, V. Combinatorial modification of multiple lignin traits in trees through multigene co-transformation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003 , 100 , 4939–4944. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Myers, A.M.; Morell, M.K.; James, M.G.; Ball, S.G. Recent progress toward understanding the biosynthesis of the amylopectin crystal. Plant Physiol. 2000 , 122 , 989–998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ralph, J.; Akiyama, T.; Kim, H.; Lu, F.; Schatz, P.F.; Marita, J.M.; Ralph, S.A.; Reddy, M.S.S.; Chen, F.; Dixon, R.A. Effects of coumarate 3-hydroxylase down-regulation on lignin structure. J. Biol. Chem. 2006 , 281 , 8843–8853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chabannes, M.; Barakate, A.; Capierre, C.; Marita, J.M.; Ralph, J.; Peem, M.; Danoun, S.; Halpin, C.; Grima-Pettenati, J.; Boudet, A.M. Strong decrease in lignin content without significant alteration of plant development is induced by simultaneous down-regulation of cinnamoyl CoA reductase (CCR) and cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase (CAD) in tobacco plants. Plant J. 2001 , 28 , 257–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blaschke, L.; Legrand, M.; Mai, C.; Polle, A. Lignification and structural biomass production in tobacco with suppressed caffeic/5-hydroxy ferulic acid-O-methyl transferase activity under ambient and elevated CO 2 concentrations. Physiol. Plant 2004 , 121 , 75–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lardizabal, K.; Effertz, R.; Levering, C.; Mai, J.; Pedroso, M.; Jury, T.; Aasen, E.; Gruys, K.; Bennett, K. Expression of Umbelopsis ramanniana DGAT2A in seed increases oil in soybean. Plant Physiol. 2008 , 148 , 9–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Wiberg, E.; Edwards, P.; Byrne, J.; Stymne, S.; Dehesh, K. The distribution of caprylate, caprate and laurate in lipids from developing and mature seeds of transgenic Brassica napus L. Planta 2000 , 212 , 33–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Camp, W. Yield enhancement genes: Seeds for growth. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005 , 16 , 147–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jing, Z.P.; Gallardo, F.; Pascual, M.B.; Sampalo, R.; Romero, J.; Torres de Navarra, A.; Ca´novas, F.M. Improved growth in a field trial of transgenic hybrid poplar overexpressing glutamine synthetase. New Phytol. 2004 , 164 , 137–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammond, B.; Dudek, R.; Lemen, L.; Nemeth, M. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 , 42 , 1003–1014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schroder, M.; Poulsen, M.; Wilcks, A.; Kroghsbo, S.; Miller, A.; Frenzel, T.; Danier, J.; Rychlik, M.; Emami, K.; Gatehouse, A. A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein ( Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2007 , 45 , 339–349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Setamou, M.; Berna, J.S.; Legaspi, J.C.; Mirkov, T.E. Parasitism and location of sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by Cotesia flavipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on transgenic and conventional sugarcane. Environ. Entomol. 2002 , 31 , 1219–1225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Moellenbeck, D.J.; Peters, M.L.; Bing, J.W.; Rouse, J.R.; Higgins, L.S.; Sims, L.; Nevshemal, T.; Marshall, L.; Ellis, R.T. Insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis protect corn from corn rootworms. Nat. Biotechnol. 2001 , 19 , 668–672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, L.; Zhou, K.; Liu, Y.; Yang, S.; Zhang, J.; Gong, X.; Ma, F. Overexpression of MdMIPS1 enhances salt tolerance by improving osmosis, ion balance, and antioxidant activity in transgenic apple. Plant Sci. 2020 , 301 , 110654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prakash, D.; Verma, S.; Bhatia, R.; Tiwary, B.N. Risks and Precautions of Genetically Modified Organisms. ISRN Ecol. 2011 , 2011 , 369573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Deepa, A. Genetically Modified Foods: Benefits and Risks ; Massachusetts Medical Society: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelletier, D.L. Science, law, and politics in FDA’s genetically engineered foods policy: Scientific concerns and uncertainties. Nutr. Rev. 2005 , 63 , 210–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• USDA. Biotechnology Frequently Asked Questions ; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
• Yul, R.J.; Choi, J.Y.; Li, M.S.; Jin, B.R.; Je, Y.H. Bacillus thuringiensis as a Specific, Safe, and Effective Tool for Insect Pest Control. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007 , 17 , 547–559. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall, J.; Matos, M.; Langford, C.H. Social exclusion and transgenic technology: The case of Brazilian agriculture. J. Bus. Ethics. 2008 , 77 , 45–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hilbeck, A.; Baumgartner, M.; Fried, P.M.; Bigler, F. Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mor- tality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ. Entomol. 1998 , 27 , 480–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arnaud, J.F.; Viard, F.; Delescluse, M.; Cuguen, J. Evidence for gene flow via seed dispersal from crop to wild relatives in Beta vulgaris (Chenopodiaceae): Consequences for the release of genetically modified crop species with weedy lineages. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2003 , 270 , 1565–1575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ellstrand, N.C.; Scierenbeck, K.A. Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000 , 97 , 7043–7050. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gressel, J. Molecular biology of weed control. Transgenic Res. 2000 , 9 , 355–382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ricroch, A.E.; Berge, J.E.; Kuntz, M. Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiol. 2011 , 155 , 1752–1761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Keese, P. Risks from GMOs due to Horizontal Gene Transfer. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 2008 , 7 , 123–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dutton, A.; Klein, H.; Romeis, J.; Bigler, F. Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea . Ecol. Entomol. 2002 , 27 , 441–447. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tudisco, R.; Lombardi, P.; Bovera, F.; Cutrignelli, M.I.; Mastellone, V.; Terzi, V.; Avallone, L.; Infascelli, F. Genetically Modified Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2006 , 82 , 193–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Romeis, J.; Dutton Bigler, F. Bacillus thuringiences toxin (Cry 1 Ab) has no direct on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. Insect. Physiol. 2004 , 50 , 175–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bob, B.M.W.; Candolin, U. Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav. Ecol. 2015 , 26 , 665–673. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chekol, C. The Health Effects of Genetically Modified Foods: A Brief Review. Int. J. Nutr. Sci. 2021 , 6 , 1047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paparini, A.; Romano-Spica, V. Public health issues related with the consumption of food obtained from genetically modified organisms. Biotechnol. Annu. Rev. 2004 , 10 , 85–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Alexandrova, N.; Georgieva, K.; Atanassov, A. Biosafety regulations of GMOs: National and International aspects and regional cooperation. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2005 , 19 , 153–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Vendômois, J.S.; Roullier, F.; Cellier, D.; Séralini, G.E. A Comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2009 , 5 , 706–726. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wozniak, E.; Tyczewska, A.; Twardowski, T. Bioeconomy development factors in the European Union and Poland. New Biotechnol. 2021 , 60 , 2–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cribbs, A.P.; Perera, S.M. Focus: Genome editing: Science and bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing: An analysis towards separating facts and fiction. Yale J. Biol. Med. 2017 , 90 , 625. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vibha Ahuja Regulation of emerging gene technologies in India. BMC Proc. 2018 , 12 , 14.
• MoEFCC; DBT. Guidelines, User’s Guide and Risk Analysis Framework. In Environmental Risk Assessment of GE Plants ; MoEFCC: New Delhi, India, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• MoEFCC; BCIL. Frequently Asked Questions About GE Plants. In Phase II Capacity Building Project on Biosafety ; MoEFCC: New Delhi, India, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishii, T.; Araki, M. A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops. GM Crop. Food 2017 , 8 , 44–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rosado, A.; Craig, W. Biosafety regulatory systems overseeing the use of genetically modified organisms in the latin america and caribbean region. AgBioForum 2017 , 20 , 120–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Global Agriculture. Venezuela passes new seed law banning genetically modified crops. 2016. Available online: https://www.globalagriculture.org/whatsnew/news/en/31519.html. (accessed on 11 January 2023).
• APBREBES. The New Seed Law of Venezuela ; APBREBES: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gatica-Arias, A. The regulatory current status of plant breeding technologies in some Latin American and the Caribbean countries. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2020 , 141 , 229–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, P.; Katovich, E. Are GMO policies “trade related”? Empirical analysis of Latin America. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2017 , 39 , 286–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ISAAA. Brief 55–2019. Executive Summary, Biotech Crops Drive Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Development in the New Frontier ; ISAAA: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turnbull, C.; Lillemo, M.; Hvoslef-Eide, T. Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom—A review. Front. Plant Sci. Plant Biotechnol. 2021 , 12 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zarrilli, S. International trade in gmos and gm products: National and multilateral legal frameworks. In Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series no. 29 ; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosado, A.; Eriksson, D. Biosafety legislation and the regulatory status of the products of precision breeding in the Latin America and the Caribbean region. Plants People Planet 2021 , 4 , 214–231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akaakohol, M.A.; Aye, G.C. Diversification and farm household welfare in Makurdi, Benue state, Nigeria. Dev. Stud. Res. 2014 , 1 , 168–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ASSAf (Academies of Science of South Africa). GMOs for African agriculture: Challenges and opportunities. Workshop Proceedings Report. ASSAf: 2010. Available online: www.assaf.org.za (accessed on 11 January 2023).
• EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J. 2010 , 8 , 1879. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bawa, A.S.; Anilakumar, K.R. Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns-a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013 , 50 , 1035–1046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tung, O.J.L. A comparative analysis of the South African and burkinabe experiences with genetically modified crop regulation. In Verfassung und Recht in Übersee/Law and Politics in Africa, Asia, Latin America ; Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2017; pp. 3–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, K.; Nielsen, C. Golden Rice and The Looming Gmo Trade Debate: Implications for the Poor ; CEPR. Discussion Papers 4195; CEPR: London, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deffor, E.W. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in the greater accra region of Ghana. J. Biosaf. Health Educ. 2014 , 2 , 116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Newell-McGloughlin, M.; Burke, J. Biotechnology crop adoption: Potential and challenges of genetically improved crops. Encycl. Agric. Food Syst. 2014 , 2014 , 69–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akinbo, O.; Obukosia, S.; Ouedraogo, J.; Sinebo, W.; Savadogo, M.; Timpo, S.; Mbabazi, R.; Maredia, K.; Diran Makinde, D.; Ambali, A. Commercial release of genetically modified crops in Africa: Interface between biosafety regulatory systems and varietal release systems. Front. Plant Sci. 2021 , 12 , 605937. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cooke, J.G.; Downie, R. African Perspectives on Genetically Modified Crops: Assessing the Debate in Zambia, Kenya and South Africa. A Report of the Csis Global Food Security Project ; Centre for Strategic & International Studies: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialised Biotech/GM Crops in ISAAA Brief Ithaca ; ISAAA: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• ABNE. African biosafety network of expertise (ABNE) african union development agency NEPAD (AUDA-NEPAD) ; ABNE: Midrand, South Africa, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2018: Executive Brief ; ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimenju, S.C.; De Groote, H.; Karugia, J.; Mbogoh, S.; Poland, D. Consumer awareness and attitudes toward GM foods in Kenya. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2005 , 4 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyinondi, P.S.; Dulle, F.W.; Nawe, J. Perception of agricultural biotechnology among farmers. Journalists and Scientists in Tanzania. Univ. Dares Salaam Libr. J. 2017 , 12 , 106–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialised Biotech/Gm Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years ; ISAAA Brief: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 53, pp. 25–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialised Biotech/GM Crops in ISAAA Brief no. 54 ; ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aerni, P. Stakeholder attitudes towards the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops in South Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy 2005 , 8 , 464–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aerni, P.; Bernauer, T. Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issue of public trust. World Dev. 2006 , 34 , 557–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marques, M.D.; Critchley, C.R.; Walshe, J. Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust is, and the media cycle predict support. Public Underst. Sci. 2015 , 24 , 601–618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rock, J.; Schurman, R. The complex choreography of agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Afr. Affairs 2020 , 119 , 499–525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MOA (Ministry of Agriculture). Measures of Labelling Administration of Agricultural GMO–Decree 10 (in Chinese), 2002. Available online: http://www.moa.gov.cn/fwllm/zxbs/xzxk/bszl/201405/t20140527_3917464.htm (accessed on 11 January 2023).
• MOA (Ministry of Agriculture of China). Guideline for Safety Inspection of Field Trials of GM Crops, 2012. Available online: http://www.moa.gov.cn/zwllm/zcfg/qtbmgz/200606/t20060612_627852.htm (accessed on 22 August 2015).
• Xiao, Z.; Kerr, W.A. Biotechnology in China–regulation, investment, and delayed commercialization. GM CROPS FOOD 2022 , 13 , 86–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Loppacher, L.J.; Kerr, W.A. Biotechnology in China: Food policy and international trade issues. In Food Policy Control and Research ; Riley, A.P., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, H.Y.; Kim, J.H.; Mi-Hwa Oh, M.H. Regulation and detection methods for genetically modified foods in Korea. Pure Appl. Chem. 2010 , 82 , 129–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010 , 327 , 812–818. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• ILSI. Nutritional and Safety Assessments of Foods And Feeds Nutritionally Improved through Biotechnology: Case Studies. Available online: http://www.ilsi.org/foodbiotech/publications/10_ilsi2008_casestudies_crfsfs.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
• Shahzadi, F.; Malik, M.F.; Ali, R. Genetically Modified Food Controversies: A Review. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2015 , 6 , 2072–2089. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vos, C.J.; Swanenburg, M. Health effects of feeding genetically modified (GM) crops to livestock animals: A review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018 , 117 , 3–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Clark, J.H.; Ipharraguerre, I.R. Livestock performance: Feeding biotech crops. J. Dairy Sci. 2001 , 1 , E9–E18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rizzi, A.; Raddadi, N.; Sorlini, C.; Nordgrd, L.; Nielsen, K.M.; Daffonchio, D. The stability and degradation of dietary DNA in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals: Implications for horizontal gene transfer and the biosafety of GMOs. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012 , 52 , 142–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nielsen, K.M.; Bones, A.M.; Smalla, K.; van Elsas, J.D. Horizontal gene transfer from transgenic plants to terrestrial bacteria − a rare event? FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 1998 , 22 , 79–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Breckling, B.; Reuter, H.; Middelhoff, U.; Glemnitz, M.; Wurbs, A.; Schmidt, G.; Windhorst, W. Risk indication of genetically modified organisms (GMO): Modelling environmental exposure and dispersal across different scales: Oilseed rape in Northern Germany as an integrated case study. Ecol. Indic. 2011 , 11 , 936–941. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beckwith, M.; Hadlock, T.; Suffron, H. Public perceptions of plant biotechnology—A focus group study. New Genet Soc. 2003 , 22 , 93–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lundquist, K.A. Unapproved genetically modified corn: It’s what’s for dinner. Iowa Law Rev. 2015 , 100 , 825–851. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikkelsen, T.R.; Andersen, B.; Jorgensen, R.B. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 1996 , 380 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Snow, A.A. Illegal gene flow from transgenic creeping bentgrass: The saga continues. Mol. Ecol. 2012 , 21 , 4663–4664. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pineyro-Nelson, A.; Van Heerwaarden, J.; Perales, H.; Serratos-Hernández, J.A.; Rangel, A.; Hufford, M.B.; Gepts, P.; Garay-Arroyo, A.; Rivera-Bustamante, R.; Alvarez-Buylla, E.R. Resolution of the Mexican transgene detection controversy: Error sources and scientific practice in commercial and ecological contexts. Mol. Ecol. 2009 , 18 , 4145–4150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wegier, A.; Pineyro-Nelson, A.; Alarcon, J.; Galvez-Mariscal, A.; Varez-Buylla, E.R.; Pinero, D. Recent long-distance transgene flow into wild populations conforms to historical patterns of gene flow in cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) at its centre of origin. Mol. Ecol. 2011 , 20 , 4182–4194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Acevedo, F.; Huerta., E.; Burgeff, C.; Koleff, P.; Sarukhan, J. Is transgenic maize what Mexico really needs? Nat. Biotechnol. 2011 , 29 , 23–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Samuels, J. Transgene flow from Bt brinjal: A real risk? Trends Biotechnol 2013 , 31 , 332–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: Household income, nutrition, and health. New Biotechnol. 2010 , 27 , 552–557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fraser, L. The terminator. Altern. J. 2006 , 32 , 24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maghari, M.B.; Ardekani, M.A. Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns. Avicenna J. Med. Biotech. 2011 , 3 , 109–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tironi, M.; Salazar, M.; Valenzuela, D. Resisting and accepting: Farmers’ hybrid epistemologies in the GMO controversy in Chile. Technol. Soc. 2013 , 35 , 93–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kangmennaanga, J.; Oseia, L.; Frederick, A.; Armah, F.A. Genetically modified organisms and the age of (Un) reason? A critical examination of the rhetoric in the GMO public policy debates in Ghana. Futures 2016 , 83 , 37–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soleri, D.; Cleveland, D.; Cuevas, F. Transgenic crops and crop varietal diversity: The case of maize in Mexico. BioScience 2006 , 56 , 503–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rzymski, P.; Królczyk, A. Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: To GMO or not to GMO? Food Sec. 2016 , 8 , 689–697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Liu, L.; Cao, C. Who owns the intellectual property rights to Chinese genetically modified rice? Evidence from patent portfolio analysis. Biotechnol. Law Rep. 2014 , 33 , 181–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wong, A.Y.T.; Chan, A.W.K. Genetically modified foods in China and the United States: A primer of regulation and intellectual property protect. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2016 , 5 , 124–140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rodriguez-Ferrand, G. Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms, The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center. 2014. Available online: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/ (accessed on 11 January 2023).
• Cui, K.; Shoemaker, S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. Npj Sci. Food. 2018 , 2 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ghimire, B.K.; Yu, C.Y.; Kim, W.-R.; Moon, H.-S.; Lee, J.; Kim, S.H.; Chung, I.M. Assessment of Benefits and Risk of Genetically Modified Plants and Products: Current Controversies and Perspective. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 1722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021722

