GYANJYOTI PUBLIC SCHOOL

SUBMITTED BY : AAYUSKA CHATTERJEE

CLASS : 12

12/30/1899-26
 TITLE: STUDY OF
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ORGANISMS (GMOS):
THEIR BENEFITS AND
ETHICAL CONCERNS
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Aayuska Chatterjee, a

student of Class XII, has completed the
investigatory project titled “Study of Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs): Their Benefits and
Ethical Concerns” for the partial fulfillment of
AISSCE as prescribed by the CBSE in the year
2025-26.

Signature of Internal Signature of

External
ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT

I am immensely grateful to my respected

Principal for his involvement in this project by
providing valuable input and timely suggestions.
I am also thankful to my Biology teacher for her
guidance and assistance in making this project a
success. My parents also played a key role in
shaping this project well, and I extend my
special thanks to them as well.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC NAME
1.Introduction
2.Procedure
3.Requirements
4.Observations
5.Applications and implementations
6. Benefits of GMOs
7.Ethical concerns regarding GMOs
8.Results/Conclusion
9.References
 1) Introduction
The introduction of GMOs has sparked a global debate. On one hand, they
are seen as a solution to food insecurity, climate change, and agricultural
inefficiencies. On the other hand, ethical concerns persist regarding the
long-term impact of GMOs on health, the environment, and the socio-
economic dynamics of farming communities. Scientists first discovered in
1946 that DNA can be transferred between organisms. It is now known
that there are several mechanisms for DNA transfer and that these occur in
nature on a large scale, for example, it is a major mechanism for antibiotic
resistance in pathogenic bacteria.
The first genetically modified (GM) plant was produced in 1983, using an
antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. China was the first country to
commercialize a transgenic crop in the early 1990s with the introduction
of virus-resistant tobacco. In 1994, the transgenic ‘Flavour Saver tomato’
was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing
in the USA. The modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after
picking. In 1995, few transgenic crops received marketing approval. This
includes canola with modified oil composition (Calgene), Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) corn/maize (Ciba-Geigy), cotton resistant to the
herbicide bromoxynil (Calgene), Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes
(Monsanto), soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto),
virus-resistant squash (Asgrow), and additional delayed ripening tomatoes
(DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto) (Clive 2011). A total of 35
approvals had been granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and
one flower crop of carnations with 8 different traits in 6 countries, plus the
EU till 1996 (Clive 1996). As of 2011, the USA leads a list of multiple
countries in the production of GM crops. Currently, there are several food
species in which a genetically modified version exists (Johnson 2008).
Some of the foods that are available in the market include cotton, soybean,
canola, potatoes, eggplant, strawberries, corn, tomatoes, lettuce,
cantaloupe, carrots, etc. GM products which are currently in the pipeline
include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds and
fibres. Locating genes for important traits, such as those conferring insect
resistance or desired nutrients one of the most limiting steps in the
process.
 2) Procedure

1. Literature Review and Background Research

To initiate the project, scientific literature concerning Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs) was thoroughly reviewed. Sources included
peer-reviewed journals, articles, and academic websites. The focus was
placed on the development of GMOs, their applications in agriculture
and medicine, and the potential risks associated with their use, such as
ecological imbalance, health concerns, and ethical controversies. A
foundational understanding was built through this research phase, which
guided the design of the questionnaire.

2. Survey Design and Distribution

Based on insights from the literature, a short and focused questionnaire
was developed. The survey included both closed-ended and open-ended
questions, designed to assess:
 Awareness of GMOs
 Perceptions of safety
 Support or opposition
 Ethical concerns
The survey was then distributed to 20 individuals, comprising:
 10 students from Classes 11 and 12
 10 teachers from science and humanities backgrounds
The participants were selected randomly to ensure a range of perspectives.
Their responses were recorded anonymously to promote honest feedback.

3. Data Collection and Analysis

The responses were collected and analyzed systematically. Quantitative
data were tabulated to reflect common patterns, and qualitative responses
were coded for recurring themes such as "health risks", "environmental
impact", and "lack of awareness".
Table: Summary of Survey Responses
Agree Disagree Neutral
Question Common Remarks
(%) (%) (%)
GMOs are safe for "More research
35% 40% 25%
human consumption needed", "Not sure"
GMOs help solve "Beneficial in
60% 20% 20%
world hunger agriculture"
GMOs harm the "Affects
50% 30% 20%
environment biodiversity"
Ethical concerns must be "Informed consent",
85% 5% 10%
addressed in GMO usage "Labeling needed"

4. Key Themes
From the analysis, it was observed that:
 Teachers showed a slightly higher awareness of the scientific
benefits and risks of GMOs than students.
 Students often expressed uncertainty or neutrality, suggesting
limited exposure to the topic.
 Ethical issues such as consumer rights, labeling, and long-term
testing were raised by both groups.
 A general lack of concrete information was evident in the
qualitative comments.
 REQUIREMENTS

