Organisms have been genetically modified constantly and continually since the beginning of life either spontaneously, by actinic activity, by human breeding interventions, by pollutants and/or other chemical agents, by temperature variations and now by genetic manipulation. I feel, as a scientist, that I know a lot about this but that,unfortunately, mostly uneducated individuals such as media people have dominated the conversation. This is very unfortunate as it slows acceptance and understanding, slows progress and also research. However, economics in the guise of things like higher food costs and inabilities to feed people will drive changes in the equation.

I think there are still many things regarding genetically modified organisms that needs to be considered before trying to rule them out. The fact is that GMO's are the reason that we have detailed information about genetic properties of many organisms including human and helped us overcome many obstacles in the way of finding cures for many diseases. In agriculture also, genetically modified crops provide food for many people in the world although there are debates about their effect on human and environment. Yet Public has a negative feeling about GMO because they are not well educated and enough information is not provided for them. Many people think of a monster when they are told about genetically modified organisms. It required great deal of work to change this attitude because by population growth at this rate, more and more GOM's will be introduced to overcome natural limitations and improve properties of current products.

i love it because it's very funding

Organisms have been genetically modified constantly and continually since the beginning of life either spontaneously, by actinic activity, by human breeding interventions, by pollutants and/or other chemical agents, by temperature variations and now by genetic manipulation. I feel, as a scientist, that I know a lot about this but that,unfortunately, mostly uneducated individuals such as media people have dominated the conversation. This is very unfortunate as it slows acceptance and understanding, slows progress and also research. However, economics in the guise of things like higher food costs and inabilities to feed people will drive changes in the equation.

As Leonard Bernstein has stated modifications of organism is as old as the life began on this planet. Many new genera / species and strains / variants evolved as a result of modifications. Whether it is plant or animal life. Earlier it was natural or as a result of human interventions. The first human intervention in plant was the discovery of Mendel's law of inheritance. Plant breeders looked for breeding rust resistant wheat, anthracnose resistant beans which paved the way for evolving varieties resistant to disease/pest , tolerant to lodging, more responsive to high dose of fertilizers in various crops. Most spectacular success was achieved in wheat by Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug at CIMMYT, Mexico who introduced Norin 10 genes (dwarfing genes). It changed the whole scenario in wheat production. Many countries in general and India in particular, importers of wheat became exporters despite doubling the population. It could reach to 85 million MT/year from 12 MT /year wheat production in 3 decades. Dwarfing genes in paddy is another story. There are several crops where hybrid seeds are much in vogue be it cereals, pulses, cotton, vegetables etc.

With the advent of biotechnology this transfer of genes has only hastened the process and nothing else. Biotechnology, modified vaccines, drugs are acceptable but when it comes to agriculture there is a hue and cry which is not understandable. BT cotton has done miracles in boosting the productivity and hugely reduced pesticide application which is not liked by vested interests. Media and opponents are loud while those who understand and favor it are watching silently and waiting that one day good sense will prevail.

Excellent addition Ashok. I hope reason and rational thinking prevail before millions starve to death or kill each other over food resources.

“Transgenics”, “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” organisms (GMOs), are the result of transferring one or more genes, usually from wild species of bacterium to a crop plant (WB 2008). Applied to crops, the term refers to any genetic plant type that has had a gene or genes from a different species transferred into its genetic material using accepted techniques of genetic engineering, and where such introduced genes have been shown to produce a gene product (a protein). This process of moving genes into new species and getting them to function is known as genetic transformation or recombinant DNA technology. In a real sense, all of the crop cultivars that we use are “genetically modified” in that they were bred to be more productive more pest-resistant or produce better or different quality of product than did previous cultivars. Such changes, which have been going ever since crops were domesticated, involve the addition of genes over time, but such additions are with few exceptions from within the same species or at least the same genus. Such changes also include things as mutations, even those induced on purpose, as long as they were done within the genus. GM products (current or in the pipeline) include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibres. Although "biotechnology" and "genetic modification" commonly are used interchangeably, genetic modification is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants, or bacteria. All these activities including tissue culture, molecular diagnostics and molecular markers, development of beneficial microbes, genetic engineering are generally referred to as Biotechnology.

Merits of GM Crops:

1).Pest resistance: high risk of pesticides residues have made consumers afraid of eating pesticide treated crops. Growing some GM crops may eliminate the application of chemical pesticides as experienced in the use of Bt gene in cotton and maize.

2).Herbicide tolerance: it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means. Farmers spend large amount of money spraying large quantities of herbicide to control weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be weed resistant will reduce cost and labour.

3).Disease resistance: genetically-engineered plant that is disease resistant.

4).Drought tolerance/salinity: as the world population grows and more land utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in places not necessarily suitable for cultivation. Thus, creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops where they were not formerly suitable.

5).Nutrition: Malnutrition is common in third world countries where majority of the people are poor and they depend on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, these foods are not contained a...