Ghimire BK, Yu CY, Kim W-R, Moon H-S, Lee J, Kim SH, Chung IM. Assessment of Benefits and Risk of Genetically Modified Plants and Products: Current Controversies and Perspective. Sustainability . 2023; 15(2):1722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021722

Ghimire, Bimal Kumar, Chang Yeon Yu, Won-Ryeol Kim, Hee-Sung Moon, Joohyun Lee, Seung Hyun Kim, and Ill Min Chung. 2023. "Assessment of Benefits and Risk of Genetically Modified Plants and Products: Current Controversies and Perspective" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 1722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021722

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advertisement

Tracing scientific and technological development in genetically modified crops

• Published: 18 September 2024

Cite this article

• Anurag Kanaujia 1 , 2 &
• Solanki Gupta 1 , 3  

Genetically Modified (GM) Organisms have been used in various domains since their introduction in the 1980s. According to ISAAA data, the use of GM crops in agriculture has also increased significantly in the past 30 years. However, even after 3 decades of commercialisation, GM crops are still surrounded with controversies with different countries adopting varying approaches to their introduction in the consumer markets, owing to different stances of various stakeholders. Motivated by this multitude of opinions, and absence of knowledge mapping, this study has undertaken scientometric analysis of the publication (Web of Science) and patent (Lens.org) data about genetically modified technology use in agriculture to explore the changing knowledge patterns and technological advancements in the area. It explores both scientific and technological perspectives regarding the use of Genetically Modified Crops, by using publication as well as patent data. The findings of this study highlight the major domains of research, technology development, and leading actors in the ecosystem. These findings can be helpful in taking effective policy decisions, and furthering the research activities. It presents a composite picture using both publications and patent data. Further, it will be of utility to explore the other technologies which are replacing GM technology in agriculture in future studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271897/leading-countries-by-acreage-of-genetically-modified-crops/

https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/developerlist/default.asp

https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

https://www.dutchgreenhouses.com/en/technology/hydroponics/

https://www.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-agricultural-production-systems/hydroponics

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/news-agriculture-and-agri-food-canada/scientific-achievements-agriculture/what-hydroponics

https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmos-are-regulated-united-states

https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-Core-Collection-Web-of-Science-Categories?language=en_US

https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/bayer-closes-monsanto-acquisition/

Ahmad A, Jamil A, Munawar N (2023) GMOs or Non-GMOs? The CRISPR conundrum. Front Plant Sci 14:1232938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1232938

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arntzen CJ, Coghlan A, Johnson B, Peacock J, Rodemeyer M (2003) GM crops: science, politics and communication. Nat Rev Genet 4(10):839–843. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1185

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baudoin W, Nersisyan A, Shamilov A, Hodder A, Gutierrez D, De Pascale S, Qaryouti M (2013) Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops. Food Agric Organ U N 217:1–449

Google Scholar  

Brookes G (2022a) Genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2020: impacts on carbon emissions. GM Crops Food 13(1):242–261

Brookes G (2022b) Genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2020: environmental impacts associated with pesticide use change. GM Crops Food 13(1):262–289

Campanario JM (2011) Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window. Scientometrics 87(1):189–204

Article   Google Scholar  

Carpenter JE (2011) Impact of GM crops on biodiversity. GM Crops 2(1):7–23

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen C (2017) Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J Data Inf Sci 2(2):1–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 62(7):1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment: part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J 33(1):19–46

Elisabetta R, Gabriele M, Massimo S, Sofia B, Giuseppe SM (2018) Structural trend and conceptual evolution of research on genetically modified organisms using a science mapping approach. J Clean Prod 205:329–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.118

FAO F (2018) The future of food and agriculture—alternative pathways to 2050. Food Agric Organ U N Rome 224:1–202

Fischer K, Ekener-Petersen E, Rydhmer L, Edvardsson Björnberg K (2015) Social impacts of GM crops in agriculture: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 7(7):8598–8620

Gazni A (2020) The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: changes in the world, nations, and fields. Technol Soc 62:101276

Gerasimova K (2016) Debates on genetically modified crops in the context of sustainable development. Sci Eng Ethics 22:525–547

Gilbert N (2013) Case studies: a hard look at GM crops. Nature 497:24–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/497024a

Gonzalvo CM, Aala WJF, Maharjan KL (2022) Is implementing a biotech ban correct or not? Analysis of farmer perceptions and attitudes on the philippine supreme court’s ban on biotech crops. Sustainability 14(13):7919

Gupta S, Kanaujia A, Lathabai HH, Singh VK, Mayr P (2024) Patterns in the growth and thematic evolution of Artificial Intelligence research: a study using Bradford distribution of productivity and path analysis. Int J Intell Syst 2024(1):5511224

Herring RJ (2014) On risk and regulation: Bt crops in India. GM Crops Food 5(3):204–209

Hood WW, Wilson CS (2001) The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 52:291–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017919924342

Hosseini MR, Martek I, Zavadskas EK, Aibinu AA, Arashpour M, Chileshe N (2018) Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: s scientometric analysis. Autom Constr 87:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.002

Jayaraman K (2003) India debates results of its first transgenic cotton crop. Nature 421:681. https://doi.org/10.1038/421681a

Ji J, Barnett GA, Chu J (2019) Global networks of genetically modified crops technology: a patent citation network analysis. Scientometrics 118(3):737–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03006-1

Jones MG, Fosu-Nyarko J, Iqbal S, Adeel M, Romero-Aldemita R, Arujanan M, Khoo K (2022) Enabling trade in gene-edited produce in Asia and Australasia: the developing regulatory landscape and future perspectives. Plants 11(19):2538

Kanaujia A, Bhattacharya S (2018) The GM crop debate in India: stakeholders’ interests, perceptions, trust and public policy. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 20(1/2):27–45

Kanaujia A, Bhattacharya S (2021) Genetically modified crops and Indian agriculture: issues relating to governance and regulation. Indian agriculture under the shadows of WTO and FTAs: issues and concerns. Springer, Singapore, pp 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6854-5_11

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9(11):e111629

Liu Y (2016) Bibliometric review of international research on insect-resistant transgenic Bt rice. Chin J Appl Entomol 53(3):648–659

Lobato-Gómez M, Hewitt S, Capell T, Christou P, Dhingra A, Girón-Calva PS (2021) Transgenic and genome-edited fruits: background, constraints, benefits, and commercial opportunities. Hortic Res 8:166. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00601-3

Nap JP, Metz PL, Escaler M, Conner AJ (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment: part I. Overview of current status and regulations. Plant J 33(1):1–18

Parisi C, Tillie P, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2016) The global pipeline of GM crops out to 2020. Nat Biotechnol 34(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3449

Paull J (2015) GMOs and organic agriculture: Six lessons from Australia. Agric for 61(1):7–14

Perianes-Rodriguez A, Waltman L, Van Eck NJ (2016) Constructing bibliometric networks: a comparison between full and fractional counting. J Informet 10(4):1178–1195

Peschard K, Randeria S (2020) Taking Monsanto to court: legal activism around intellectual property in Brazil and India. J Peasant Stud 47(4):792–819

Pixley KV, Falck-Zepeda JB, Paarlberg RL, Phillips PW, Slamet-Loedin IH, Dhugga KS, Campos H, Gutterson N (2022) Genome-edited crops for improved food security of smallholder farmers. Nat Genet 54(4):364–367

Raman R (2017) The impact of genetically modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: a review. GM Crops Food 8(4):195–208

Santillán-Fernández A, Salinas-Moreno Y, Valdez-Lazalde JR, Pereira-Lorenzo S (2021) Spatial-temporal evolution of scientific production about genetically modified maize. Agriculture 11(3):246

Scandizzo PL, and Savastano S (2010) The adoption and diffusion of GM crops in United States: A real option approach. CEIS Tor Vergata, Research Paper Series , 8 (4), CEIS Working Paper No. 169, Available at SSRN:  https://ssrn.com/abstract=1653915 .

Sendhil R, Nyika J, Yadav S, Mackolil J, Workie E, Ragupathy R, Ramasundaram P (2022) Genetically modified foods: bibliometric analysis on consumer perception and preference. GM Crops Food 13(1):65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2038525

Singh A, Kanaujia A, Singh VK, Vinuesa R (2024) Artificial intelligence for sustainable development goals: bibliometric patterns and concept evolution trajectories. Sustain Dev 32(1):724–754

Smyth SJ (2014) The state of genetically modified crop regulation in Canada. GM Crops Food 5(3):195–203

Su HN, Lee PC (2010) Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in technology foresight. Scientometrics 85(1):65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0259

Zhang W, Xu X, Ming C, Mao Z, Shi J, Xiang Y (2016) Surviving in the dispute: a bibliometric analysis of global GMF-related research, 1995–2014. Scientometrics 109(1):359–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1995-1

Zheng Y, Karimi-Maleh H, Fu L (2022) Advances in electrochemical techniques for the detection and analysis of genetically modified organisms: an analysis based on bibliometrics. Chemosensors 10(5):194. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors10050194

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India

Anurag Kanaujia & Solanki Gupta

Delhi School of Analytics, University of Delhi, New Delhi, 110089, India

Anurag Kanaujia

School of Engineering and Technology, K. R. Mangalam University, Sohna Road, Gurgram, Haryana, 122103, India

Solanki Gupta

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization of Study, Data Collection, Analysis, Manuscript preparation and Manuscript Review—A.K. Operationalization, Data Processing analysis, Manuscript preparation and Manuscript Review—S.G.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anurag Kanaujia .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

(See Tables 7 and 8 ).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kanaujia, A., Gupta, S. Tracing scientific and technological development in genetically modified crops. Transgenic Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-024-00412-x

Download citation

Received : 11 October 2023

Accepted : 10 September 2024

Published : 18 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-024-00412-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Genetically modified crops
• Scientometrics
• Patent analysis
• Agriculture
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Genetically Modified Organisms: A case study on Bt Corn in the Philippines

Despite the worldwide success of Genetically Modified Organisms in various countries, small-scale farmers in the Philippines struggle to benefit from it because of problems in accessibility, information and use, and institutions. This paper presents the ongoing debate on the use of GMOs using the Philippine context as an example.

Related Papers

International Journal of Scientific and Management Research

Angela Austria

This study was conducted to narrate the experiences of farmers and local government unit (LGU) employees in the Municipalities of Villasis, Pangasinan and Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) particularly GM crops. This study also sought to identify the challenges encountered by the farmers and the LGUs in using GM crops and it also determined how the LGUs monitor and help the farmers in GM crop production. The findings of this study served as the basis for creating possible courses of action that the LGUs could do to help the farmers, especially the low-production farmers, maximize their production by using GM crops. The researchers employed qualitative research design, particularly the narrative approach through the conduct of one-on-one interviews with farmers and focus group discussion with LGU employees then specific themes were formulated to describe the experiences and challenges encountered by the farmers and the LGUs and how the LGUs monitor and help...

Iapa Proceedings Conference

Leonardo Pasquito

Juvy Gopela

International Journal of Scientific World

Jacqueline Bagunu

Woldeyesus Sinebo

The regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops is a topical issue in agriculture and environment over the past 2 decades. The objective of this paper is to recount regulatory and adoption practices in some developing countries that have successfully adopted GM crops so that aspiring countries may draw useful lessons and best practices for their biosafatey regulatory regimes. The first 11 mega-GM crops growing countries each with an area of more than one million hectares in 2014 were examined. Only five out of the 11 countries had smooth and orderly adoption of these crops as per the regulatory requirement of each country. In the remaining 6 countries (all developing countries), GM crops were either introduced across borders without official authorization, released prior to regulatory approval or unapproved seeds were sold along with the approved ones in violation to the existing regulations. Rapid expansion of transgenic crops over the past 2 decades in the developing world was a result of an intense desire by farmers to adopt these crops irrespective of regulatory roadblocks. Lack of workable biosafety regulatory system and political will to support GM crops encouraged unauthorized access to GM crop varieties. In certain cases, unregulated access in turn appeared to result in the adoption of substandard or spurious technology which undermined performance and productivity. An optimal interaction among the national agricultural innovation systems, biosafety regulatory bodies, biotech companies and high level policy makers is vital in making a workable regulated progress in the adoption of GM crops. Factoring forgone opportunities to farmers to benefit from GM crops arising from overregulation into biosafety risk analysis and decision making is suggested. Building functional biosafety regulatory systems that balances the needs of farmers to access and utilize the GM technology with the regulatory imperatives to ensure adequate safety to the environment and human health is recommended.

Joel I Cohen

Agricultural food and feed crops improved through recombinant DNA are grown widely on farms in wealthy countries such as the USA and Canada, but are scarcely grown anywhere in the poor developing world. The reasons often given for this slow uptake of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries include weak scientific capacity, intellectual property rights (IPR) constraints, and fears concerning biological and/or food safety. Upon examination, none of these concerns is strong enough within the developing world to explain the slow adoption of these crops. The most powerful explanation proves to be a growing commercial fear of lost export sales to Europe and East Asia, as this and other political factors complicate biosafety approvals in developing countries. Consumer misgivings toward GM foods in these rich importing countries, coupled with restrictive or stigmatising import and labelling policies, are prompting food exporting countries in the developing world to remain GM-free. The long-term costs of these decisions for food security in poor countries could be substantial.

Ifpri Discussion Papers

Simon Mevel

Economic & Political Weekly

Krishna Ravi Srinivas

Socio-economic considerations associated with the application of gene technologies have been a major concern, especially in developing countries, which are caught between the potentials of biotechnology for development, on the one hand, and their adverse socio-economic impacts, on the other. Globally, the experience of countries even with the most advanced regimes for incorporating these issues shows that addressing them effectively remains a challenge. The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, the only global instrument for governance of genetically modified crops, does not address these considerations. Thus policy frameworks depend primarily on domestic concerns and priorities. Recent attempts to separate socio-economic assessment from biosafety assessment processes and conduct the two in parallel appear to embody a more pragmatic approach.