1. Research Materials:
 NCERT Biology textbook (Class 12, Chapter: Biotechnology and Its
Applications)
 Reference books on Genetic Engineering
 Internet sources (PubMed, WHO, FAO, research journals)
 News articles related to GMO policies in India
2. Survey Tools:
 Printed or digital Questionnaire Forms
(consisting of 8–10 well-framed questions on awareness, ethics,
safety, and support for GMOs)
 Pens/Clipboards (for physical forms)
 Google Forms or Microsoft Forms (for digital survey)
3. Participants:
 10 Students (Class 11 & 12 from science/humanities)
 10 Teachers (from biology, environmental studies, or social science
departments)
4. Data Analysis Materials:
 Notebook or Excel Sheet (for recording and categorizing responses)
 Graph paper or MS Excel (for bar graphs and pie charts)
 3) Observations
The survey responses revealed that a majority supported the use of GMOs to
increase food production. However, many participants expressed concerns about the
potential environmental and health impacts. Many agreed that GMO products
should be labeled and that more research is needed to ensure their safety.

For example, 75% of participants believed GMOs improve food security, while
60% felt they are safe for consumption. Notably, 90% opposed corporate control
over GMO seed patents, and 100% supported more scientific research on GMOs.
 4) Applications and implementations
Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture
are increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug production, reduced need
for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests
and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's
growing population. Advances have also been made in developing crops that
mature faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other
environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not
otherwise flourish (Table 1; Takeda & Matsuoka, 2008). Other applications include
the production of nonprotein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant)
products. Several animals have also been genetically engineered to increase yield
and decrease susceptibility to yield and decrease susceptibility to disease.

Applications of GMOs
The uses of Genetically Modified Organisms is observed in various fields. Some of
them are discussed below:
Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture
A primary application of GMOs is in the agricultural field. Genetically modified
crops are developed to improve yields, reduce the need for pesticides and
herbicides, and provide resistance to disease and pests. For example, genetically
modified crops such as Bt cotton and Bt brinjal contain genes from the bacterium
Bacillus thuringiensis, which produce insecticidal proteins, providing resistance to
pests and reducing the need for chemical pesticides.
Genetically Modified Organisms in Medicine
Biotechnology also has a significant impact on medicine. Genetically modified
organisms are used to produce new drugs and therapies, such as monoclonal
antibodies, vaccines, and enzymes. For example, the production of insulin which is
used to treat diabetes has been revolutionized by the use of genetically modified
bacteria.
Genetically Modified Organisms in Industry
GMOs have also been used in various industrial applications. For example,
genetically modified bacteria are being used to produce biofuels, such as ethanol
and biodiesel, and to break down toxic waste. In addition, genetically modified
yeasts are being used to produce ingredients for food and beverages, such as flavors
and fragrances.
Environmental Cleanup
GMOs have also been used in environmental cleanup efforts. For example,
genetically modified bacteria have been used to break down toxic pollutants, such
as oil spills, and to remove heavy metals from contaminated soil.
 5) BENEFITS OF GMO:
Function OF GMOs
Genetic engineering can be done with plants, animals, or bacteria and other very
small organisms. With genetic engineering, scientists take the gene for a desired
trait in one plant or animal, and they insert that gene into the DNA of another plant
or animal. Genes can also be moved from an animal to a plant or vice versa.
The process to create GMOs is different than selective breeding. This involves
selecting plants or animals with desired traits and breeding them. Over time, this
results in offspring with those desired traits. One of the problems with selective
breeding is that it can also result in traits that are not desired.
Genetic engineering allows scientists to select one specific gene to implant. This
avoids introducing other genes with undesirable traits. Genetic engineering also
helps speed up the process of creating new foods with desired traits.
Genome editing is a newer method that involves adding, removing, or changing the
DNA of a plant or animal in a targeted way.
The possible benefits of genetic engineering include:
 Increased Crop Yields:
GMOs can be engineered to be more resistant to pests and diseases, resulting in
higher yields and reduced crop loss.
 Improved Nutritional Value:
Genetic modification can enhance the nutritional content of crops, potentially
addressing malnutrition and improving human health.
 Reduced Pesticide and Herbicide Use:
GMOs can be engineered to be resistant to pests and herbicides, reducing the need
for these chemicals and minimizing environmental harm.
  Enhanced Pest and Disease Resistance:
GMOs can be developed to resist specific pests and diseases, leading to healthier
crops and reduced reliance on pesticides.
 Drought and Herbicide Tolerance:
Some GMOs are engineered to tolerate drought conditions or herbicides, making
them more adaptable to various environments and reducing the need for specific
farming practices.
 Increased Food Security:
By increasing yields and reducing crop loss, GMOs can contribute to greater food
security, particularly in regions facing food shortages.
 Lower Food Costs:
Higher yields and reduced pesticide use can contribute to lower food costs for
consumers.
 Sustainability:
GMOs can help improve sustainability by reducing reliance on chemical inputs,
conserving resources, and increasing yields with less land.
 Medical Applications:
GMOs can be used to produce pharmaceuticals and other medical products.
7) ETHICAL CONCERNS REGARDING GMOs;
Ethical concerns regarding GMOs encompass a wide range of issues,
including potential harm to human health, environmental damage, and the impact
on traditional farming practices. Additionally, concerns about corporate dominance
in the food industry, the "unnaturalness" of GMOs, and the potential for unforeseen
consequences in ecosystems have been raised.
GMOs and
human rights