There have been some great answers here, and most are largely positive. I believe Leonard is hit the nail on the head saying,

"...unfortunately, mostly uneducated individuals such as media people have dominated the conversation. This is very unfortunate as it slows acceptance and understanding, slows progress and also research. However, economics in the guise of things like higher food costs and inabilities to feed people will drive changes in the equation."

but does anyone see a way to combat the slowness of acceptance and understanding in a pro-active way?

Whether, government or critics likes or not, if you dont allow the GM foods to come through the doors they will surely enter through windoors. The alternative is between survival and starvation. And no one will tell a right thinking individual which of the S he or she takes. I mean survival or starvation.

To accept GM or not to accept GM foods, only time will tell. Wait untill the world population is 50 billion on the earth surface and only ................will tell you not to consume GM food. It is the only option left for humans to increase the rate of food production on earth. The other alternative will be to transfer certain population on the earth to another planet. Americans are already exploring that possibility and it will be my children and yours, I mean non Americans that will be left in the middle of no where.

The vested interest and vocal media is opposed. Many Govts. are favourable, the most heartening is that the farmers are very receptive. I wish to quote one example from Gujarat state (India) where farmers somehow got some seeds of Bt cotton before it was officially released. an inquiry took place, the supplier was booked. Wholesale burning of such cotton fields (small farmers: 1 or 2 acres) was contemplated by Govt. The farmers protested and said that crop is so good without much pesticides which we have never seen in our life. They said we will prefer death than getting our crops destroyed. The Govt relented. Thereafter, a large no. of seed companies are selling bt cotton seed. It has tripled the production in India. Not Bt brinjal is opposed and release is delayed. However farmers are eagerly waiting for its release. The farmers may be left to choose and that will be huge success.

I generally support GMO and agree with what others have already said in previous posts. My one objection has to do with how patents and torts are being enforced. If farmer A buys GMO seed from a corporate provider and as the crop matures, some of its seeds are blown onto farmer B's land, who did not pay the corporation for the seed, then the usual tack is for the corporation to sue farmer B. This strikes me as very counter-productive and rather predatory. We need to come up with some kind of "fair use" provision to prevent this sort of antisocial behavior that is counter-productive to the supposedly pro-social goods of GMO already described here.

Much of the discussion here doesn't appear to be distinguishing between 'selective breeding' and 'genetically modified' in the specific sense. Of course, in the broadest sense of the word, selective breeding is a form of genetic modification.

Although the argument appears to be between 'what happens' (genetic manipulation) and 'how it happens' (whether by selective breeding or through gene splicing), the contention is that these arguments give the impression that what happens is INDEPENDENT of how it happens which, I wold suggest is an erroneous assumption.

People (including the opposing voices in the media) are not generally opposed to selective breeding; it is the direct manipulation of DNA at the chemical level (e.g. through gene splicing) that they consider to be a threat.

We instinctively know that certain combinations of genes are not permitted spontaneously in nature (hence the term 'species'). The fear is that 'forcing' genes to combine in a way that they would not normally, would be going against what might be called nature's 'wisdom' (not a scientific concept, but instinctively comforting). And here is one possible 'scientific' argument as to why:

Unlike the early days of gene research, it is now well established that there are fewer genes than there is variation between organisms, even within the same species. The logical conclusion is that genes can, and do, perform multiple functions, being involved in the manifestation of multiple characteristics and that to do so would involve INTERACTIONS BETWEEN GENES. As such, just because we find a particular gene to be responsible for (by which we mean highly correlated with) a particular characteristic, we cannot assume that the same gene will ONLY perform the same function in another organism, the potential interactions are UNKNOWN.

The greater concern about crops is that proliferation of our genetically modified plants is at the mercy of the wind and extremely difficult to CONTROL if it were to happen that we create a gene combination that we may find later to be counterproductive.

I agree with Bijan Riazi Farzad, big difference between selective breeding and introduction of genes that could never have been incorporated by natural means.

The hype that GMO's increase yields and are safe for the environment and consumption is little more than hype until companies like Monsanto release samples for independent testing. Given their history, I don't trust their in house research, sorry. Overseas some GMO crops have failed miserably and reports of Roundup resistant pests are already appearing. Again I would like to see more independent research on this subject.

Also, just an increase in yield, just for the sake of a larger yield, may not always be the best answer. Even in plant biology, nothing is free. The original species of wheat, has a higher vitamin, essential protein, and mineral content than modern hybrids, but a far lower yield. Bulk yields came at the price of some components, while others like Gluten and raw carbohydrates were increased. Is this good or bad, that is debatable. Modern wheat is a far different plant than its native cousin, and after so much time, comparisons really are not fair.

But what it does show, in my opinion, is that we should look to old varieties and native foods not in common use, that through scientific breeding, could do far more to solve world hunger with less risk than current genetic modification by companies like Monsanto.