Sofia Zepeda

Susana Carro-Ripalda , Joanildo A Burity , brian wynne , Phil Macnaghten , Susana Carro

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

World Journal of Advance Research and Reviews

Sanjay Prakash Srivastava (Professor, Law)

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Stephen Brush

Jenica Rosen

Critical reviews in biotechnology

Hossein Azadi , Frank Witlox

Chris Cocklin

Joanildo A Burity , Phil Macnaghten

kavita Gupta

British Journal of Politics & International Relations

sarah lieberman

Mohammad-Amir Aghaee , Matan Shelomi , Sandra Olkowski , Rosanna Kwok , Danica Maxwell , Maribel Portilla

Journal of agricultural and food chemistry

E. Jane Morris

Revista Espinhaço

Susana Carro-Ripalda

Ricardo Arechavala , Claudia Díaz

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Filipino farmers reap economic benefits from GMO corn, study finds

By joan conrow.

July 2, 2021

Filipino farmers, including low-income households, have benefitted economically from growing genetically modified (GM) corn, according to a new study.

The study, published in the International Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, was conducted to assesses the economic value of growing GM corn in the Philippines between 2002 and 2019. Cultivation of GM corn has expanded rapidly in that time, with the amount of acreage increasing by an average of 31.24 percent each year. Currently, some 460,000 farm families, or a third of all corn farmers in the Philippines, are now planting GM corn on about 835,000 hectares.

Farmers achieved higher income due to the increased yield of GM corn and reduced use of pesticides. Though the national average yield for non-GM corn is typically just 3 metric tons per hectare, GM corn can double or triple this output. As a result of improved yields and better-quality harvests, the Philippines has been able to export corn silage since adopting GM corn.

Productivity growth of the country’s corn industry was estimated to be 11.45 percent higher due to GM corn adoption, according to the study. The total welfare gain, as measured by the equivalent variation of income, reached $189.4 million, or nearly a tenth of a percent of total household income.

“Not only was the gain positive for all household income deciles, it was also inclusive: lower household income deciles benefit from the GM technology more than richer households,” the authors wrote. “The middle class benefit the most.”

Corn is the third most important crop in the Philippines in terms of area harvested and economic value. Furthermore, some 600,000 Filipino farm households depend on corn as a major source of livelihood, the authors wrote. The country produced 4.5 million tons in 2000 and 8 million tons in 2019, with the area of harvested corn declining even as production increased, reflecting the improved yields of GM corn.

The Philippines approved GM corn for commercial use in December 2002, primarily to help farmers control the Asian corn borer, a highly destructive insect pest that lowers yields and can destroy up to 80 percent of a crop. Farmers were using pesticides to fight the insect, which created a human and environmental health risk and increased production costs for farmers. The pest is estimated to account for up to 80 percent profit loss for corn farmers.

The GM yellow corn includes a Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis) gene that gives the crop natural resistance to the pest. Other varieties have since been introduced that offer herbicide tolerance traits, meaning farmers can spray to control weeds in their fields without destroying the corn crop, as well as both pest-resistance and herbicide-tolerance traits. Since October 2020, a 42 GM events have been approved for use in the Philippines, with 30 for direct use as food, feed or processing and 12 for commercial planting.

The researchers estimated total factor productivity (TFP) growth of corn production with and without GM technology and then assessed the economic implications of using the technology through a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Philippine economy.

“The adoption of GM technology in corn production in the Philippines is positive and significant,” the authors wrote.

Image: Corn field in the Philippines. Shutterstock/ Vimada Lew

Get Our News Blast

You might also enjoy.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• GM Crops Food
• v.8(4); 2017

The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review

Ruchir raman.

Faculty of Science (School of Biosciences), The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia

Genetic modification in plants was first recorded 10,000 years ago in Southwest Asia where humans first bred plants through artificial selection and selective breeding. Since then, advancements in agriculture science and technology have brought about the current GM crop revolution. GM crops are promising to mitigate current and future problems in commercial agriculture, with proven case studies in Indian cotton and Australian canola. However, controversial studies such as the Monarch Butterfly study (1999) and the Séralini affair (2012) along with current problems linked to insect resistance and potential health risks have jeopardised its standing with the public and policymakers, even leading to full and partial bans in certain countries. Nevertheless, the current growth rate of the GM seed market at 9.83–10% CAGR along with promising research avenues in biofortification, precise DNA integration and stress tolerance have forecast it to bring productivity and prosperity to commercial agriculture.

INTRODUCTION

Genetic modification (GM) is the area of biotechnology which concerns itself with the manipulation of the genetic material in living organisms, enabling them to perform specific functions. 1 , 2 The earliest concept of modification for domestication and consumption of plants dates back ∼10,000 years where human ancestors practiced “selective breeding” and “artificial selection” – the Darwinian-coined terms broadly referring to selection of parent organisms having desirable traits (eg: hardier stems) and breeding them for propagating their traits. The most dramatic alteration of plant genetics using these methods occurred through artificial selection of corn – from a weedy grass possessing tiny ears and few kernels (teosinte; earliest recorded growth: central Balsas river valley, southern Mexico 6300 years ago) to the current cultivars of edible corn and maize plants (Doebley et al., 2016, Fig 1 ). The use of similar techniques has also been reported to derive current variants of apples, broccoli and bananas different from their ancestral plant forms which are vastly desirable for human consumption. 3

The evolution of modern corn/maize (top) from teosinte plants (bottom) by repetitive selective breeding over several generations. [Sources: 50 (top figure), 51 (bottom figure)].

The developments leading to modern genetic modification took place in 1946 where scientists first discovered that genetic material was transferable between different species. This was followed by DNA double helical structure discovery and conception of the central dogma – the transcription of DNA to RNA and subsequent translation into proteins – by Watson and Crick in 1954. Consequently, a series of breakthrough experiments by Boyer and Cohen in 1973, which involved “cutting and pasting” DNA between different species using restriction endonucleases and DNA ligase – “molecular scissors and glue” (Rangel, 2016) successfully engineered the world's first GM organism. In agriculture, the first GM plants – antibiotic resistant tobacco and petunia – were successfully created in 1983 by three independent research groups. In 1990, China became the first country to commercialise GM tobacco for virus resistance. In 1994, the Flavr Savr tomato (Calgene, USA) became the first ever Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GM plant for human consumption. This tomato was genetically modified by antisense technology to interfere with polygalacturonase enzyme production, consequently causing delayed ripening and resistance to rot. 4 Since then, several transgenic crops received approvals for large scale human production in 1995 and 1996. Initial FDA-approved plants included corn/maize, cotton and potatoes ( Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene modification, Ciba-Geigy and Monsanto) canola (Calgene: increased oil production), cotton (Calgene: bromoxynil resistance) and Roundup Ready soybeans (Monsanto: glyphosate resistance), 4 Fig 2 ). Currently, the GM crop pipeline has expanded to cover other fruits, vegetables and cereals such as lettuce, strawberries, eggplant, sugarcane, rice, wheat, carrots etc. with planned uses to increase vaccine bioproduction, nutrients in animal feed as well as confer salinity and drought resistant traits for plant growth in unfavourable climates and environment. 4 , 2

A timeline of events leading to the current GM crop era.

Since their commercialisation, GM crops have been beneficial to both economy and the environment. The global food crop yield (1996–2013) has increased by > 370 million tonnes over a relatively small acreage area. 2 Furthermore, GM crops have been recorded to reduce environmental and ecological impacts, leading to increases in species diversity. It is therefore unsurprising that GM crops have been commended by agricultural scientists, growers and most environmentalists worldwide.

Nevertheless, advancements in GM crops have raised significant questions of their safety and efficacy. The GM seed industry has been plagued with problems related to human health and insect resistance which have seriously undermined their beneficial effects. Moreover, poor science communication by seed companies, a significant lack of safety studies and current mistrust regarding GMOs have only compounded problems. These have led many countries, particularly the European Union and Middle East to implement partial or full restrictions on GM crops. GM agriculture is now widely discussed in both positive and negative frames, and currently serves as a hotbed of debate in public and policymaking levels.

CHALLENGES IN COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE

The agriculture industry has been valued at an estimated US$ 3.2 trillion worldwide and accounts for a large share of the GDP and employment in developing and underdeveloped nations. 5 For instance: Agriculture contributes only 1.4% towards the GDP and 1.62% of the workforce in US in comparison with South Asian regions, where it contributes 18.6% towards the GDP and 50% of the workforce. 6 However, despite employing nearly 1 in 5 people worldwide (19% of the world's population), 7 the agriculture industry is projected to suffer significant global setbacks (population growth, pest resistance and burden on natural resources) by 2050, which has been elaborated further in this section.

Explosive Population Growth

The Food and Agricultural Organisation projects the global population to grow to approximately 9.7 billion by 2050 – a near 50% increase from 2013 – and further to an estimated 11bn by 2100. Current agricultural practices alone cannot sustain the world population and eradicate malnutrition and hunger on a global scale in the future. Indeed, the FAO also estimates that despite a significant reduction in global hunger, 653 mn people will still be undernourished in 2030. 8 Additionally, Ray et al. and other studies depict the top four global crops (soybean, maize, wheat and rice) are increasing at 1.0%, 0.9%, 1.6% and 1.3% per annum respectively– approximately 42%, 38%, 67% and 55% lower than the required growth rate (2.4%/annum) to sustain the global population in 2050. 9 Compounded with other problems such as improved nutritional standards in the burgeoning lower-middle class and projected loss in arable land (from 0.242 ha/person in 2016 to 0.18 ha/person in 2050) 2 due to degradation and accelerated urbanization, rapid world population expansion will increase demand for food resources.

Pests and Crop Diseases

Annual crop loss to pests alone account for 20–40% of the global crop losses. In terms of economic value, tackling crop diseases and epidemics and invasive insect problem costs the agriculture industry approximately $290 mn annually. 8 Currently, major epidemics continue to plague commercial agriculture. It has been projected that crop disease and pest incidences are expanding in a poleward direction (2.7 km annually), 10 indicated by coffee leaf rust and wheat rust outbreaks in Central America. These incidences have largely been attributed to an amalgamation of globalisation leading to increased plant, pest and disease movement, increase in disease vectors, climate change and global warming. 8

While integrated pest management and prevention techniques somewhat mitigate the pest problem, they are insufficient to tackle the transboundary crop-demics. The epidemiology of the Panama disease (or Panama wilt), caused by the soil fungus Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense (Foc) 11 provides solid evidence in this regard. Since the early-mid 1990s the Tropical Race-4 (TR4) strain, a single pathogen Foc fungus clone, has significantly crippled the global banana industry. In 2013, the Mindanao Banana Farmers and Exporters association (in Philippines) reported infection in 5900 hectares of bananas, including 3000 hectares that were abandoned. In Mozambique, symptomatic plants currently account for >20% of total banana plantations (570,000 out 2.5m) since the reporting of TR4 in 2015. Additionally, TR4 losses have cost Taiwanese, Malaysian, and Indonesian economies a combined estimate of US$ 388.4 mn. 12 Therefore, an alarming increase in transboundary crop and pest diseases have broad environmental, social and economic impacts on farmers and threaten food security.

Burden on Natural Resources

The FAO's 2050 projections suggest projected natural resource scarcities for crop care. 8 Despite overall agricultural efficiency, unsustainable competition has intensified due to urbanisation, population growth, industrialisation and climate change. Deforestation for agricultural purposes has driven 80% of the deforestation worldwide. In tropical and subtropical areas where deforestation is still widespread, agricultural expansion accounted for loss of 7 million hectares per annum of natural forests between 2000–2010. 8 Additionally, water withdrawals for agriculture accounted for 70% of all withdrawals, seriously depleting natural water resources in many countries. This has particularly been observed in low rainfall regions, such as Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia where water for agriculture accounts for 80–90% 8 of the total water withdrawal. These trends are predicted to continue well into the 21st century and therefore increase the burden of natural resource consumption globally.

SOLUTIONS PROVIDED BY GM CROPS

GM crops have been largely successful in mitigating the above major agriculture challenges while providing numerous benefits to growers worldwide. From 1996–2013, they generated $117.6 bn over 17 years in global farm income benefit alone. The global yearly net income increased by 34.3% in 2010–2012. 13 , 14 Furthermore, while increasing global yield by 22%, GM crops reduced pesticide (active ingredient) usage by 37% and environmental impact (insecticide and herbicide use) by 18%. 15 To achieve the same yield standards more than 300 million acres of conventional crops would have been needed, which would have further compounded current environmental and socioeconomic problems in agriculture. 2

To further emphasise the impact of GM crops on economies: two case studies – GM Canola (Australia) and GM cotton (India) – have been highlighted in this review.

GM Cotton (India)

In India, cotton has served as an important fibre and textile raw material and plays a vital role in its industrial and agricultural economy. Nearly 8 million farmers, most of them small and medium (having less than 15 acres of farm size and an average of 3–4 acres of cotton holdings) depend on this crop for their livelihood. In 2002, Monsanto-Mahyco introduced Bollgard-I, India's first GM cotton hybrid containing Cry1Ac -producing Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) genes for controlling the pink bollworm ( P. gossypiella ) pest. 16 Initially, only 36% of the farmers adopted the new crop however this statistic soon grew to 46% in 2004 17 after Bt- cotton was approved nationwide. This was followed by approval and launch of Bollgard-II (a two-toxin Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab -producing Bt- pyramid conferring resistance to bollworm) by Monsanto-Mahyco, which subsequently enhanced Bt- cotton adoption among Indian cotton growers ( Fig 3 ).

Adoption of GM canola (top) and GM cotton (bottom) in Australia and India respectively. The primary vertical axis shows the total acreage of cotton and canola along with the proportion of GM and non-GM crops grown per year, while the secondary horizontal axis depicts the percentage of GM crop adoption among farmers and growers per year. (Sources: 22 , 18 ).

Despite controversies, Bt -cotton's implementation has largely benefited Indian farmers and agricultural economy. Bt -cotton has increased profits and yield by Rs. 1877 per acre (US$38) and 126 kg/acre of farmland respectively, 50% and 24% more than profit and yield by conventional cotton. This translates to a net increase of Bt -cotton growers' annual consumption expenditures by 18% (Rs. 15,841/US$321) compared to non-adapters, highlighting improved living standards. 17 Bt -cotton adoption has also resulted in a 22-fold increase in India's agri-biotech industry due to an unprecedented 212-fold rise in plantings from 2002–2011 (accounting for ∼30% of global cotton farmland), surpassing China and making it a world leading grower and exporter. 7 million out of the 8 million farmers (88%) are growing Bt-cotton annually. Cotton crop yields have also increased 31% while conversely insecticide usage has more than halved (46% to 21%) enhancing India's cotton income by US$11.9 bn. 18 Therefore, Bt- cotton has resulted in economic prosperity among Bt -cotton growers, with 2002–11 often being called a white gold period for India's GM cotton industry.