The right to adequate food

Some ethical aspects of GMOs fall within the
context of the right to adequate food, which is
derived from the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. At the 1996 World Food
Summit, the Rome Declaration on World Food
Security and the World Food Summit Plan of
Action reaffirmed the right of everyone to
adequate food. The UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
The right to adequate food
UN Commission on Human Rights have both
implies access to food that is
addressed the right to food in the follow-up to
the World Food Summit. In particular, the
following quotations related to the right to
adequate food are considered to be highly relevant to the analyses of GMOs
contained in this paper.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considers that the core
content of the right to adequate food implies:
"The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the
dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable
within a given culture;
The accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not
interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights."
The Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights of the UN Commission on Human Rights has
stated:
"... State obligations require active protection against other, more assertive or
aggressive subjects - more powerful economic interests, such as protection
against fraud, against unethical behaviour in trade and contractual relations,
against the marketing and dumping of hazardous or dangerous products. This
protective function of the State is widely used and is the most important
aspect of State obligations with regard to economic, social, and cultural rights,
similar to the role of the State as protector of civil and political rights."
Other important human rights principles that could bear upon GMOs,
although not included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are the
rights to informed choice and to democratic participation.
The right to informed choice

The existence of GMOs raises the issue of the right to informed choice, which
derives from the ethical concept of autonomy of individuals. This principle
can be applied, for example, in the debate on labelling food derived from
GMOs to ensure that consumers know what they are consuming and are able
to make informed decisions. Informed choice and resulting actions require
access to information and resources. Consumers do not all have the same
access to information and resources to make informed decisions about GMOs.
Particularly in developing countries, the very poor (both women and men)
may lack the most basic information to make decisions that may affect their
health and capacity to sustain themselves. Appropriate methods to reach the
least educated, the poorest and the most disadvantaged groups should form
part of any strategy to inform the public so that individuals are able to choose
according to their needs.
The right to democratic participation

The right to democratic participation addresses the need for justice and equity,
which are of major concern in the context of GMO-related decisions.
Principles of justice may include gender equality, need, accountability,
liability, and fair and democratic procedures. Many young people, particularly
the poor and powerless, have little education and no social entry point to
influence decisions about GMOs. They need to be given every opportunity to
participate in the debate concerning both the impact of GMOs on their lives
and livelihoods and the potential benefits that may arise from the development
and use of such products. They should also have the right to choose the
product that best suits their needs. Of concern is the fact that future
generations have no voice or vote in decisions taken on GMOs today, which
means that ways must be found to ensure that their interests are taken into
account. Options must be kept open so as to enable future generations to meet
their specific needs, including those deriving from unpredictable
environmental changes.

KEY ISSUES FOR ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

Food safety, the environment, and GMOs are linked in the minds of
consumers who, through their purchasing, will play a pivotal role in
influencing decisions regarding the future of this technology. Several
consumers' concerns can be classified according to the following six issues:
Food safety. The foundation of consumers' concern about GMOs is food
safety. Because of experiences with non-GMO food problems such as
allergens, pesticide residues, microbiological contaminants, and, most
recently, bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow" disease) and its
human counterparts, consumers are sometimes wary of the safety of foods
produced with new technologies. The approaches being taken by governments
to ensure the safety of GMOs are discussed in the sections under Risk
analysis.
Environmental impact. The potential of GMOs to upset the balance of nature
is another concern of the public. GMOs are "novel" products which, when
released, may cause ecosystems to adjust, perhaps in unintended ways. There
is also concern about the possibility that genetic "pollution" will result from
outcrossing with wild populations. As with non-GMOs, an issue is whether
pre-release testing (especially when limited to laboratories or computer
models) is an adequate safeguard for the environment or whether post-release
monitoring is also necessary. The extent of post-release monitoring needed to
protect ecosystems, especially with long-lived species such as forest trees,
becomes an ethical as well as a technical issue. The current understanding of
the environmental impact of GMOs is reviewed in the relevant chapter.
Perceived risks and benefits. In forming their views about GMOs, consumers
weigh the perceived benefits of accepting a new technology against the
perceived risks. Since practically none of the currently available or
forthcoming plant and animal GMOs present obvious benefits to consumers,
they question why they should assume possible risks. It is said that consumers
take the risks while the producers (or the suppliers or companies) reap the
benefits. The science-based methods used to assess risks, together with their
relationships with risk management and risk communication, are discussed in
the chapter GMOs and human health.
Transparency. Consumers have a legitimate interest in and right to
information with regard to GMOs in agriculture. This begins with rules for the
transparent sharing of relevant information and the communication of
associated risks. Science-based risk analysis seeks to enable experts to make
decisions that minimize the probability of hazards in the food supply system
and the environment. Consumers, however, may also wish for more
transparency to protect their right to exercise informed consent on their own.
An often-discussed set of means intended to protect these rights is the
labelling of products, whether or not they are derived from GMOs. Informed
consent and labelling are also discussed in the chapter on GMOs and human
health.
 Accountability. Consumers may wish to be more involved in local, national
and international debates and in policy guidance. At present, there are very
few fora available to the public to discuss the wide range of issues relating to
GMOs. A shortage of fora can, understandably, lead to advocates concerned
with one aspect of GMOs, such as environmental impact, pushing their
concerns into a forum set up for another aspect, such as labelling. A related
issue is how to bring the private sector transparently into public fora and,
subsequently, how to hold public and private sector agencies accountable.
Equity. So far, the development of GMOs in agriculture has mainly been
oriented towards cost-reduction at the farm level, primarily in developed
countries. Societies have ethical standards that acknowledge the importance of
ensuring that those who cannot satisfy their basic food needs receive adequate
means to do so. Ethical analysis can consider the moral responsibility of
societies, communities, and individuals to ensure that economic growth does
not lead to an ever-widening gap between the poor majority and the wealthy
few. When appropriately integrated with other technologies for the production
of food, other agricultural products, and services, GMOs may, among other
biotechnologies, offer significant potential for assisting in meeting the human
population's needs in the future. An ethically salient issue that then emerges is
how the development and use of GMOs in agriculture can be oriented towards
improving the nutrition and health of economically poor consumers,
especially in developing countries.
GMOs and
the food
supply chain
The agricultural production and distribution
system can be thought of as a supply chain (see
Figure): i) goods flow from producers (farmers) through processors and retailers to
reach the consumer; ii) advertisers, activists, lobbyists and the media seek to
influence choices made by people at each step of the supply chain; iii)
government regulatory bodies assess risks, set rules and monitor compliance;
iv) producers of food, fish, fibre and forest products purchase inputs such as
seeds, planting materials, agrochemicals, fertilizers, feed, fermentation
promoters and machinery; v) GMOs reach the public through markets.
Consumers, in reality comprising everyone in the world (and including future
generations), also have a stake in the process.

GMOs in the food chain

Working document of the Directorate General of

Agriculture, European Commission.
Consumers' choices in the market cannot be ignored: they are not forced to
buy something if they choose not to. If consumers decide not to buy a product,
the associated production processes will simply wither away. Given the
refusal of many consumers in certain countries to buy current GMOs,
producers of GM crops are reconsidering their production decisions and the
agrifood industry is rapidly restructuring, and even changing the thrust of its
research and development efforts, to take this response into account.
The market is not the only place where consumers can express their views or
preferences. They may wish to have a more direct "say" in how their food is
produced. Increasingly, however, consumers throughout the world now live
and work far from the points where their food is grown and processed, and
this lack of direct involvement in the production process can result in their
views on the agrifood system and its products being largely ignored.

GMOs on the market or under development

Tools and techniques used by agricultural input suppliers

Most of the intermediate products and methodologies that allow the
development of GMOs, for example molecular fingerprinting and
transformation technologies, are currently under intellectual property rights
protection in the private sector. Consequently, public sector scientists,
especially in developing countries, have less chance of obtaining access to
such products and methodologies. This limits their capacity to develop
improved strains of crops or animals, including GMOs that could help
overcome their particular local or national production constraints. The current
situation therefore tends to widen the gap between richer and poorer societies.
In recent years, an increasing number of products
derived from GMOs have been developed and made
available for public consumption. A small selection of
agricultural GMOs that are either on the market or Strawberries growing
under development are presented in Tables 1 and 2. at -10°C, owing to
GMOs that target insects with Bacillus the insertion of an
thuringiensis toxins antifreeze-producing
gene from the winter
"Pest-protected" varieties were among the first
flounder
GM crops to be developed, for the purpose of
reducing production costs for farmers. Insect-
resistant GMOs have been promoted both as a
way to kill certain pests and to reduce the application of conventional
synthetic insecticides. For more than 50 years, formulations of the toxin-
producing bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have been applied by spraying
in the same way as conventional agricultural insecticides to kill leaf-feeding
insects. Studies on the safety of Bt for humans have not revealed any adverse
effects on health.