GM Canola (Australia)

Canola in Australia is grown as a break crop, providing farmers a profitable alternative along with rotational benefits from continuous cereal crop phases and their related weed/pest mechanisms. Other benefits include broadleaf weed and cereal root disease control and better successive cereal crop growth. It is most prominently grown in Western Australia (WA), where it accounts for 400–800,000 ha of farmland and is the most successful of four break crops (oat, lupin, canola and field pea). From 2002–2007, Canola production in WA alone accounted for a yield of 440 mn tonnes valued at A$200mn. 19 Nevertheless Canola has been a high risk crop and particularly susceptible to blackleg disease (caused by fungus Leptosphaeria maculans ), and weeds such as charlock ( Sinapis arvensis ), wild radish ( Raphanus raphanistrum L) and Buchan ( Hirschfeldia incana (L.) Lagr.-Foss) which increase anti-nutritional compound content and composition in canola oil, degrading quality. 20

In 2008–09, two herbicide resistant GM canola varieties: Roundup Ready® (Monsanto) and InVigor® (Bayer Cropsciences) were introduced in Australia. Roundup Ready® contained gene variants with altered EPSP synthase (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate) alterations along with a glyphosate oxidoreductase gene making it glyphosate resistant. It gained OGTR approval after trials showed its environmental impact was less than half (43%) of triazine tolerant canola varieties 21 , 19 and remains the only OGTR-approved GM canola till date. The introduction of Roundup Ready® canola has had a positive impact on farmers by controlling weeds that were erstwhile difficult to mitigate. In 2014, GM canola planting area (hectares) was up to 14% in 2014 from just 4% in 2009 ( Fig 3 ), representing a near three-fold increase and contributing to Australia's growing biotech crop hectarage. This increase was more notable in WA, where GM canola was planted from 21% canola farmers in 2014, up from 0% in 2009. 22 This has led to more research and development of different canola varieties to improve oil content and quality, yield and maturity. 20

PROBLEMS AND CONTROVERSIES

Although a successful technology, GM crop use has been controversial and a hotbed for opposition. Their public image has been severely impacted leading to full or partial bans in 38 countries including the European Union ( Fig 4 ). This section highlights major controversies and reflects on some real problems faced by commercialised GM crops.

The figure depicts the current acceptance of GM crops in different countries. Green: National bans. Yellow: Restrictive laws, Red: No formal laws (Source: 52 ).

Monarch Butterfly Controversy (1999)

The Monarch butterfly controversy relates Losey et al.’s publication in Nature wherein they compared Monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ) larval feeding cycle of milkweed ( Asclepias curassavica) dusted with N4640- Bt maize pollen to a control (milkweed dusted with untransformed corn pollen). They observed the N4640- Bt reared larvae to eat lesser, grow slower and have higher mortality and predicted N4640- Bt maize to have significant off target effects and significantly impact Monarch populations due to the following reasons:

• • Monarch larvae's main nutrition is derived from milkweed, which commonly occurs in and around the corn field edges.
• • Maize pollen shedding coincides with monarch larval feeding cycles during seasonal summer.
• • ∼50% of the Monarch population is concentrated within the US maize belt during summer, a region known for intense maize production. 23

Losey et al. ’s conclusions were challenged by academics for improper experimental design and validity and soundness of extrapolating laboratory assays to field testing. There were many subsequent studies performed, depicting Bt- maize to be highly unlikely to affect Monarch population. For instance: Pleasants et al., 24 reasoned that several factors, most notably rainfall (reducing pollen by 54–86%) and leaf pollen distribution (30–50% on upper plant portions/preferred larval feeding sites) reduced larval exposure to Bt- maize pollen 24 and Sears et al., 25 argued that Bt- maize production, should it rise to ∼80% would only affect 0.05%-6% monarch population. 25

Nevertheless, Losey et al. ’s results garnered acclaim in the press for raising both the public's and biotech companies' consciousness about possible off-target Bt- maize on monarch butterflies. However further attempts to extrapolate their results to other Bt and GM crops have been unsuccessful, with current evidence suggesting effectiveness in insect control without off-target effects. 25

The Séralini Affair (2012)

The Séralini affair concerns itself with a controversial GM crop study by Gilles-Éric Séralini in Springer during 2012–14. The original paper published in 2012 studied the effect of NK-603 Roundup Ready® Maize (NK-603 RR Maize) on rats. It used the same experimental setup as an earlier Monsanto safety study to gain maize approval 26 and reached the following observations:

• • Significant chronic kidney deficiencies representing 76% of altered parameters.
• • 3–5x higher incidence of necrosis and liver congestions in treated males.
• • 2–3-fold increase in female treatment group mortality.
• • High tumour incidences in both treated sexes, starting 600 days earlier than control (only one tumour noted in control).

The 2012 study attributed observations to EPSPS overexpression in NK-603 RR Maize, found the Monsanto study conclusions “unjustifiable” and recommended thorough long-term toxicity feeding studies on edible GM crops. 27 The paper divided opinion, with Séralini being framed as both as a hero of the anti-GM movement and as an unethical researcher. His paper drew heavy criticism for its flawed experimental design, animal type used for study, statistical analysis and data presentation deficiencies and overall misrepresentations of science and was retracted (Arjó et al., 2012,. 28 In 2014, Séralini republished his nearly-identical study in expanded form which since continues to fuel the GM crop debate.

GM Crops: An Imperfect Technology

Despite the above controversies being proven unfounded, GM crops are an “imperfect technology” with potential major health risks of toxicity, allergenicity and genetic hazards associated to them. These could be caused by inserted gene products and their potential pleiotropic effects, the GMO's natural gene disruption or a combination of both factors. 4 , 2 The most notable example of this is Starlink maize, a Cry9c- expressing cultivar conferring gluphosinate resistance. In the mid-1990s, the USDA's Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) classified Cry9c Starlink as “potentially allergenic” due to its potential to interact with the human immune system. In 1998, the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) granted approval for Starlink's use in commercial animal feed and industry (eg: biofuels) but banned it for human consumption. Following this, relatively small Starlink quantities (∼0.5% of the US corn acreage) were planted between 1998–2000. 29 , 30 In 2000, Starlink residues were detected in food supplies not only in USA but also EU, Japan and South Korea where it completely banned. Furthermore, the EPA received several adverse allergic event reports related to corn, prompting a worldwide Starlink recall. About 300 different maize products were recalled in US alone by Kellogg's and Mission Foods. Starlink inadvertently affected ∼50% of US maize supply and depressed US corn prices by 8% for CY2001. 31

Another problem faced by GM crops currently is pest resistance due to gene overexpression leading to pest evolution via natural selection. Indeed, an analysis of 77 studies' results by Tabashnik et al. depicted reduced Bt- crop efficacy caused by field evolved pest resistance for 5 out of 13 (38.4%) major pest species examined in 2013, compared to just one in 2005, 32 Table 1 ). Furthermore, such resistance can be evolved over several generations in a relatively short time as most insects have shorter life spans. In maize, S.frugiperda and B.fusca resistance was reported after just 3 and 8 years respectively, consistent with the worst case scenarios. In the former, it led to crop withdrawal in Puerto Rico and was reported to still affect maize growers in 2011, 4 years after crop withdrawal. In India, P. gossypiella resistance currently affects ∼90% Bollgard-II Bt- hybrid cotton growers and ∼35% (4 million ha) of cultivable cotton area in key regions. 32 , 33

Crops reported with >50% pest resistance and reduced efficacy.

1- Time to first reported resistance of pest to GM plant. 2-Toxin secreted by affected GM plant.

To mitigate the problems regarding GM technologies, a series of strict regulatory measures have been proposed to prevent cross-contamination of split-approved GM crops banned for human consumption. These include implementation and enforcement buffer zones to prevent cross contamination of crops, better laboratory testing to confirm adverse allergic event cases and an overall inclusion of stakeholders and representatives in policymaking and communication. 30 Additionally, Bt pest resistance could be controlled by implementation of high-dose Bt toxin standards in transgenic crops and evaluation of insect responses, integration of Host plant resistance (HPR) traits in cultivars to control secondary pests, 34 preparation of abundant non- Bt plants refuges near Bt crops and proactive implementation of two-toxin Bt- pyramids producing ≥ 2 distinct toxins against as single pest species. 32 These suggested measures in pest management and regulation if implemented could help the agriculture industry overcome the imperfect problems of GM crops while significantly regaining public trust of this technology.

GM AGRICULTURE: TRENDS AND FUTURE AVENUES

The GM seed market has changed drastically since 1996 from a competitive sector owned by family owners to one of the fastest growing global industries dominated by a small number of corporations. Analysts predict a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) between 9.83–10% between 2017–2022 for this industry where it is projected to reach US$113.28 bn, an approximately four-fold increase from US$26.7 bn in 2007, 35 , 36 MarketWatch, 2016). This has been attributed to a rising biofuel adoption in lieu of conventional fuels in Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Africa, leading to increase plantings of energy crops (wheat, sugarcane, corn and soybean) for production. Nevertheless, despite growth spikes in APAC and Africa, North America currently dominates the GM seed industry with a market share of ∼30%, and is forecast to do so in 2020 (MarketWatch, 2017).

The GM seed market has currently been consolidated by the “big five” companies: Monsanto, Bayer CropScience, Dupont, Syngenta and Groupe Limagrain ( Table 2 ). As of 2016, they account for 70% of the market (up from ∼60% in 2009). 37 , 38 The “big five” players are currently acquiring and forming joint ventures with smaller firms and competitors on a transnational scale, serving as strong entry barriers in this industry. 36 Since 2016, major ongoing Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As): Syngenta's takeover by ChemChina (completed June 2017- US$43 bn), 39 Bayer-Monsanto merger (ongoing- $66bn) 40 and Dow-Dupont merger (∼US$140 bn- antitrust approval) 41 have been happening in the industry. Only time will determine how these M&As impact the industry, growers and consumers.

A snapshot of the “big five” GM seed companies.

1 – Converted from EUR at current NASDAQ rates (July 2017), 2 – Ongoing Merger/Acquisition, 3- Completed Merger/Acquisition, 4- Public non-quoted company, 5- Sourced from Hoovers D&B, 2017, 6 – In this case, market share represents global market share and market capitalisation is local.

The latest reports indicate that the agriculture industry invests around $69 billion globally on its Research and Development (R&D). 42 This investment has fuelled research many emerging avenues for GM crop technology. However, innovation has strictly been influenced by the “big five” due to broad patent claims, and high research, legal and development costs for patent eligible products. For instance, the top 3 seed companies controlled 85% transgenic and 70% non-transgenic corn patents in USA in 2009. 36

In the GM seed market, R&D is currently occurring in the conventional areas of insect resistance, increased crop yield and herbicide tolerance. Increasing R&D has also been invested on precision site-directed nuclease techniques (CRISPR, ZFNs and TALENs) for desired gene integration in host plants. 14 , 43 Current studies show negligible/zero off target mutations (Schnell et al., 2015,. 44 This is starkly contrasting to conventional breeding techniques which are often associated with undesired alteration risks via linkage drag and random, unspecified mutations. 45 Additionally, biofortification and stress tolerance have been identified as areas for future GM seed research. Both fields are currently of major interest with a growing body of scientific studies. They tackle key problems: while biofortification addresses malnutrition and micronutrient deficiency; stress tolerance addresses biodegradation, climate change and shrinking cultivable area. Since the development of Vitamin-A biofortified rice in 2000, 46 studies highlight further extrapolation in enhancing human diet using biofortifications, with recorded success in iron and zinc. 47 Moreover, recent genetic modification studies in Arabidopsis and Barley have depicted adaptation to stress tolerance and biomass growth in adverse conditions (Mendiondo et al., 2016,. 48 Three stress-tolerant corn hybrids [Pioneer Optimum AQUAmax™ (Dupont Pioneer), Syngenta Artesian™ (Syngenta) and Genuity™ DroughtGard™ (Monsanto)] are currently being marketed for drought resistance, 49 showcasing enormous potential for economic profitability in the above areas.

GM crops can mitigate several current challenges in commercial agriculture. Current market trends project them as one of the fastest growing and innovative global industries, which not only benefit growers but also consumers and major country economies. However, it is imperative that the agricultural industry and science community invest in better science communication and regulation to tackle unethical research and misinformation. Imperfections and major GM technology can also be combated by stricter regulation, monitoring and implementation by government agriculture bodies, a globally improved risk mitigation strategy and communication with growers, therefore ensuring greater acceptance. With key innovation in precision gene-integration technologies and emerging research in biofortification and stress tolerance, GM crops are forecast to bring productivity and profitability in commercial agriculture for smoother progress in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although this review article is my own work, it would not have been possible without certain people. I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their helpful comments and remarks. I would also like to extend my gratitude towards the University of Melbourne staff, especially Dr. Matthew Digby and Mrs. Fiona Simpson for their encouragement in this venture. I would further extend my thanks to my peers, teachers and other people I met during my academic journey. Lastly, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation towards my family, who encouraged me to pursue a scientific career in Biotechnology and have been wonderfully supportive of my career goals. This review article is my maiden article in an academic journal, and I would like to thank all the readers for being a part of it.

• Open access
• Published: 20 October 2022

Genetically modified organisms: adapting regulatory frameworks for evolving genome editing technologies

• Pablo Rozas 1 ,
• Eduardo I. Kessi-Pérez 2 , 3 &
• Claudio Martínez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8564-9287 2 , 3  

Biological Research volume  55 , Article number:  31 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

19 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Genetic modification of living organisms has been a prosperous activity for research and development of agricultural, industrial and biomedical applications. Three decades have passed since the first genetically modified products, obtained by transgenesis, become available to the market. The regulatory frameworks across the world have not been able to keep up to date with new technologies, monitoring and safety concerns. New genome editing techniques are opening new avenues to genetic modification development and uses, putting pressure on these frameworks. Here we discuss the implications of definitions of living/genetically modified organisms, the evolving genome editing tools to obtain them and how the regulatory frameworks around the world have taken these technologies into account, with a focus on agricultural crops. Finally, we expand this review beyond commercial crops to address living modified organism uses in food industry, biomedical applications and climate change-oriented solutions.

Genetic modification of living organisms for food, feed, industrial, medical, and environmental uses has been an intense field of research and economic interest since the development of modern agriculture. From the development of DNA recombination in the 70’s, the rapid and transversal implementation of genetic engineering impacted several industries such as medicine, food, feed and scientific research itself. Nevertheless, the idea of modification of living organisms is older than DNA recombination technology.

Throughout history, humanity has tried to improve yields, resources optimization, nutritional content, and organoleptic characteristics of plant crops through various plant improvement techniques. i.e. , plant breeding. These techniques include artificial selection, selective crosses, mutagenesis induced by chemical or physical agents, and genetic engineering, among others [ 1 , 2 ]. In this context, genetic engineering has contributed to accelerate the developing times of new plant varieties and increasing their diversity, capacities and applications.

One of the most widely used genetic engineering technique, and a pioneer in the field of agricultural biotechnology, is transgenesis, which consists of the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another of a different species. This process makes it possible to achieve certain traits of technological, productive, nutritional, or research interest. The most frequently developed commercial traits are resistance to pathogens, tolerance to abiotic stress, and resistance to herbicides [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Although the potential of transgenesis in the agricultural development, the definition of a genetically modified organism (GMO) has been a controversial topic for consumers and an evolving concept in the literature and regulatory frameworks since the first applications of transgenesis became commercially available in the 1990s. Despite being associated with this technique, current international efforts have led to a broader definition of “living modified organism” (LMO) written down into The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity [ 7 ]. This defines a LMO as “any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology”; where “living organism” is defined as “any biological entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material, including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids”. On the other hand, “modern biotechnology” is defined as “the application of:

in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or

fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.”

This definition of LMO, hereinafter "GMO” for the scope of this review given its use in the historical literature, has a profound impact on regulatory strategies worldwide. In this review, we focus on the current technologies employed to develop GMOs, especially crops, and how regulatory frameworks are evolving to take new technologies into account. Moreover, we will discuss how the potential of genetically modified (GM) crops and other organisms can be exploited in other industries and in biomedical applications, as well as current efforts developed to address the challenge of climate change.

GMOs global landscape

Transgenesis has been rapidly implemented in world agriculture in terms of cultivated area. According to the latest reports from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), issued in 2018 and 2019, GM crops have accumulated a total cultivated area of 2.53 billion hectares in 23 years of implementation of this technology (Fig.  1 ) [ 6 , 8 ]. In 2019, the last reported year, an area of 190.4 million hectares was cultivated with GMOs in a total of 29 countries, with the Americas being the continent with the largest cultivated area in the world (Table 1 ).