Table 1
A selection of GMOs that are currently available

Purpos
Geneti Prima
e of
c Source of ry
GMO genetic
modifi gene benefic
modifi
cation iaries
cation

Maize Insect Bacillus Reduce Farmer

resistan thuringien d s
ce sis insect
damag
 e

Herbici
Greater
Soybe de Streptomy Farmer
weed
an toleran ces spp. s
control
ce

Reduce
Insect Bacillus d
Cotto Farmer
resistan thuringien insect
n s
ce sis damag
e

Produc
Esche Process
tion of Use in
richia ors and
chymo Cows cheese-
coli K consu
sin or making
12 mers
rennin

Produc
tion of
Retaile
Alterati differe
Carna rs and
on of Freesia nt
tions consu
colour flower
mers
varietie
s

TABLE 2
A selection of GMOs currently under development

GM Geneti Source of Purpos Prima

O c gene e of ry
modifi genetic benefic
 modifi
cation iaries
cation

Insect Bacillus
Grap Insect Farmer
resistan thuringien
es control s
ce sis

Increas
Growth Arctic ed
Tilapi Fish
hormo flounder/ growth
a fish farmers
ne salmon efficien
cy

Herbici Simplif
Popla Forest
de Streptomy ied
r manag
toleran ces spp. weed
trees ers
ce control

Increas
Growth Arctic ed
Salm Fish
hormo flounder/ growth
on farmers
ne salmon efficien
cy

Forest
Modifi Pulp
manag
ed and
Eucal ers and
lignin Pinus sp. paper
yptus paper
compo process
industr
sition ing
y

Rice Expres Daffodil E Added Consu

sion of rwina micron mers
 deficie
beta-
nt in
caroten utrient
Vitami
e
nA

Expres
sion of
Shee Fortifie Consu
antibod H. sapiens
p d milk mers
y in
milk
In the late 1980s, scientists began to transfer the genes that produce the insect-
killing toxins in Bt into crop plants. The intention was to ensure that the toxin
was produced by all cells in these GMOs. At present, more than 5 million
hectares are currently planted to Bt transgenic crop varieties. Although no
efforts were made to increase the growth rates or yield potential of the GM
crops with these innovations, farmers have welcomed Bt crops because of the
promise of better insect control and reduced costs. However, in the United
States, the impact of Bt GMOs on crop yields and the number of conventional
insecticide applications have varied widely by location and by year. This is
partly because of differences between the intended potential impact of the GM
crops on target pests and their actual field performance. Some of these
differences were due to the uneven distribution of the toxin within the plants
as they grew, some were due to variations in target and non-target pest
populations, and others were the result of toxins accumulating in plant-feeding
insect pests, causing mortality of predators and parasites that ate those pests.
As with varieties carrying conventionally bred host plant resistance, farmers
should manage GM varieties within an ecologically based integrated pest and
production management (IPPM) system so as to respond adaptively to
environmental variation. In North America, the consensus is now that these
varieties have lowered the costs of pest control. They are recommended
together with host plant resistance management strategies to slow down the
evolution rate of the pests that are able to feed on them.
GMOs for food processors and retailers
Food processors and retailers are also keen to reduce their costs and reap the
potential benefits of biotechnology. As the Box shows, GM tomatoes were
designed to give processors and retailers more options, but the product did not
thrive in the fresh produce market.
The case of the Flavr Savr tomato shows how retailers are sensitive to the
opinion of consumers when they are close to them. The concern about
consumer confidence may outweigh the prospect of short-term benefits that a
processor could gain from using ingredients derived from GMOs. If the public
perceives GM foods to be unsafe or harmful to the environment and,
therefore, rejects some products, companies may dissociate their products
from GMOs. At the present time, some leading food companies have removed
ingredients derived from GMOs from their products because they are wary of
consumer rejection. Changes in processors' and retailers' demand for
ingredients derived from GMOs are carried back up the food supply chain to
affect farmers' decisions about whether or not to grow GMOs.
GM farm animals and fish have not entered the food supply chain
Following some initial problems, there was considerable growth in the
development and commercialization of GM crops, but products derived from
GM farm animals have not reached substantial food production systems.
Although more than 50 different transgenes have been inserted experimentally
into farm animals, these efforts still require considerable skill and are not as
routine as those for plants. Early research in the development of transgenic
farm animals has also been accompanied by manifestations of perturbed
physiology, including impaired reproductive performance. These experiences
raised ethical problems of animal welfare and further damped consumer
interest.
So far, the prospect of foods from transgenic farm animals has not been well
received by consumers. Surveys consistently show that the public is more
accepting of transgenic plants than of transgenic animals. Experimenting with
and altering animals is a less acceptable practice and has broader implications.
Various cultures and religions restrict or prohibit the consumption of certain
foods derived from animals. However, ingesting or being injected with certain
pharmaceutical products from transgenic animals seems more acceptable to
the public.
Highly successful research has been carried out on GM fish, but no GM fish
have entered the market. Most GM fish are aquaculture species that have
received genes governing the production of growth hormones, in order to raise
their growth rate and yield. Ethical questions on the welfare and
environmental impact of these GM fish have been raised, but it is also argued
that GM fish share many attributes of conventionally selected alien fish
species and genotypes, both of which are proven and accepted means of
increasing production from the aquatic environment.
Risk analysis