Cultivated area with GM crops worldwide. Plotted from data published in the ISAAA briefs of Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2018 and 2019 [ 6 , 8 ]

The most widely cultivated GM crops are soybean, maize, cotton, and canola, with an area of 188.6 million hectares, which corresponds to 99% of the area cultivated with GMOs worldwide (Fig.  2 ). About 90% of the area cultivated with GMOs is found in 5 countries (United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India) (Table 1 ). Most of the commercially available GM crops have been developed using transgenesis based on recombinant DNA technology, mainly to confer traits such as insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, and tolerance to abiotic stress (> 99% of total commercial traits)[ 8 ] (Table 2 ) or other non-frequent traits related to improved food fortification such as provitamin A biosynthesis in “golden rice” and “golden banana”, or increased starch content in EH92-527–1 potato [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. These transgenic crops have been mainly used for food, livestock and poultry feed, and as ingredients for processed food such as protein extracts, oils and sugar; or for other industries such as ethanol (biofuel) or natural fibre production [ 14 , 15 ].

Adapted from the ISAAA brief of Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019.

Cultivated area with GM crops reported for 2019. Adoption rate is shown as the percentage of cultivated area with GM crop compared to the total cultivated area for that crop, being GMO or not. [ 8 ]. *Other crops: Sugar beet, potato, apple, squash, papaya and eggplant.

The era beyond transgenesis: genome editing tools

New breeding techniques

Along with the process of transgenesis, in the last decade new technologies have been developed that allow editing the genome, or modify its expression, of the target organism in a precise, fast, and relatively cheaper way than other techniques, minted under the acronym "NBT" (" new breeding techniques ") (Fig.  3 ). The genome editing process is based on the use of nucleases able to generate double-strand breaks (DSBs) in specific sequences when guided by proteins or RNA [ 16 ]. These breaks are then repaired by the cellular endogenous DNA repair machinery via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), allowing targeted modifications, such as insertions or deletions, potentially knocking out targeted genes. Moreover, DSBs can also be repaired by homology-directed repair (HDR) using endogenous or delivered template DNA sequence, leading to gene replacement or insertion of sequences of different sizes, from one to many hundreds of nucleotides [ 17 ].

New breeding techniques used for GM crops development. Zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) and the bacterial system of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), employing Fok1 or Cas9 nucleases, are used to target DNA sequences to promote downstream modifications. ZFN, TALEN and Cas9 induce double-strand breaks that are corrected by NHEJ or HDR, modifying the target sequence with deletions or different size insertions. Modified Cas9, such as catalytically null (“dead” Cas9 or dCas9) is used coupled to transcriptional repressor or activators to regulate gene expression. Other forms of modified Cas9, such as coupled to reverse transcriptase (RT) or deaminases, are used to modify target sequence with specific template primers (prime editing) or switch specific bases (base editing).

The extension, location and downstream effects of these editions will determine the phenotype of the new variety, with novel traits that are, in principle, independent of exogenous gene constructs, thus differentiating them from transgenesis. Nonetheless, the delivery methods used to insert genome editor expression cassettes or ribonucleoprotein complexes represent an obstacle to obtain commercial varieties free of exogenous DNA. This is noteworthy not only for regulatory concerns but also for the acceptance of the final products by consumers [ 18 , 19 ].

Currently, the three most widely used NBT are zinc finger domain-coupled nucleases (ZFN), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) and the bacterial system of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) coupled to the nucleases Cas9, Cas12, or Cpf1, among others [ 16 , 17 ]. ZFN and TALEN systems are based on nucleases, such as Fok1, coupled to tandem zinc finger protein domains or TALE protein repeats, respectively, recognizing specific DNA motifs by protein-DNA interaction. Once this protein-guided DNA interaction occurs, Fok1 nucleases dimerize and perform their enzymatic activity on the double-stranded DNA [ 16 ] (Fig.  3 ). For example, ZFN gene editing has been used on commercially relevant crops to modify endogenous genes involved in different phenotypes such as development in tomato [ 20 ], starch metabolism in rice [ 21 ], sexual fertility in apple and fig [ 22 ], RNA silencing genes in soybean [ 23 ] or confer resistance to imidazolinone herbicides in wheat [ 24 ]. Potentially commercial traits of interest have been developed using TALEN. For instance, to modify sugar metabolism and improve herbicide tolerance in potato [ 25 , 26 ], increase oleic acid content in peanut and soybean oil [ 27 , 28 ], or reduce lignin content and improve saccharification in sugarcane [ 29 , 30 ]. Early flowering is another trait of interest, allowing to face seasonal and logistic hurdles, and wild cabbage is an example of these research efforts performed by TALEN [ 31 ].

CRISPR systems

On the other hand, the CRISPR system is based on RNA-guided DNA pairing, taking advantage of the recently growing knowledge of bacterial CRISPR/Cas complex. This RNA–DNA interaction allows sequence specificity design in a more efficient, versatile, and cheaper way than ZFN and TALEN systems [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 32 ]. Furthermore, the use of tailored Cas complexes has expanded the toolkit for genome editing by incorporating base-switching enzymes, transcription regulators, or adding translational modifications [ 18 ]. To date, several variations have been made to the CRISPR/Cas system in order to obtain different modifications on the DNA sequences or regulate gene expression (Fig.  3 ). Nuclease-inactivated Cas9 (dCas9 for “catalytically dead Cas9”) allows Cas9 targeting DNA sequences guided by a guide RNA (gRNA) without producing strand breaks [ 33 ]. The coupling of dCas9 with transcriptional repressors or activators constitutes an adaptable tool to modify gene expression ( 34 ). Moreover, fusion of Cas9 with deaminases has been shown to be useful for C-T and A-G base replacement (known as base editors) [ 33 , 35 ].

In addition to precise base editing, the potential of modified CRISPR/Cas9 systems has been taken into a broader perspective with “prime-editing” tools. In this approach, a reverse transcriptase (RT) is fused to Cas9, and the gRNA is concatenated with template RNA for RT activity. This allows targeting the sequence of interest and editing multiple bases at once without template DNA [ 36 ]. In addition to targeting gene expression, CRISPR/Cas systems can also be used to modulate translation by editing upstream open reading frames (uORFs). These uORFs can regulate translation of the primary ORF, as demonstrated in lettuce modified in the LsGGp2 uORF, enhancing vitamin C biosynthesis [ 37 ].

CRISPR systems have been experimentally used on most commercial GM crops such as maize, soybean and cotton, along with several other crops, e.g. , apple, carrot, orange, raps, lettuce, grapes, pear, strawberry, cucumbers, wheat, rice, and tomato, in addition to ornamental flowers such as Dendrobium officinale (orchid), Ipomoea nil (morning glory), Petunia hybrid (petunia) and Torenia fournieri (wishbone flower) [ 16 , 18 , 32 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. The traits obtained by CRISPR also cover a wide range of biotechnological interests such as sugar, fatty acid or pigment metabolism, herbicide tolerance, pathogen resistance, and development modifications, among others.

• Regulatory frameworks

Despite their differences, countries’ regulatory frameworks can be broadly classified as process-oriented or product-oriented [ 14 , 41 ]. The first determines criteria and regulations according to the methods used to generate new plant varieties, while the second applies criteria based on the new characteristics of a biotechnological event and makes comparisons with their conventional counterparts, both applying a case-by-case evaluation system. Noteworthy, these product- or process-oriented regulatory guides commonly share elements with each other, making legal frameworks difficult to categorize [ 41 , 42 ]. Parallel to the “regulatory style” of each country, the Cartagena Protocol, signed by more than 140 countries, constitutes an instance of international law with binding legal principles for the countries that have ratified it [ 7 ].

Most of the current regulations worldwide have been created to address transgenic-derived crops, which have the largest participation on markets. However, frameworks have been updated in several countries, mainly developed countries, to take genome-edited crops into account. Here we address the current status of regulatory frameworks for GM crops around the globe, in which, for the purpose of this review, we have categorized the main regulatory focus of each country as product- or process- oriented (although it is not a legal classification in any of these countries) (Table 3 ).

Latin America

In Latin America there are different types of regulation, from very permissive to moratorium. The lack of consensus is a characteristic of the region, where countries with similar regulations do not coordinate or share information on seeding requests. The “biotechnological mega-countries” (a term coined by ISAAA for countries growing more than 50.000 Ha of GM crops) in the region, being Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay, have regulations that allow the cultivation and/or trade of GMO, rendering them as important players in the global market. Other Latin America countries with planted GMOs such Costa Rica and Honduras, have similar regulations compared to the biotechnological mega-countries of the region. Chile has a unique regulatory framework where GMO crops can be planted for seed production and export, and research purposes but not for domestic food or feed uses [ 43 , 44 ]. Despite the regulation similarities within these countries, their definitions and lists of approved events are not synchronized, which delays the application of events throughout the region and weakens regional trade [ 14 ].

Therefore, at the XXXIV Extraordinary Meeting of the Southern Agricultural Council (CAS), held in 2017, the Ministers of Agriculture of Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, and the Secretary of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Argentina, declared it necessary to promote activities of regional cooperation and exchange of information for the approval of GMOs and to train "experts in new technologies" (related to NBT). The common characteristic in the regional regulations relies in evaluating food biosafety and field release (environmental and biodiversity) in a case-by-case and product-oriented manner, according to the institutions mandated for such purposes in each country [ 14 ].

On the prohibitive side of Latin American region, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela do not allow the commercial cultivation of GMOs. Ecuador, whose 2008 constitution defines the country as "free of transgenic crops and seeds", has made its position more flexible and allows the use of GM seeds for research purposes, through the Organic Law of Agrobiodiversity, Seeds and Promotion of the Sustainable Agriculture, decreed in 2017. In the case of Venezuela, the Venezuelan Seed Law, decreed in 2015, prohibits all GM crops in its territory.

In Peru, a transition towards a prohibitive policy has been observed. In 1999, through Law 27104, the regulation of GMOs was established, managing and controlling their confined use and release; in addition to regulating its introduction, commercialization, research, transportation, and storage, among others. It even decreed a law for the labelling of foods made with ingredients that contain GMOs (Law 29888). However, through the enactment of Law 29811, in 2011, a moratorium on the entry and production of GMOs in Peruvian territory was established for ten years, emphasizing the need to assess risks, protect biodiversity, and generate a new regulatory framework. This moratorium excludes GMOs cultivated for research purposes and in January 2021 the Peruvian Congress enacted an extension of the moratorium for fifteen more years from the end of the first ten-year period (Law 31111).

USA and Canada

The United States of America (USA) and Canada share a common regulatory style, considering the new GM plant varieties as conventional based on case-by-case biosafety analysis. This permissive style has allowed these countries to use their previous legislation to adapt it to the evaluation of GMOs [ 14 ]. Following this line, the USA, despite being the main producer of GM crops in the world, does not have federal legislation as a general framework to regulate GMOs. Depending on whether the purpose of the GM product is for human, animal and/or environmental use, its authorization and regulation fall under the standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); or the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and/or the USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), respectively.

The case of Canada is unique in the world, considering a new term in its regulatory framework: “plant with novel traits” (PNT). In the Canadian regulatory framework, a new plant variety is considered a PNT if it meets certain differentiating criteria with its conventional counterpart, regardless of the methodology used to generate it, be it transgenesis, conventional breeding or NBT. Therefore, a new plant variety can be considered a PNT in Canada while being considered a GMO for the rest of the world. Despite the broad definition criteria, Canada has a biosafety evaluation system focused on toxicity, allergenicity, impact on field release and even impacts on organisms other than the PNT, through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) [ 11 ].

The regulations of the European Union (EU) have been classified as restrictive since they determine high biosafety standards for human and animal consumption, environmental impact and consumer interests, as stated in the first article of Regulation 1829/2003 EU. This standard gives much of the responsibility on the applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product and to monitor its cultivation or use as food. In addition, the EU regulation provides a framework for citizen participation by making public the Authority's opinions regarding new requests. Citizens can send their comments to the evaluation committee within a period of thirty days, through article 6 number 7 of the aforementioned Regulation. Such have been the levels of control in the EU in terms of applications to cultivate GMOs that in more than two decades only two biotechnological events have been approved for cultivation and in the last years only one is cultivated in Spain and Portugal (insect-resistant corn, MON810) [ 8 ].

Despite this, the EU is one of the main importers of GMOs for human consumption, being mainly soybeans and its derivatives (90–95% GMOs of total imports), maize (20–25% GMOs of total imports) and canola (25% GMOs of total imports) [ 8 ]. In addition to seeding restrictions, it has regulations on traceability and labelling of GMOs. The general standard of the EU regulatory style is based on the definition of process-oriented GMOs, defining a GMO in article 2 of Directive 2001/18/EC, as “if the method of genetic modification is carried out in such a way that does not occur by natural crossing and/or recombination”. This definition does not take into account the type of modification, be it gene insertion, regulatory sequences, specific nucleotide changes, etc. Therefore, it does not discriminate the type of methodology used to generate a GMO. On the other hand, this definition also includes conventional plant breeding, on which cases it has an allowing “historical” criterion.

The African continent has been slowly adopting GM crops with different regulations between countries, similar to Latin America. Africa is home to some of the countries with the largest area planted with GM crops in the world (South Africa, Sudan, Nigeria, Eswatini and Ethiopia) (Table 1 ), in addition to Malawi and Kenya. With regard to the cultivated plant varieties, South Africa has cultivated maize, soybeans and cotton, while other countries cultivate mainly IR/Bt cotton [ 8 ], for a total of 2.9 million hectares of GM crops in 2019.

South Africa was the first African country to regulate GM crops through the Genetically Modified Organisms Act No. 15 of 1997, while other countries began to regulate this technology since the early 2000’s (Kenya and Malawi) or the last decade (Egypt, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Ghana, Nigeria, Sudan, Burkina Faso and Uganda). Furthermore, Egypt, Ghana and Uganda do not allow GM crops cultivation for commercial purposes [ 14 ]. Burkina Faso has been producing Bt cotton since 2008 but stopped its production in 2016 due to quality concerns. Its regulation allows cultivation of GM crops, but there is currently no commercial production [ 45 ]. Although Egypt was a pioneering African country in developing and planting GM maize in 2008, GM cultivation was banned four years later due to a lack of biosafety laws [ 46 ].

Asia and Oceania

Asia is the main source of GM cotton, with India being the country with the largest cultivated area (11.9 million hectares of Bt cotton in 2019) [ 8 ]. Despite the approval of Bt cotton in India in 2002, several other food and non-food GM crops are not allowed and have been planted illegally since then, such as virus-resistant papaya, Bt brinjal/eggplant and IR/HT cotton [ 47 ]. Like India, Pakistan and China are also ones of the main producers of Bt cotton [ 8 ]. Beyond the domestic and export production of GM crops, China has led the research and development of GMOs obtained by NBT, being the main source of published articles and patent applications in this regard [ 48 , 49 ]. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is the institution responsible for new approvals and demands strict field and environmental assessments for new events, delaying the process from development to commercialization. This marks a difference with the USA and Canadian regulatory frameworks, that allow faster track for the application of new events [ 14 ].

Philippines is one of the key players in the market of GMOs in Southeast Asia, being a leading producer of GM maize in the region, and also an important commercial target for GM rice that harbours enzymes for the biosynthesis of the vitamin A precursor (golden rice), which is produced mainly in China [ 9 ]. Like Philippines, Indonesia also has a product-oriented regulation with the difference of a smaller production of GMO limited to sugarcane [ 8 ]. Similar to these cases, Vietnam and Bangladesh, in Asia mainland, also have a permissive regulatory style regarding GMOs but only one species is the main focus of production being maize and brinjal/eggplant, respectively [ 8 ].