There is much confusion about the risks of GMOs in terms of food safety and
environmental impact. Regulatory agencies formulate their standards
according to science-based assessments of risk. Many consider that decision-
making based on science is the only objective way to set policy in a world of
diverse opinions, values and interests. Risk analysis is a process consisting of
three components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication.
Risk assessment
Risk in the context of safety includes two
elements: i) hazard, an intrinsic factor (e.g. a
biological, chemical or physical agent in, or
condition of, food, with the potential to cause
an adverse effect on health) that indicates the
damage if the event occurs; and ii) the probability or chance that the event will
occur. Thus, in relation to chemicals, risk is taken to be hazard x chance of
exposure; in relation to quarantine, it is the potential damage by the pest x chance of
introduction, etc.
Risk assessment is a scientifically based process consisting of the following
steps: i) hazard identification; ii) hazard characterization; iii) exposure
assessment; and iv) risk characterization. Hazards, and the chance of those
hazards occurring, are thereby studied and models constructed to predict the
risk. These predictions can be verified afterwards through, for example,
statistical (epidemiological) studies.
The two components of risk both contain a measure of uncertainty, and it is
this measure of uncertainty that is the focus of many discussions. For
example, there is some doubt as to whether risk estimation methodologies
used for related purposes (e.g. pesticide residues in food and pest
introduction) have sufficient predictive value for GMOs. In particular, the
hazard component of risk analysis is subject to close scrutiny.
Risk management and alternatives analysis
Risk management,5 distinct from risk assessment, is the process of weighing
policy alternatives in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk
assessment and other factors relevant for the protection of consumers' health
and for the promotion of fair trade practices as well as, if necessary, selecting
appropriate prevention and control options.
Environmental hazard is probably less easy to quantify than health hazard. It
also refers to a common good instead of a private (health) good. In both
instances, only long-term experience can show if risk assessment and risk
management have been successful. When a sound risk management strategy is
applied to environmental problems, as distinct from safety problems, it will
begin by describing a problem and the goals, objectives and values to be
pursued by solving that problem. An analysis of alternatives is then carried
out to consider as many solutions as possible. Rather than narrowing the
analysis, this allows the creation of new options or combinations of options.
When the benefits and drawbacks of a wider range of solution scenarios can
be compared, fuller participation by the concerned society can be better
assured.
Risk communication
Risk communication is the interactive exchange of information and opinions
among assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic
community and other interested parties throughout the risk analysis process.
The information exchange concerns risk-related factors and risk perceptions,
including the explanation of
risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions. It is
vitally important that risk communication with the public comes from credible
and trusted sources.
Safety of GM foods

Foods are complex mixtures of compounds characterized by a wide variation

in composition and nutritional value. Although priorities vary, food safety is a
concern among consumers in all countries. They would like assurances that
GM products reaching the market have been adequately tested and that these
products are being monitored to ensure safety and to identify problems as
soon as they emerge. Because of the complexity of food products, research on
the safety of GM foods is still thought to be more difficult to carry out than
studies on components such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial
chemicals and food additives. Through the Codex Alimentarius Commission
and other fora, countries discuss standards for GMOs and ways to ensure their
safety. One approach, which is being used in assessing the risks of GMOs,
derives from the concept of substantial equivalence.
Labelling GM food products: two regulatory approaches
The differences between the United States' and the European
Union's perspectives on the labelling of GMOs illustrate some
of the issues in the debate.
In the United States, the law requires information on food
products to be clear and unambi-guous. Labels are intended to
provide meaningful information and to warn and instruct the
consumer. Further misleading or unnecessary information is
believed to conflict with the right of consumers to be able to
choose wisely, and to lessen the effectiveness of essential label
information. If GMOs are not different from their traditional
counterparts in terms of nutrition, composition or safety,
labelling is considered to be unnecessary and perhaps
misleading.
In the European Union, labelling is viewed as a way to ensure
the consumers' right to know any fact that they deem important;
it is a way to give consumers a choice and to inform them about
GMOs. The European Union's approach to labelling attempts to
reach a compromise among the industrial, scientific and public
sectors. In the European Union, the question is not whether to
label products of biotechnology, but how to label them.
 Substantial equivalence acknowledges that the goal of the assessment is not to
establish absolute safety but to consider whether the GM food is as safe as its
traditional counterpart, where such a counterpart exists. It is generally agreed
that such an assessment requires an integrated and stepwise, case-by-case
approach. Factors taken into account when comparing a GM food with its
conventional counterpart include:
 identity, source and composition;
 effects of processing and cooking;
 the transformation process, the DNA itself and protein expression products of
the introduced DNA;
 effects on function;
 potential toxicity, potential allergenicity and possible secondary effects;
 potential intake and dietary impact of the introduction of the GM food.
If the GMO-derived food is judged to be substantially equivalent to its
conventional counterpart, then it is considered to be as safe as the counterpart.
If it is not, further tests are conducted.
Environmental issues and GM crops