In the Pacific region, New Zealand has a strict regulatory framework that takes Māori culture into consideration, prohibiting crops that may alter traditions, sites, flora, and fauna [ 50 ]. This has led to no GM crops being cultivated commercially in the country. Moreover, this regulatory framework also considers new plant varieties developed by NBT through the regulation of GMOs [ 41 ].

Japan and Australia allow the cultivation of GM crops but with different regulatory approaches. Japan leads in GM crops approvals behind the USA, but its strict confined field trials and environmental risk assessments have not allowed commercial production of GMOs for food or feed, but only for ornamental blue rose flower [ 51 ]. On the other hand, Australia has allowed commercial production of GM crops, being a major producer of cotton, canola, and safflower (ranked 13th in area cultivated with GMOs in 2019) (Table 1 ) [ 8 ]. Despite their different approaches to commercial cultivation of GMOs, Japan and Australia share common criteria for evaluating and defining new plant varieties developed by NBT, considering unguided repair of site-directed nuclease activity (SDN-1) organisms as non-GMO [ 52 , 53 ].

Beyond GM crops

Gm microorganisms.

Agriculture has been the activity with the most extensive research, development, and application of GMOs. However, several other fields have been taking advantage of this technology. Closely related to crops, the use of yeast has been a historical tool for the production of bread and alcoholic beverages (such as wine and beer). Furthermore, due to the extensive knowledge of yeast genetics and cell biology, the biotechnological application of yeasts, as well as other fungal species, has rapidly evolved and spans various industries, such as biofuel production, medical applications, and alcoholic beverages itself. For example, genetic modification of yeast strains has been experimentally tested to modulate ethanol yields [ 54 , 55 ].

Although the use of GM yeasts in industrial applications such as bioethanol and pharmaceutical production is not a problem (the commercialization of recombinant insulin is an example of this), the use of GM yeasts for food production has faced the same problems associated with GM plants, i.e. , legal restrictions and consumer rejection, which lead to the limited commercial success that recombinant yeasts have had in the food industry [ 56 , 57 ]. For example, in the wine industry, there are only two commercialized GM strains: one for better metabolization of urea [ 58 ] and other for simultaneous alcoholic and malolactic fermentation [ 59 ]. Most commercialized wine yeast strains have resulted from the selection of strains naturally present in different ecosystems [ 60 , 61 , 62 ], followed by hybridization [ 63 , 64 , 65 ], and, in recent years, from breeding programs (similar to those made in plants and animals) [ 57 , 66 , 67 ].

All the aforementioned aspects are relevant not only for the use of yeast but also other microorganisms for food production, e.g. , lactic acid bacteria. And because NBT can also be applied for genome modification of microorganisms, the impact that these technologies could have in regulations worldwide will also impact the development and commercialization of new strains of microorganisms with enhanced characteristics.

Biomedical applications

Biomedical sciences have been systematically exploiting genetic modification for new therapeutic approaches since the 90's. The practical potential of these approaches comes from complementary fields in continuous development: the design and optimization of in vivo oligonucleotide-based therapies, engineering of viral vectors for gene therapy and the introduction of gene-edited cells generated ex vivo into patients to treat certain conditions, especially blood-related diseases [ 68 , 69 , 70 ]. Importantly, these gene editing techniques have been employed to modify coding or non-coding regulatory sequences and also epigenetic modulators of gene expression ( 71 , 72 ). Noteworthy, the engineered viral vectors and the genetically modified cells can be considered GMOs or products of them, depending on the methodology used.

Despite increasing knowledge and proof-of-concept studies, only a few gene-editing therapies have been approved by FDA and are currently available to patients [ 69 , 73 ]. Most of these therapies are based on chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T cells), modifying T lymphocytes ex vivo with viral vectors to infuse them back into the patient’s bloodstream to treat multiple myeloma or B-cell lymphoma. Trade names for these FDA-approved CAR-T cells therapies are Abecma, Breyanzi, Carvykti, Kymriah, Tecartus, Yescarta. Besides the ex vivo approach, Imlygic is the only case of local administration of viral particles to transduce cancer cells, leading to oncolysis for melanoma treatment. Luxturna and Zolgensma are adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapies for RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), replacing the dysfunctional alleles of the RPE65 or SMN1 gene, respectively, with their functional copies [ 74 , 75 ]. These two gene-replacing AAV therapies constitute the only approved cases for gene editing of the nervous system.

Controversially, the patient’s somatic cells transduced in gene therapy administration can also be considered as GMOs, since they meet the definition of the Cartagena protocol, as long as they harbour a new combination of genetic material through the use of modern biotechnology. For example, Luxturna and Zolgensma viral vectors replace the dysfunctional alleles of the RPE65 and SMN1 genes in retina or central nervous system nerve cells, respectively. This results in genetically modified somatic cells. How will GMO regulation take these events into account? This question is still open for debate, as regulatory frameworks keep pace with new technologies and applications.

Beside genome edition approach to develop therapeutic interventions, targeting gene expression has also been tested by meanings of RNA-based therapies [ 76 ]. Contrary to the case of some viruses, DNA but no RNA is considered as the genetic material in humans and, thus, RNA use and/or modification would not be regarded as LMOs by Cartagena protocol [ 77 ]. Nevertheless, nucleic acid therapies based on RNA have been proved useful to treat several diseases and their regulation could fall under the terms of genetic modification if the case arises. These therapies include vaccines, being COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA)-based ones the most widespread employed up to date [ 78 , 79 ]. One of the main advantages of RNA therapy is the reduced genotoxicity due to lack of integration into the genome [ 76 ]. Moreover, due to the diverse roles of RNA molecules in cell biology, including modulation of transcription, mRNA processing, translation and protein homeostasis, is possible to target specific metabolic pathways without carrying the modification into daughter cells [ 76 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]. RNA-based therapies have been approved by FDA to treat several diseases, such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and hypercholesterolemia [ 83 , 84 ], SMA [ 85 ], Duchenne muscular dystrophy [ 86 , 87 ], hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (hATTR) [ 88 ], hepatic porphyria [ 89 ] or neovascular age-related macular degeneration [ 90 ]. These therapies relay on antisense oligonucleotide, small interfering RNA (siRNA) or modified RNA (aptamers) tools [ 76 ].

Not only human cells are the main target for gene editing or gene expression modification in pathological contexts. The use of biomaterials in medicine has opened new avenues for GMOs and/or their products in biomedical treatments. Spanning from tissue engineering, drug delivery, organ transplantation, artificial organs, dental implants, bone replacement to prosthetics, among others, biomaterials serve as a functional platform to couple GMOs to human physiology. Stratagraft and Maci are FDA-approved cellular therapies acting as scaffolds for tissue regeneration indicated for knee cartilage defects or deep partial-thickness thermal burns, respectively. Despite not being genetically modified, these decellularized collagen scaffolds open the way for existing and developing “functional” biomaterials that express recombinant proteins such as growth factors, immune modulators or extracellular matrix components [ 91 , 92 , 93 ]. Following this line, functional photosynthetic scaffolds for dermal regeneration have been tested using Synechococcus sp. transgenic cyanobacteria that synthetize hyaluronic acid or modified Chlamydomonas reinhardtii microalgae that expresses the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [ 92 , 93 ].

GMOs for climate change challenge

Notwithstanding the potential of GMOs to face big challenges in human activities, regulatory frameworks and public opinion continue to play a critical role in their development and implementation. Such is the case of climate change solutions based on GMOs. It has been proposed that biotech crops can reduce the greenhouse gases (GHG) emission by means of optimizing land-use, increasing yields, and decreasing the chemical, energy and transport resources involved in agricultural production [ 94 ]. Herbicide and insect resistant traits have allowed reduced levels of pesticide used worldwide estimated to an extent of 8.3% compared to the amount needed on the same area planted with conventional counterpart crops [ 95 ]. This have led to reduced, and even remove, tillage between agricultural cycles because farmers no longer need to remove weeds mechanically neither separate pathogen-infected plants [ 95 ]. Due to this continuous use of land for crop growth, there is more plant mass available to change atmospheric CO 2 fluxes towards the soil in a phenomenon termed carbon sequestration [ 96 ]. Moreover, insect resistant traits have reduced the need for insecticide spraying, decreasing the fuel consumption associated with this process worldwide. In top of that, some authors argue that GM crops require less agricultural surface to be produced, also decreasing the fuel demand for machinery associated with larger farm area [ 94 , 95 ]. It has been estimated that, depending on the region, cultivation of maize, soybean or rotation of both, have a carbon sequestration between 102 and 250 kg of carbon per hectare per year [ 95 ].

European geographical conditions are advantageous for growing the most commercialized GM crops. It has recently been estimated that GMOs adoption in the EU will increase yields and lower pesticide utilization [ 94 ]. Importantly, the EU imports more than 45 million tons of maize and soybean, for food and feed, from the Americas (mainly USA, Argentina and Brazil). Higher yields and increased local production due to hypothetical adoption of GM crops in the EU will reduce imports and therefore the environmental impact worldwide. This scenario could lead to a reduction in GHG emissions by 33 million tons of CO 2 equivalents per year [ 94 ]. However, as stated above, Europe is the most reluctant region to GMOs adoption due to its strict regulatory framework and overall consumer rejection. As long as these legal and sociological features hold their positions, little progress will be made not only in assessing GM crops potential to tackle climate change, but also in scientific research for European crops breeding and global solutions. Nevertheless, a future turn towards uses of modern biotechnology could be expected as the presence of GM ingredients in food and drinks and gene editing technology are not even at the top three main concerns regarding food security, according to the last Eurobarometer survey assessing food security perception [ 97 , 98 ].

In addition to GHG emissions reduction and crop yield and nutrient content optimization, plant adaptation to the changing environment is one of the main concerns in climate change context. Besides conventional breeding, genetic modification has been tested to enhance plant resistance to higher global temperatures and lower water availability. In this scenario, the drought-tolerance trait has become an attractive research focus for crop development [ 99 , 100 ]. Soybean and wheat, two of the most consumed crops, have been modified to express sunflower Hahb-4 transcription factor related to water stress responses [ 101 ]. These transgenic crops (termed HB4 crops) are currently commercially available and do not differ in nutritional content compared to their non-transgenic counterparts [ 102 , 103 , 104 ]. Under field conditions, HB4 soybean has increased seed yield and water use efficiency in dry environments compared to non-transgenic crops [ 105 ]. Experience in the USA has shown that one of the few drought-tolerant commercial maize led to increased yields in water-limited environments compared to conventional hybrids in the same regions, with yield differences ranging from 1 to 9.7% [ 106 , 107 ]. The understanding of water management and root systems in plant biology is a key aspect for the development of this trait [ 100 ]. In fact, modifying rice root architecture-related locus Dro1 , increased root depth and provided better yields under water-limited in vitro or field environments [ 108 , 109 ]. Another relevant path to stress resistance and drought tolerance is abscisic acid (ABA) hormone signaling, being a potential target for genetic modification in order to obtain new varieties [ 100 ]. Transgenic canola harboring antisense construct against farnesyltransferase (ERA1), an ABA signaling down-regulator factor, is able to increase seed yields under water-limited field conditions during flowering time [ 110 ]. Indeed, complementary approaches modifying root systems, ABA signaling and early-flowering strategies could be useful to cope with warm seasons, avoiding exposition to heat and reduced water levels in drought risk regions [ 99 , 100 , 110 , 111 , 112 ].

Conclusions

The development of new genetic editing strategies and technologies such as NBT has brought opportunities to face critical challenges in different aspects of human life. From meeting the needs for food and feed to development of industries and new therapeutic approaches, the enormous potential of LMOs could be a game-changing tool to thrive in a rapidly changing world. Updating, understanding and discussing this scientific knowledge will have a profound impact on regulatory frameworks across the world as seen in the evolution of different legal styles that has been constructed over the years. Noteworthy, the comparison of these frameworks shows that several cultural and local aspects, such as environmental or economic factors, are as important as technology development to rise up to these challenges.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Adeno-associated virus

Abscisic acid

Chimeric antigen receptor T

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats

Double-strand break

Deoxyribonucleic acid

Greenhouse gases

Genetically modified

Genetically modified organism

Homology-directed repair

Herbicide tolerance

Insect resistance

Non-homologous end joining

Living modified organism

Open reading frame

Plant with novel traits

Reverse transcriptase

Spinal muscular atrophy

Transcription activator-like effector

Transcription activator-like effector nuclease

Vascular endothelial growth factor

Zinc finger domain-coupled nucleases

Ahloowalia BS, Maluszynski M. Induced mutations—a new paradigm in plant breeding. Euphytica. 2001;118:167–73.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Oladosu Y, et al. Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: a review. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2015;30:1–16.

Article   Google Scholar  

Jewell MC, Campbell BC, Godwin ID. Transgenic plants for abiotic stress resistance. Transgenic Crop Plants. 2010;2:67–132.

Ferry N, Gatehouse AMR. Transgenic crop plants for resistance to biotic stress. Transgenic Crop Plants. 2010;2:1–65.

Google Scholar  

Duke SO, Cerdeira AL. Transgenic crops for herbicide resistance. Transgenic Crop Plants. 2010;2:133–66.

ISAAA Brief, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2018. ISAAA Br. No. 54. ISAAA Ithaca, NY 2018.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal. Canada. ISBN: 92-807-1924-6.

ISAAA, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019: Biotech Crops Drive SocioEconomic Development and Sustainable Environment in the New Frontier. ISAAA Ithaca, NY. , 3–13; 2019.

Ye X, et al. Engineering the provitamin A (β-Carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) rice endosperm. Science. 2000;287:303–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Paul JY, et al. Golden bananas in the field: elevated fruit pro-vitamin A from the expression of a single banana transgene. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017;15:520–32.

Smyth SJ. Canadian regulatory perspectives on genome engineered crops. GM Crops Food. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2016.12574688,35-43 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hofvander P. Production of amylopectin and high-amylose starch in separate potato genotypes. 2004.

Broothaerts W, et al. Development of a certified reference material for genetically modified potato with altered starch composition. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55:4728–34.

Turnbull C, Lillemo M, Hvoslef-Eide TAK. Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom—a review. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:1–19.

Ranum P, Peña JP, Peña-Rosas P, Garcia-Casal MN, Nieves Garcia-Casal M. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1312:105–12.

Xu J, Hua K, Lang Z. Genome editing for horticultural crop improvement. Hortic Res. 2019;6:113.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhang Y, Pribil M, Palmgren M, Gao C. A CRISPR way for accelerating improvement of food crops. Nat Food. 2020;1:200–5.

Mushtaq M, et al. Crispr-based genome editing tools: insights into technological breakthroughs and future challenges. Genes (Basel). 2021;12:797.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Metje-Sprink J, Menz J, Modrzejewski D, Sprink T. DNA-Free genome editing: past, present and future. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9:1–9.

Hilioti Z, Ganopoulos I, Ajith S, Bossis I, Tsaftaris A. A novel arrangement of zinc finger nuclease system for in vivo targeted genome engineering: the tomato LEC1-LIKE4 gene case. Plant Cell Rep. 2016;35:2241–55.

Jung YJ, Nogoy FM, Lee SK, Cho YG, Kang KK. Application of ZFN for site directed mutagenesis of rice SSIVa gene. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng. 2018;23:108–15.

Peer R, et al. Targeted mutagenesis using zinc-finger nucleases in perennial fruit trees. Planta. 2015;241:941–51.

Curtin SJ, et al. Targeted mutagenesis of duplicated genes in soybean with zinc-finger nucleases. Plant Physiol. 2011;156:466–73.

Ran Y, et al. Zinc finger nuclease-mediated precision genome editing of an endogenous gene in hexaploid bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) using a DNA repair template. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16:2088–101.

Nicolia A, et al. Targeted gene mutation in tetraploid potato through transient TALEN expression in protoplasts. J Biotechnol. 2015;204:17–24.

Ma J, et al. Genome editing in potato plants by agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of transcription activator-like effector nucleases. Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2017;11:249–58.