GM crops are commercially available and planted on more than 40 million

hectares across six continents. These plantings represent the largest-scale
experience in the introduction of GMOs into ecosystems, and they have
become the focus of environmental concerns. Activists, worried about GMOs
being released into the biosphere, have destroyed test plots in at least four
continents. This may show the depth of their commitment, but it also prevents
anyone from learning from the data that should have been collected from
those tests.
 The majority of the area under GM crops is planted with
varieties resistant to herbicides. These herbicides are
associated with a shift towards less mechanical tillage in
large-scale arable crops, which reduces primary soil
erosion. Early on, weed scientists appreciated and
studied the environmental consequences of introducing
Monarch
GM crops, especially for weed control.
caterpillar -
A 1998 international technical meeting, organized by FAO on The Monarch
Benefits and Risks of Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Crops, butterfly has
found that: generated the
1. The repeated use of one herbicide causes a shift in the weed most detailed
flora because there is very high selection pressure on weeds to research into
evolve biotypes that are resistant to the herbicides associated the impacts of
with transgenic plants bred to be tolerant of those herbicides. GMOs on wild
species
2. Gene flow occurs with the spread of genes through
pollen and outcrossing from herbicide-resistant crops to
related weed species. In the absence of the particular
herbicide, the possession of this trait is unlikely to improve the strength of the
weeds but, when the herbicide is applied, it would improve the weeds'
strength and could reduce the economic benefits of herbicide resistance.
3. The risks of gene transfers are higher in areas of origin and diversification.
Care needs to be taken to ensure that native germplasm, including weed and
wild crop relatives, is not affected by the transfer of herbicide-resistant genes.
Monarch butterflies and alternatives analysis of Bt maize
Monarchs (Danaus plexippus), migratory Lepidoptera that feed
on milkweeds, are the best-known butterflies in North America.
A well-publicized study of GMOs showed that Bt maize pollen
was toxic to laboratory-fed Monarch butterfly larvae. A study
 later collected pollen-covered milkweed plants, which were
found growing naturally next to Bt maize fields. A significantly
larger proportion of Monarch butterfly larvae that fed on these
field-collected plants died compared with those fed pollen-free
plants.
Conventional insecticides, which are the dominant alternative
for controlling pest Lepidoptera now employed in maize
production in North America, also kill Monarchs and other wild
butterflies. Tested alternatives within an IPPM framework
include:
 encouraging predators with intercrop management, refuges and
additional food during food-scarce months;
 timing planting to avoid pest immigration flights (especially in
tropical maize production);
 rotating crops to discourage the build-up of target pests;
 using pheromones to confuse and trap pests, reducing mating
success and concentrating pests to allow lower doses of
insecticides;
 using trap plantings to concentrate pests away from commercial
crops - usually combined with better targeted applications of
conventional insecticides.
While the total area planted to insect-resistant Bt crops is less than one-fourth
of that planted to herbicide-tolerant crops, commonly recognized problems are
under intensive research. This research focuses on the applied aspects of
managing agro-ecosystems for intensified production, but public attention to
GMOs has also encouraged scientists in academic and other public sector
institutions to carry out more basic ecological studies, especially concerning
the impact of GMOs on non-target species. For example, Bt varieties have
been found to secrete Bt toxins into soil root zones; these zones then produce
higher concentrations of Bt toxins than are normally found, which may affect
populations of soil insects that do not eat crops.
The prominence of the Monarch butterfly as a much-loved insect in North
America, where the largest areas of GM crops are now grown, has generated
the most detailed research into the impact of GMOs on wild species, as well
as considerable consumer attention.
Regulatory issues, especially those related to quarantine, invasive species and
biosafety become very important when GM crops move internationally, as
facilitated by trade. International treaty bodies such as the International Plant
Protection Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are actively engaged in constructing a
suitably workable framework. More specific regulatory mechanisms include
the draft Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture, under development by countries through FAO.
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
(adopted at the time of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992) states:
"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capacities. Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation."
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted early in 2000, with the
following objective:
"In accordance with the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this
Protocol is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the
field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms
resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into
account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary
movements ... the Parties shall ensure that the development, handling,
transport, use, transfer and release of any living modified organisms are
undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological
diversity, taking also into account risks to human health."
Environmental issues and GM forest trees