Wen S, et al. TALEN-mediated targeted mutagenesis of fatty acid desaturase 2 (FAD2) in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) promotes the accumulation of oleic acid. Plant Mol Biol. 2018;97:177–85.

Demorest ZL, et al. Direct stacking of sequence-specific nuclease-induced mutations to produce high oleic and low linolenic soybean oil. BMC Plant Biol. 2016;16:1–8.

Kannan B, Jung JH, Moxley GW, Lee SM, Altpeter F. TALEN-mediated targeted mutagenesis of more than 100 COMT copies/alleles in highly polyploid sugarcane improves saccharification efficiency without compromising biomass yield. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16:856–66.

Jung JH, Altpeter F. TALEN mediated targeted mutagenesis of the caffeic acid O-methyltransferase in highly polyploid sugarcane improves cell wall composition for production of bioethanol. Plant Mol Biol. 2016;92:131–42.

Sun Z, et al. Site-specific gene targeting using transcription activator-like effector (TALE)-based nuclease in Brassica oleracea . J Integr Plant Biol. 2013;55:1092–103.

Jaganathan D, Ramasamy K, Sellamuthu G, Jayabalan S, Venkataraman G. CRISPR for crop improvement: an update review. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1–17.

Komor AC, Kim YB, Packer MS, Zuris JA, Liu DR. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nat. 2016;533:420–4.

Pan C, Sretenovic S, Qi Y. CRISPR/dCas-mediated transcriptional and epigenetic regulation in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2021;60: 101980.

Gaudelli NM, et al. Programmable base editing of A•T to G•C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature. 2017;551:464–71.

Anzalone AV, et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nat. 2019;576:149–57.

Zhang H, et al. Genome editing of upstream open reading frames enables translational control in plants. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:894–8.

Svitashev S, Schwartz C, Lenderts B, Young JK, Mark Cigan A. Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPR–Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun. 2016;7:1–7.

Li Z, et al. Cas9-Guide RNA directed genome editing in soybean. Plant Physiol. 2015;169:960–70.

Li C, Unver T, Zhang B. A high-efficiency CRISPR/Cas9 system for targeted mutagenesis in Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.). Sci Rep. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43902 .

Ishii T, Araki M. A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops. GM Crop Food. 2017;8:44–56.

Eckerstorfer MF, Engelhard M, Heissenberger A, Simon S, Teichmann H. Plants developed by new genetic modification techniques-comparison of existing regulatory frameworks in the EU and Non-EU countries. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:26.

Sánchez MA. Chile as a key enabler country for global plant breeding, agricultural innovation, and biotechnology. GM Crop Food. 2020;11:130–9.

Sánchez MA, León G. Status of market, regulation and research of genetically modified crops in Chile. N Biotechnol. 2016;33:815–23.

Dowd-Uribe B, Schnurr MA. Briefing: Burkina Faso’s reversal on genetically modified cotton and the implications for Africa. Afr Aff (Lond). 2016;115:161–72.

Assem, S. K. Opportunities and Challenges of Commercializing Biotech Products in Egypt: Bt Maize: A Case Study. Science Policy Reports, 2014; 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04001-1_3 .

Kameswara Rao C. Genetically engineered crops would ensure food security in India. In: Bennett David J, Jennings Richard C, editors. Successful agricultural innovation in emerging economies: new genetic technologies for global food production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 167–83.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cohen J. China’s CRISPR revolution. Science. 2019;365:420–1.

Martin-Laffon J, Kuntz M, Ricroch AE. Worldwide CRISPR patent landscape shows strong geographical biases. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:613–20.

Hudson M, et al. Indigenous perspectives and gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:70.

USDA FAS. (2021). GAIN Report Number: JA2021-0140: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual - Japan. Available Online at: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/japan-agricultural-biotechnology-annual-3 . Accessed 12 Oct 2022.

Tsuda M, Watanabe KN, Ohsawa R. Regulatory status of genome-edited organisms under the Japanese Cartagena Act. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:387.

Zhang Y, Restall J, Crisp P, Godwin I, Liu G. Current status and prospects of plant genome editing in Australia. Vitr Cell Dev Biol Plant. 2021;57:574–83.

Gonzalez R, Guindal AM, Tronchoni J, Morales P. Biotechnological approaches to lowering the ethanol yield during wine fermentation. Biomol. 2021;11:1569.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Steensels J, et al. Improving industrial yeast strains: exploiting natural and artificial diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2014;38:947–95.

Heitmann M, Zannini E, Arendt E. Impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolites produced during fermentation on bread quality parameters: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1244153 .

Kessi-Pérez EI, et al. Generation of a non-transgenic genetically improved yeast strain for wine production from nitrogen-deficient musts. Microorg. 2020;8:1194.

Coulon J, et al. Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to minimize the production of ethyl carbamate in wine. Am J Enol Vitic. 2006;57:2.

Husnik P, Delaquis M, Cliff H. Vuuren, functional analyses of the malolactic wine yeast ML01. Am J Enol Vitic. 2006;58:1.

Manzano M, et al. Classical and molecular analyses to characterize commercial dry yeasts used in wine fermentations. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;100:599–607.

Querol A, Barrio E, Huerta T, Ramon D. Molecular monitoring of wine fermentations conducted by active dry yeast strains. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992;58:2948.

Guimarães T, Gomes Moriel D, Machado I, Picheth C, Bonfim T. Isolation and characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain of winery interest. Rev Bras Ciências Farm. 2006;42:119–26.

Hart RS, Jolly NP, Ndimba BK. Characterisation of hybrid yeasts for the production of varietal Sauvignon blanc wine—a review. J Microbiol Methods. 2019;165: 105699.

Pérez-Torrado R, Barrio E, Querol A. Alternative yeasts for winemaking: Saccharomyces non-cerevisiae and its hybrids. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018;58:1780–90.

Peris D, Pérez-Torrado R, Hittinger CT, Barrio E, Querol A. On the origins and industrial applications of Saccharomyces cerevisiae × Saccharomyces kudriavzevii hybrids. Yeast. 2018;35:51–69.

Marullo P, et al. Breeding strategies for combining fermentative qualities and reducing off-flavor production in a wine yeast model. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006;6:268–79.

Marullo P, et al. Genetic improvement of thermo-tolerance in wine Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains by a backcross approach. FEMS Yeast Res. 2009;9:1148–60.

Bachtarzi H, Farries T. The genetically modified organism medicinal framework in Europe, United States, and Japan: underlying scientific principles and considerations toward the development of gene therapy and genetically modified cell-based products. Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev. 2019;30:114–28.

Bulaklak K, Gersbach CA. The once and future gene therapy. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–4.

Havert M, Anatol R, Irony I, Huang Y. Regulation of adenoviral vector-based therapies: an FDA perspective. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2016. p. 803–32.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wu Y, et al. Highly efficient therapeutic gene editing of human hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Med. 2019;25:776–83.

Thakore PI, Black JB, Hilton IB, Gersbach CA. Editing the epigenome: technologies for programmable transcription and epigenetic modulation. Nat Methods. 2016;13:127–37.

Perez-Pinera P, Chen ZY. Biomedical applications of gene editing. Hum Genet. 2016;135:967–9.

Mendell JR, et al. Single-dose gene-replacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1713–22.

Russell S, et al. Efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec (AAV2-hRPE65v2) in patients with RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390:849–60.

Kim YK. RNA therapy: rich history, various applications and unlimited future prospects. Exp Mol Med. 2022;54:455–65.

Forterre P, Grosjean H. The Interplay between RNA and DNA Modifications: Back to the RNA World. In: Madame Curie Bioscience Database [Internet]. Austin (TX): Landes Bioscience; 2000-2013. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6338/

Mulligan MJ, et al. Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature. 2020;586:589–93.

Jackson LA, et al. An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2—preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1920–31.

Hammond SM, Caudy AA, Hannon GJ. Post-transcriptional gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:110–9.

Licatalosi DD, Darnell RB. RNA processing and its regulation: global insights into biological networks. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:75–87.

Chen LL. The expanding regulatory mechanisms and cellular functions of circular RNAs. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21:475–90.

Ray KK, et al. Inclisiran in patients at high cardiovascular risk with elevated LDL cholesterol. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1430–40.

Bell DA, Hooper AJ, Watts GF, Burnett JR. Mipomersen and other therapies for the treatment of severe familial hypercholesterolemia. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2012;8:651–9.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wurster CD, Ludolph AC. Nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2018;11:175628561875445.

Lim KRQ, Maruyama R, Yokota T. Eteplirsen in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2017;11:533–45.

Frank DE, et al. Increased dystrophin production with golodirsen in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurology. 2020;94:E2270–82.

Adams D, et al. Patisiran, an RNAi therapeutic, for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:11–21.

Balwani M, et al. Phase 3 trial of RNAi therapeutic givosiran for acute intermittent porphyria. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2289–301.

Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET, Feinsod M, Guyer DR. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2805–16.

Zhao X, et al. Combination of an engineered Lactococcus lactis expressing CXCL12 with light-emitting diode yellow light as a treatment for scalded skin in mice. Microb Biotechnol. 2021;14:2090–100.

Chávez MN, et al. Towards autotrophic tissue engineering: photosynthetic gene therapy for regeneration. Biomaterials. 2016;75:25–36.

Chávez MN, et al. Use of photosynthetic transgenic cyanobacteria to promote lymphangiogenesis in scaffolds for dermal regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2021;126:132–43.

Kovak E, Blaustein-Rejto D, Qaim M. Genetically modified crops support climate change mitigation. Trends Plant Sci. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.01.004 .

Brookes G, Barfoot P. Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2018: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops Food. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198 .

Sutherland C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ. Correlating genetically modified crops, glyphosate use and increased carbon sequestration. Sustain. 2021;13:11679.

European Food Service Authority. Food safety in the EU (Publications Office, 2019). https://doi.org/10.2805/661752 .

Woźniak E, Tyczewska A, Twardowski T. A shift towards biotechnology: social opinion in the EU. Trends Biotechnol. 2021;39:214–8.

Hall AJ, Richards RA. Prognosis for genetic improvement of yield potential and water-limited yield of major grain crops. Field Crop Res. 2013;143:18–33.

Bailey-Serres J, Parker JE, Ainsworth EA, Oldroyd GED, Schroeder JI. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature. 2019;575:109–18.

Dezar CA, Gago GM, González DH, Chan RL. Hahb-4, a sunflower homeobox-leucine zipper gene, is a developmental regulator and confers drought tolerance to Arabidopsis thaliana plants. Transgenic Res. 2005;14:429–40.

Chiozza MV, Burachik M, Miranda PV. Compositional analysis of soybean event IND-ØØ41Ø-5. GM Crops Food. 2020;11:154–63.

Ayala F, Fedrigo GV, Burachik M, Miranda PV. Compositional equivalence of event IND-ØØ412-7 to non-transgenic wheat. Transgenic Res. 2019;28:165–76.

Miranda PV, Iglesias BF, Charriere MV, Burachik M. Drought tolerant wheat IND-ØØ412-7 is nutritionally equivalent to its non-transgenic comparator. GM Crops Food. 2022;13:119–25.

Ribichich KF, et al. Successful field performance in warm and dry environments of soybean expressing the sunflower transcription factor HB4. J Exp Bot. 2020;71:3142–56.

Cooper M, Gho C, Leafgren R, Tang T, Messina C. Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: discovery to product. J Exp Bot. 2014;65:6191–4.

Gaffney J, et al. Industry-scale evaluation of maize hybrids selected for increased yield in drought-stress conditions of the US corn belt. Crop Sci. 2015;55:1608–18.

Uga Y, et al. Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1097–102.

Arai-Sanoh Y, et al. Deep rooting conferred by DEEPER ROOTING 1 enhances rice yield in paddy fields. Sci Rep. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05563 .

Wang Y, et al. Molecular tailoring of farnesylation for plant drought tolerance and yield protection. Plant J. 2005;43:413–24.

Ortega R, et al. Altered expression of an FT cluster underlies a major locus controlling domestication-related changes to chickpea phenology and growth habit. Front Plant Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00824 .

Shavrukov Y, et al. Early flowering as a drought escape mechanism in plants: how can it aid wheat production? Front Plant Sci. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01950 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Dicyt-USACH, Universidad de Santiago de Chile [grant USA1856_2_1_4] to PR, ANID/FONDECYT [grant 11220533] to EIKP, and ANID/FONDECYT [grant 1201104] and ANID/FONDEF IDeA I+D [grant ID21I10198] to CM.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Biological and Medical Engineering, Schools of Engineering, Medicine and Biological Sciences, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Pablo Rozas

Centro de Estudios en Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos (CECTA), Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago, Chile

Eduardo I. Kessi-Pérez & Claudio Martínez

Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de los Alimentos, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago, Chile

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, EIKP and CM; investigation, PR; data curation, PR; writing—original draft preparation, PR; writing—review and editing, PR, EIKP and CM; visualization, PR and EIKP; supervision, EIKP and CM; project administration, CM; funding acquisition, CM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Martínez .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rozas, P., Kessi-Pérez, E.I. & Martínez, C. Genetically modified organisms: adapting regulatory frameworks for evolving genome editing technologies. Biol Res 55 , 31 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40659-022-00399-x

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2022

Accepted : 06 October 2022

Published : 20 October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40659-022-00399-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biomedicine
• Climate change
• Genetically modified organism (GMO)
• New breeding techniques (NBT)
• Transgenesis

Biological Research

ISSN: 0717-6287

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• < Previous

Home > JOURNAL-ARTICLES > 5024

Journal Article

Ten year of genetically modified crop regulation in the philippines.

Saturnina C. Halos Thelma Soriano

The Philippines established the final phases of a regulatory system for genetically modified (GM) crops in 2002 that provided access by small corn farmers to the GM crop technology. This paper describes the system, management and processes of Philippine GM crop regulation in relation to features of transparency, predictability, science-based decision, manageability and adaptability. It presents the problems encountered and solutions adopted. Information and data were gathered from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), the Office of Policy and Planning, Department of Agriculture (DA), Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines (BCP), and relevant websites. In 10 years, there were 2 changes in national leadership, 4 Philippine Congresses, 5 changes of department leadership, 5 changes in leadership at the BPI, and various changes in local government leader-ships with local elections occurring every 3 years. Demands to ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and field trial or reverse decisions are made now and then, and two court cases have also been brought against the system. Nevertheless, with minimum resource, the GM crop regulatory system has stabilized due to clear implementable policies brought about by a close working relationship between policy making and implementation, support from affected sectors, the continuity in office of key individuals in the system, science-based decisions and manageability. The policies and practices ensure transparency and predictability. Policy making is responsive to issues that arise during implementation and to trade issues. In policy and in practice, the system is participatory and socio-culturally sound. Compared with the additional income earned by Filipino GM corn farmers, government investments in establishing and maintaining the regulatory system is minimal and worth the investment.

Source or Periodical Title

Philippine Journal of Crop Science

Document Type

tri-quarterly

Physical Description

tables, graphs

Recommended Citation

Halos, Saturnina C. and Soriano, Thelma, "Ten year of genetically modified crop regulation in the Philippines" (2014). Journal Article . 5024. https://www.ukdr.uplb.edu.ph/journal-articles/5024

This document is currently not available here.

Since November 08, 2021

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Submit Research

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Philippines Becomes First Country to Approve GMO ‘Golden Rice’

The rice is supposed to help with childhood nutrition. But will it?

The golden rice is the yellow one. courtesy of International Rice Research Institute

Genetically modified crops are common in countries such as the United States, but generally they’re modified for two things: efficiency and profit.

Golden rice, which is a short-grain rice genetically modified to contain beta-carotene, was first developed in 1999, in Switzerland. But the rice’s journey to federal approval has been slow and filled with opposition. This week, the government of the Philippines announced that it had approved golden rice, making it the first country to do so.

Golden rice is a variety of rice that has been genetically modified to combat vitamin A deficiency, thanks to the inclusion of beta-carotene. This pigment is red-orange in color and is found in many plants, most famously carrots (hence the name). The human body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A, which is an important nutrient for the immune system, for vision and for digestion. Vitamin A deficiency is a significant problem in some parts of the world, with the World Health Organization estimating deficiency in about a third of all preschool-aged kids.

The Philippines has been leading the charge for golden rice, with much of the development and testing taking place there. But the path for this rice has not been easy, and in some ways it has devolved into the same debate about genetically modified foods seen over the past few decades. 

Proponents say that golden rice is a potentially life-saving creation, that it can deliver around 50 percent of the daily recommended allotment of vitamin A in a single cup of rice. Supporters include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has funded research into the GMO grain.

Opponents include organizations such as Greenpeace . Some are opposed to GMO food on principle, no matter what. Many have noted that the development of GMO crops has historically benefited huge corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta, rather than farmers or consumers, and that the millions of dollars golden rice has required to develop could have been used for more cost-effective nutrition programs. There’s also uncertainty about whether a yellow-colored rice would actually be appealing in regions where rice is typically white.

Currently, the rice has moved “past the regulatory phase,” according to the Philippine Star , meaning it has been declared as safe as any other rice, and is ready to plant.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Will this only benefit large commercial farmers who can afford the high cost of these modified seeds and the synthetic fertilizer and pesticides these GM crops often need or will small farmers be able to grow this affordably and in an environmentally sustainable way saving seed? The GM crops have a history of decimating farming communities in developing countries. Wouldn’t it be better to encourage small famers to grow local crops like yams, kale or papaya for vitamin A? I’m not totally anti-GM- we may need food crops with a gene added for salt tolerance as global warming raises sea …  Read more »

https://grain.org/en/article/6690-how-the-gates-foundation-is-driving-the-food-system-in-the-wrong-direction We LOVE Bill and Melinda Gates huge-hearted generosity but some argue they support the ag chem companies’ large scale agricultural practices at the expense of small farmers https://grain.org/en/article/6690-how-the-gates-foundation-is-driving-the-food-system-in-the-wrong-direction

This is excellent news for anyone who uses rice as a staple. The success in the PI will hit the news and cause acceptance in many more nations. There is no debate regarding GE crops. There are simply some regressive that refuse to accept reality. The author uses false equivalence by mentioning the nut case folks that oppose GR for bogus reasons. If you are going to mention such nonsense. One needs to explain why it is bogus. Sorry work by Danny boy.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Want to republish a Modern Farmer story?

We are happy for Modern Farmer stories to be shared, and encourage you to republish our articles for your audience. When doing so, we ask that you follow these guidelines:

Please credit us and our writers

For the author byline, please use “Author Name, Modern Farmer.” At the top of our stories, if on the web, please include this text and link: “This story was originally published by  Modern Farmer . ”

Please make sure to include a link back to either our home page or the article URL.

At the bottom of the story, please include the following text:

“Modern Farmer is a nonprofit initiative dedicated to raising awareness and catalyzing action at the intersection of food, agriculture, and society. Read more at <link>Modern Farmer</link>.”

Use our widget

We’d like to be able to track our stories, so we ask that if you republish our content, you do so using our widget (located on the left hand side of the article). The HTML code has a built-in tracker that tells us the data and domain where the story was published, as well as view counts.

Check the image requirements

It’s your responsibility to confirm you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some images, such as those from commercial providers, don't allow their images to be republished without permission or payment. Copyright terms are generally listed in the image caption and attribution. You are welcome to omit our images or substitute with your own. Charts and interactive graphics follow the same rules.

Don’t change too much. Or, ask us first.

Articles must be republished in their entirety. It’s okay to change references to time (“today” to “yesterday”) or location (“Iowa City, IA” to “here”). But please keep everything else the same.

If you feel strongly that a more material edit needs to be made, get in touch with us at [email protected] . We’re happy to discuss it with the original author, but we must have prior approval for changes before publication.

Special cases

Extracts.  You may run the first few lines or paragraphs of the article and then say: “Read the full article at Modern Farmer” with a link back to the original article.

Quotes.  You may quote authors provided you include a link back to the article URL.

Translations.  These require writer approval. To inquire about translation of a Modern Farmer article, contact us at [email protected]

Signed consent / copyright release forms.  These are not required, provided you are following these guidelines.

Print.  Articles can be republished in print under these same rules, with the exception that you do not need to include the links.

When sharing the story on social media, please tag us using the following: - Twitter (@ModFarm) - Facebook (@ModernFarmerMedia) - Instagram (@modfarm)

Use our content respectfully 

Modern Farmer is a nonprofit and as such we share our content for free and in good faith in order to reach new audiences. Respectfully,

No selling ads against our stories. It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads.

Don’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.

You have no rights to sell, license, syndicate, or otherwise represent yourself as the authorized owner of our material to any third parties. This means that you cannot actively publish or submit our work for syndication to third party platforms or apps like Apple News or Google News. We understand that publishers cannot fully control when certain third parties automatically summarize or crawl content from publishers’ own sites.

Keep in touch 

by Dan Nosowitz, Modern Farmer July 28, 2021

Modern Farmer Weekly

Solutions Hub

Innovations, ideas and inspiration. Actionable solutions for a resilient food system.

Explore other topics

Share With Us

We want to hear from Modern Farmer readers who have thoughtful commentary, actionable solutions, or helpful ideas to share.

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and are used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies.

Home > LAWREVS > WILJ > Vol. 15 > No. 2 (2006)

Washington International Law Journal

Genetically modified crops in the philippines: can existing biosafety regulations adequately protect the environment.

Christina L. Richmond

Global concern persists about the use of genetically modified crops (“GM crops”). This concern originates from the divergent perspectives of nations with a stake in either the production or consumption of GM crops. Proponents of GM crops in developing countries claim that the crops could increase food supply by improving plant resistance to pesticides, thereby alleviating the need for farmers to purchase chemicals that are frequently expensive or unavailable. However, many organizations and countries are hesitant or outright opposed to GM crops, particularly regarding their potentially undesirable ecological and agricultural consequences. As one of the first Asian nations to approve and commercialize a GM crop, the Philippines serves as a useful case study for evaluating a developing nation’s strategy for regulating the environmental impacts of agricultural biotechnology in the face of international pressures. Though among the first of the Asian nations to enact biosafety regulations, the Philippines’ existing regulations do not adequately protect the environment because they lack enforcement power and leave gaps in coverage. Legislation that would create a more streamlined regulatory process and endow the regulating agencies with stronger enforcement authority should be enacted.

Recommended Citation

Christina L. Richmond, Comment, Genetically Modified Crops in the Philippines: Can Existing Biosafety Regulations Adequately Protect the Environment? , 15 P ac. R im L & P ol'y J. 569 (2006). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol15/iss2/8

Since April 23, 2019

Included in

Comparative and Foreign Law Commons , Food and Drug Law Commons

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Membership Selection
• Current Masthead
• Submissions
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2377-0872

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

The next ‘big thing’ in genetically modified crops: Drought-tolerant and herbicide resistant wheat. Here’s what you need to know

Archaeological evidence suggests that around 9,500 BCE, people in the Fertile Crescent began cultivating wheat as one of their first domesticated crops. To modern humans, it would be almost inedible: small but edible grains encased in a tough husk. Millennium after millennium, the grains were genetically modified by opportunistic farmers, gradually evolving into the varied wheat staple varieties we have today growing in most parts of the world. The great leap forward came in the 1950s when Norman Borlaug helped facilitate the development of high-yielding, disease-resistant, and adaptable wheat varieties became a key component in the Green Revolution.

While Borlaug’s breakthroughs were achieved using traditional plant breeding methods—crossbreeding and selecting wheat varieties for desirable traits—modern genetic modification (GM) and engineering involve directly altering the DNA of wheat in a lab. Genetic modification of wheat has primarily focused on improving yield, disease resistance, and adaptability to environmental stress. However, unlike other staple crops, the commercialization of GM wheat has been limited due to market resistance, regulatory hurdles, and consumer concerns. Unlike other GM crops such as corn and soybeans, GM wheat is a staple and  has not been widely commercialized, primarily due to market resistance. But 35 years into the genetic modification revolution, the resistance appears to be fading.

Long delayed, the vision of genetically engineered wheat passed a major milestone this past month. The Argentine company Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp has been engineering a wheat that has been bred to be drought-tolerant and tolerant of the herbicide glufosinate. Last week the United States Department of Agriculture approved HB4 for U.S. cultivation. The Food and Drug Administration has already determined in 2022 that the variety was safe for humans to eat.

The United States is the fourth country to approve HB4 after Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. This clears the hurdle for HB4 in conjunction with U.S. breeders to begin closed-field trials. This follows the commercialization of HB4 soybeans a few years back. Rollout of the soybeans was ostensibly simpler because genetically engineered soybeans of various traits have been on the market for decades. Still, because of wheat’s place in our daily diet, novel environmental questions remain to be answered specific to wheat production.

GM wheat grown in the US?

Bioceres CEO Federico Trucco said that before United States sales could commence, he believes that HB4 must be developed with wheat genetics used in the U.S. and approved by countries that import U.S. wheat. “We’re already collaborating with some (local U.S.) wheat players, in particular the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation, with which we are developing seven types, focusing on hard red wheat for both winter and spring,” he said.

Full deployment is still a few years out. According to Successful Farming :

Bioceres is working with the U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of Wheat Growers, two U.S. farmer groups that require that new varieties like HB4 wheat win approval from U.S. export markets prior to their use. Major U.S. wheat importers such as Mexico, the Philippines, and Japan, have yet to approve HB4 wheat developed by Bioceres.

Nevertheless, HB4 has already been deployed in a limited, precursory way, in Argentina where the GM wheat was developed, according to Bloomberg :

About 20 flour mills in Argentina are already buying HB4 and hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland have been sown with the strain this season in a country with a total wheat area of about 6 million hectares (14.8 million acres), Trucco said in the interview.

Understanding consumer hesitancy

Several interesting things are going on here. The first is that genetically-engineered wheat is a long time in coming. Among the big commodity crops, wheat is different from corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and cotton. Products made directly with wheat, from bread to Wheaties, are products that people eat while GM corn, soybeans, and alfalfa are used mostly to feed livestock or create ethanol. And people don’t eat cotton. That’s why the first main biotech traits—herbicide resistance and the insect-resistant Bt trait— generated less consumer resistance when they were introduced in the 1990s. The producers of wheat-based goods could have faced consumer backlash or boycotts.

In the early 2000s, Monsanto made significant progress in developing a genetically modified variety of wheat that was resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate, called Roundup Ready wheat. But farmers and consumers rebelled at the proposed rollout. Facing threats of a consumer boycott, the Wheat Growers Association reversed their prior enthusiastic welcoming of  GM wheat. Monsanto aborted its plans in Canada and the United States.

Climate adaptive wheat

A successful drought-tolerance trait is a very big deal. It has been a bit of Holy Grail since the first major biotech hurdles —Bt and Roundup Ready —were tackled. The issue is that while drought tolerance isn’t that hard to model in plants, it usually comes with a big yield penalty. If there is no drought, the plant will produce considerably less than a comparable competitor not bred to survive drought. The trick is to increase tolerance to drought while keeping yield comparable if no drought comes.

The farmer, in purchasing this seed and not that seed is making a bet. There probably won’t be a drought but there might be. If the drought is unpredictable but comes three out of ten years, then they would be reluctant to sacrifice seven years of maximum production. While a big yield penalty might be erased over ten or fifteen years, that’s still not a good bet for farmers each time they face a season. They need the seed to work every year. If Bioceres really has a competitive drought-tolerant trait for wheat and soybeans as it claims, that’s a big deal.

Glufosinate not glyphosate

In the 1960s and early 1970s, scientists at the University of Tübingen and at the Meiji Seika Kaisha Company independently discovered that species of Streptomyces bacteria produce a compound that inhibits bacteria. They named this compound phosphinothricin . Phosphinothricin interrupts the metabolism of nitrogen in plants much the way that glyphosate interrupts the production of sugars in the photosynthesis of plants. The compound is drawn from nature and works very specifically on the metabolism of plants. It is not a pesticide that has triggered any concern of note.

Founded relatively recently, in 2001, Bioceres (market cap approximately; $600M) is among a new breed of medium-sized seed and input company that have been thriving as the cost of biotechnology has come down and the scope of the technologies deployed in agriculture have widened. This new ecosystem of nimble, innovative companies compete and collaborate with the major behemoths even as the number of major players was allowed to drop from six to four—Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina’s Syngenta Group, and BASF. Bioceres has been involved in selling various farming inputs such as seed treatments, pesticides, and fertilizers along with newer biological products such as bacterial inoculants in soybean or micro-beaded NPKs. In an interview Bioceres CEO Federico Trucco described their creative approach :

From an institutional design perspective, its collaborative or “open” approach to originating and funding new technologies represented at the time a shift from the deep-pocketed “in-house” paradigm that dominated biotech R&D almost two decades ago. Also, the fact that Bioceres’ discovery efforts were not directed at crop protection solutions, widely dominated by first-generation herbicide and insect tolerance technologies, but instead at the elusive field of crop stress tolerance, allowed us to operate on a somewhat vacant space.

Unlike traditional genetic modification, which often involves introducing foreign genes from other organisms, CRISPR can be used to “edit” the wheat plant’s genome, creating small changes that lead to desirable traits without the introduction of foreign DNA. The regulatory framework for gene-edited crops is also less stringent than for traditional GM crops in many countries. The Holy Grail for the future of wheat will focus on four traits:

• Gene Knockout for Disease Resistance : CRISPR can be used to “knock out” specific genes in wheat that make it susceptible to diseases. For example, by disabling certain genes, wheat can be made resistant to powdery mildew, a common fungal disease. Researchers have been able to target and modify specific genes in wheat that are involved in disease susceptibility, improving the plant’s natural defenses.
• Yield Improvement : CRISPR is also being used to target genes involved in wheat’s growth and productivity. Scientists have identified key genes that control traits like grain size and the number of grains produced per plant, and by editing these genes, they aim to improve wheat yield.
• Drought and Heat Tolerance : Gene editing has the potential to make wheat more resilient to environmental stress. For example, by editing genes related to water regulation and stress response, wheat can be made more drought-tolerant, which is increasingly important as global temperatures rise and water availability becomes more limited.
• Gluten Modification : CRISPR has also been used to modify the gluten proteins in wheat. Gluten is a complex of proteins that can cause health problems for people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivities. Researchers are exploring ways to use gene editing to create wheat varieties with reduced levels of immunogenic gluten proteins, potentially making wheat-based foods safer for people with gluten intolerances.

Our inboxes and news feeds are stuffed daily with ‘the next big thing’. Most don’t pan out but this one is already off to a good start and the problems it is tackling are significant indeed.

Marc Brazeau is the GLP’s senior contributing writer focusing on agricultural biotechnology. He also is the editor of Food and Farm Discussion Lab . Marc served as project editor and assistant researcher on this series. Follow him on X @eatcookwrite

GLP Podcasts & Podcast Videos More...

GLP podcast: Organic farming—solution to climate change or path to world hunger?

Glp podcast: youth cancer rates ‘soaring’ no. will ai help or harm mental health care confronting vaccine ‘rejectionists’, videos more....

Video: How Chinese firms finance litigation disrupting intellectual property in biotech and food distribution system

Bees & pollinators more....

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

Dissecting claims about Monsanto suing farmers for accidentally planting patented seeds

Infographics more....

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Gmo faqs more....

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Most popular.

Newsletter Subscription

• Weekly Newsletter (Wed)
• Daily Digest (Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri)
• Weekly Top Six (Sun)
• Featured Articles Only
• Human Articles Only
• Agriculture Articles Only
• All Types of Content

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.