Research on the genetic modification of forest trees is undertaken almost

exclusively with a view to application in plantation forestry. Today, forest
plantations supply approximately 25 percent of the world's wood
requirements. The area of forest plantations, which currently represents less
than 5 percent of the global
forest area, is expected to increase and to provide one-third of the total wood
supply by the year 2010.
One of the first reported trials with GM forest trees was initiated in 1988
using poplars. Since then, there have been more than 100 reported trials in at
least 16 countries, involving at least 24 tree species - mostly timber-
producing species for use in intensively managed plantations. There is no
reported commercial-scale production of GM forest trees.
Traits for which genetic modification can
realistically be contemplated in the near future
include insect and virus resistance, herbicide
tolerance and modified lignin content.
Modification of lignin is a potentially important
objective for species grown for the production Regenerating shoots of
of pulp and paper. Wood with modified lignin transgenic poplars - Genetic
requires less processing with harsh chemicals modification of forest trees
and is thus environmentally benign. It has also is studied almost exclusively
been pointed out that, as lignin content is for application in plantation
associated with resistance to insect feeding, the forestry
overall impacts of modified lignin should be
carefuly investigated. Monitoring should
include possible secondary effects, such as changes in the incidence of insect
damage, including in surrounding forests.
A major technical factor limiting the application of genetic modification to forest
trees is the currently low level of knowledge regarding the molecular control of
traits that are of most interest, notably those relating to growth, stem form and wood
quality.
Investments in GM technologies should be weighed against the possibilities of
exploiting the large amounts of generally untapped genetic variation that are
available within forest tree species in nature.
Biosafety aspects of GM trees need careful consideration because of the long
generation time of trees, their important roles in ecosystem functioning and
the potential for long-distance dispersal of pollen and seed.
Environmental issues and GM fish
In the fisheries sector, most GMOs show increased growth rates; therefore,
concerns about environmental risk focus more on predation, competition and
genetic pollution. GM fish may pose risks to the environment because of their
increased rates of feeding on prey species; their wider environmental
tolerances, which allow them to invade new territories and possibly to
displace local native populations; and their potential for genetic mixing with,
and thus the altering of, the composition of natural fish populations.
Proponents of GM fish maintain that these fish will be very domesticated and
will not survive well in nature.
Applying a precautionary approach to GMOs in fisheries
The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
(NASCO), with more than 12 member countries, negotiated and
recently began to apply elements of a precautionary approach to
aquaculture and genetic modification of Atlantic salmon.
Formulated during a Sweden-FAO technical meeting in 1995,
the various elements are part of a dynamic process to organize
regulations, standards, management and research. They force
managers or policy-makers to think about what is known and
unknown, what is reasonable and unreasonable, what is
practical and what is impractical, and then to plot a course of
action accordingly. The following are elements in this
precautionary approach:
 the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason to put off management efforts;
 reference points should be established to help determine
desirable situations and undesirable impacts - for example limit
reference points, such as a maximum percentage of GMO seed
in a shipment, and target reference points, such as reduction in
 the use of pesticides;
 action plans should be identified, agreed on and implemented
when limit reference points are approached or when adverse
impacts are apparent;
 Priority should be given to maintaining the productive capacity
of the resource or ecosystem.
 the impacts should be reversible within the time frame of two to
three decades;
 The burden of proof should be placed according to the above
requirements, and the standard of proof should be
commensurate with risks and benefits.
The establishment of reference points is critical and will
indicate where much of the uncert-ainty lies as well as,
therefore, where much of the monitoring, research or study is
needed. In the course of NASCO discussions about the
conservation of Atlantic salmon, it transpired that there were no
reference points for allowable levels of genetic introgression
between farmed and wild stocks of salmon.

Alien species and genotypes that are used throughout the world, such as
tilapia and domesticated salmon, present these same risks. The process of
evaluating the risks of farming GMOs should be the same as for the farming
of any aquatic species that is new to a local ecosystem. It should be based on
an ecosystem approach that considers the spreading of impacts once a species
is introduced.
 6) RESULT / CONCLUSION
The findings of this project show that GMOs are widely recognized for
their potential to address agricultural challenges. They offer benefits like
higher yields, pest resistance, and better nutrition. However, concerns
remain about ethical issues such as environmental risks, monopolization
by biotech companies, and lack of consumer choice.
To ensure responsible use of GMO technology, it is essential to implement
transparent regulations, encourage public engagement, and invest in long-
term research. Balanced awareness and ethical governance will help
harness the potential of GMOs while minimizing risks.
 7) REFERENCES
- NCERT Class 12 Biology Textbook
- ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications)