David Fisher, I think your arguments are themselves misleading. You are equating a technology with an application. GMO does not require that we move genes between kingdoms, it could be as simple as taking a gene from one wheat species and moving it into another, or perhaps just removing a gene from an organism. The technology has lots of potential uses and when you promote the abolition of that technology then you prevent all those applications. The concerns you are putting forth are with regard to the applications. Yes it is true that there are problems with large agribusiness as it presently functions, but it seems more appropriate to regulate the business application than the technology. If you wanted to suggest that food crops should not carry genes that originate from a different kingdom, or phyla or whatever, that is quite different than banishing all GMO. And I strongly disagree that our understanding of genomes or DNA is superficial. Do we know everything, of course not. But superficial is vastly overstating the situation.

Without doubt, there different positions about genetically modified organisms. and I can express my opinion as well, but it is out of context. We need to be objectives when we inform people about this issues and talk with facts instead of our believes. The data have proven that this organisms generally are not harmful.

I believe it's like a double-edged knife.

  It is useful to observe safety precautions, and in the absence of precision and attention to safety points is harmful.

With the new technology of genome editing the modifications or introduction of genes into crops is more precise with much less risk of bad surprises. It is one quicker way to produce crop better adapter to the rapid climatic changes. The only restriction is with crop resistant to herbicides. In this case the problem is not the genetically modified plant but the herbicides and their surfactants that cause problems. More work has to be done on these surfactants.

" Do you accept the creation of new varieties of crops by modifying the genome to produce varieties of crops that are more resistant to viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitic, etc. diseases? "

For millennia humankind has been creating new varieties of crops by modifying their genomes, only using tools less accurate and powerful than those currently at our disposal. Wheat, orange, maize, rice, bananas, you name it, none of them look like they would if their genomes had not been modified artificially by careful selection, hybridization, etc. An argument could be made that our civilization was built on genetically modified crops. So the answer would have to be an unqualified -and obvious- yes.

Alejandro Martin made a good point with his answer however the breeding he is referring to has always been happening among individuals of the same species. A production of transgenic organisms would never happen in nature and this (in my opinion) is where the problem resides. The development of genetic engineering has the benefit of developing new crops in a fast mode but this approach remains oblivious of the ecological and evolutionary processes that inevitably are part of the adaptation by organisms to their environments. Thus, in the early 1990s scientists created GMO crops resistant to glyphosate (roundup) but in a couple of decades weed populations have evolved and adapted to the gene resistant to the herbicide, making the application of weed killer more needed than ever and with major deterioration of agricultural environments (especially I am referring to water pollution) and public health. Miguel Altieri, Vandana Shiva, Stephen Gliessman, Clara NIcholls and other agroecologists/environmental scientists have been writing and publishing a lot of papers and books to highlight the flaws of genetic engineering and the appropriation of indigenous germplasm that has allowed the genetic engineering companies to patent GMO seed and making billions of dollars at the expense of millions of small family farmers in the developing world. There may be a "niche" for GE agriculture but this should undergo scrupulous regulation instead of being given unconditional opportunities for expansion, world wide.

Alejandro Martin You response is a little bit misleading. Cultural crosses between two types of apple tree or the grafting of two Rosaceae plants together is absolutely different from gene-editing in a laboratory, especially when the added genes come from a different genus, OR KINGDOM.

Crossing a jellyfish with a pig, just to prove you can, really does not help anybody. The dangers of tinkering with DNA when we have but a portion of superficial DNA understanding is vast. Crossing kingdoms is potentially even more harmful than crossing somewhat similar genera. Inserting human DNA into animals to produce organs for inclusion in ailing humans is another huge issue of ethical and efficacy/safety importance.

The unknown dangers of GMO products are simply too dangerous to widely accept them. Since 90-97% of all GMO research is financed by GMO producers, we really ought to be highly cautious in accepting the data they proffer.

I am with it. We do not need to tell us it is have negative results at health. We need to eat the hungry mouths, and to feed the weak bodies in poor countries.

David Fisher, I think your arguments are themselves misleading. You are equating a technology with an application. GMO does not require that we move genes between kingdoms, it could be as simple as taking a gene from one wheat species and moving it into another, or perhaps just removing a gene from an organism. The technology has lots of potential uses and when you promote the abolition of that technology then you prevent all those applications. The concerns you are putting forth are with regard to the applications. Yes it is true that there are problems with large agribusiness as it presently functions, but it seems more appropriate to regulate the business application than the technology. If you wanted to suggest that food crops should not carry genes that originate from a different kingdom, or phyla or whatever, that is quite different than banishing all GMO. And I strongly disagree that our understanding of genomes or DNA is superficial. Do we know everything, of course not. But superficial is vastly overstating the situation.

Rightly said sir

Michael J. Benedik I can understand why a TX A&M genetics man would object to my words. I respect your achievements and I deeply appreciate research into enzymatic bioremediation. Do not misunderstand me, but, with respect, you are dead wrong and appear to be deliberately attempting to re-cast my words into things I did not say.

First, I NEVER said GM requires inter-kingdom genetic transfer. Rather I differentiated between types of GM and I SUPPORTED those lab modifications that might be achievable in traditional breeding or by natural processes.

Second, I NEVER advocated the abolition of GM research, ever. I never even expressed an opinion in favor of banning a specific GM product. I believe glyphosate-ready mods are very strong candidates for such an action though. I support GM research and actively oppose those who group all GM into one lot. I personally prefer avoiding GM products, but I would never seek an outright ban to all of them. Without their sale, there would be much less money for further genetic research.

The use of Agrobacterium tumefaciens to insert genes into plants is by definition a cross-kingdom transfer/modification even if you are merely crossing plants in the same genus. This may be bypassed by using the gene-gun method. I did not completely condemn cross-kingdom mods, but I expressed a desire for extreme caution.

Any claim that we know exactly what we are doing in gene-modification is completely misleading. We completed the human genome project a couple decades ago, but later it was discovered that there are entire layers beneath the mapped surface that we do not yet understand. No such extensive project has been completed to map the vast array of plants, bacteria & fungi on earth. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your mischaracterization of the current progress of genetic science. We have learned much, but we have barely brushed the surface of knowledge. A single man is a very finite thing in the seemingly endless depth of complexity discovered in the field of genetics.

Just because we can observe some phenotype effects does not mean we are necessarily noting all the genetic alterations inherent in genetic manipulation. The fact that we do not yet fully know what do not know is probably the most alarming fact in the debate. If we knew most everything, we really would not need thousands of genetic researchers seeking those answers. Personally Sir, I believe we need genetic researchers like yourself to discover more and to share your discoveries with the world.

Dariusz Prokopowicz David Fisher thank for your response sir.

Genetically modified crops (GM crops or biotech crops) are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide), or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.

Farmers have widely adopted GM technology. Acreage increased from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 185.1 million hectares in 2016, some 12% of global cropland. As of 2016, major crop (soybean, maize, canola and cotton) traits consist of herbicide tolerance (95.9 million hectares) insect resistance (25.2 million hectares), or both (58.5 million hectares). In 2015, 53.6 million ha of GM maize were under cultivation (almost 1/3 of the maize crop). GM maize outperformed its predecessors: yield was 5.6 to 24.5% higher with less mycotoxins (−28.8%), fumonisin (−30.6%) and thricotecens (−36.5%). Non-target organisms were unaffected, except for Braconidae, represented by a parasitoid of European corn borer, the target of Lepidoptera active Bt maize. Biogeochemical parameters such as lignin content did not vary, while biomass decomposition was higher.

A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.[3] This reduction in pesticide use has been ecologically beneficial, but benefits may be reduced by overuse. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

However, opponents have objected to GM crops on grounds including environmental impacts, food safety, whether GM crops are needed to address food needs, whether they are sufficiently accessible to farmers in developing countries and concerns over subjecting crops to intellectual property law. Safety concerns led 38 countries, including 19 in Europe, to officially prohibit their cultivation.

David Fisher , of course my answer is misleading, as is the original question (what the poster is actually asking is whether we agree with the use of modern techniques to better do what we have been doing for millennia). You say grafting or cultural crosses are worlds apart from crossing a jellyfish with a pig, and that the latter is ethically questionable, and you might have a point. The problem is that neither the genetic manipulation techniques used in conventional breeding are as light handed as you misleadingly paint them -there's the origin of oranges and grapefruits as an example- nor have them been performed or continue to be performed with the total knowledge of all possible dangers and possible outcomes that you seem to require of modern genetic manipulation. Indeed, it is not the same to flip a genetic switch that was already there in order to slow down the ripening of a fruit using CRISPR, than it is to artificially cross-pollinate two reproductively isolated species to see what happens when the resulting Frankenstein sprouts up. You say there is a difference of principle, I say the difference is only of degree.

One last thing, inter-kingdom horizontal gene transfers are common in nature and will continue to take place regardless of human activity. Why demonize them when done under controlled conditions?

Ravindra Kumar Panigrahi Alejandro Martin

Thank you for your responses gentlemen. Please allow me to type a combined answer. I do not believe the OP was misleading in his queries at all. He asked an honest, non-leading question. It is natural for people on all sides of a hot-button topic to respond from their varied experiences, education and economic concerns.

There are many fruits whose genetic origins are uncertain due to domestication hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, not just citrus. In my humble opinion, plants and animals are not separate species at all if they are biologically capable of natural reproduction. I cannot accept the geographical isolation argument for disparate speciation any more than I can accept the dominance of expressed traits in non-interbreeding, yet co-located finches.

To accept such arguments is to accept the arguments racists have made concerning the Japanese being descended from monkey and criminal crossbreeding (a Chinese tale) or that Africans are sub-humans originating from interbreeding between animals and demons (an argument common to many racist groups in history). To accept such arguments is to ignore the most basic principles of biology and nature and to de-humanize various populations. The Swedes might intermarry with Germans, Brits, Norwegians or even Finns producing offspring. Are the people of Sri Lanka, Nepal or New Zealand no longer human because they are geographically isolated, or because they exhibit very different phenotypes?

The frequency of cross kingdom genetic transfer commonality is a bit debatable, but for sake of argument I am willing to concede it happens daily in every climate, if not in every genus. The infection of plants and animals with viruses, bacteria and fungi occurs naturally, but it is generally a parasitic infestation. Any gene transfers via bacterial or viral infection is an invasion into the body that causes the disruption of natural processes. Many cause abnormalities in growth and development generally unhealthy to the host organism, as opposed to adaptations caused by inherent gene switches which result in either helpful or unhelpful adaptations that might arise from intraspecies transfers. Very often, the host dies after being infected. I do not consider host death a good result of interkingdom genetic crosses.

Even accepting the fact that host plants and animals can become infected with foreign genetic material in the natural environment does not necessarily greenlight the immediate acceptance of human-specified genetic infection. The pathways are not yet fully understood by which hosts are genetically altered. To not understand the exact 'rules of the road' in a foreign land might be very hazardous, as any person driving on the wrong side of the German autobahn might attest. In a similar manner, we should learn the rules by which genes are transferred in nature, their exclusions and their inclusions, before we fully accept the results of a human experiment that appears to yield positive results.

The objections to GMOs are for more numerous and diverse than listed. Like a successful drug trial where but 0.5% of patients exhibit lethal side effects, there are correlational studies that bring great questions as to the long term safeties of GM products. Some studies show extremely high mortality rates in lab animals and are traced to GI tract difficulties. Among humans with certain recently skyrocketing ailments, there are very frequent positive correlations with GM products (IBS, various neurological disfunctions, etc.) Correlation does not absolutely imply causation (since other causes might compound the issue or because both items correlated might have yet another cause), but it offers a possible problem source for further consideration.

The studies sponsored by businesses who rely on positive results in those studies so they might profit cannot be considered remotely close to equal to independent studies.

I am all for pesticide reduction and increased food production, assuming there is some truth to those claims, yet somehow the ecological damage in areas where GM crops run 90% or better is easily observed. Bee colony collapses, butterfly population decimation, soil depletion, water pollution, marine dead zones, avian extinctions, massive toxic algal blooms & superweeds are all byproducts of human activities. It is important to understand that there are business-cultural model problems causing much of the trouble, but GM products also have an undeniable role in many ecological issues.

It is not for no reason that numerous nations with highly advanced scientific knowledge have banned GMOs. That said, I cannot say I am for absolute bans on GM in most locations. Islands like Madagascar & Hawaii (and other delicate ecosystems) have reason to ban GMOs, but blanket bans on all forms of GM reduce our ability to conduct genetic research in hopes of finding answers to perceived problems. Just a side note, I do not expect HA to ban GM, since the papaya growers & consumers would rage against them quickly.

Not to mention irradiation as a widely accepted tool to generate new varieties to obtain better performing cultivars. I´m amazed that this method where random and sometimes uncharacterized alterations occurs to genes among other biomolecules, has no as much ethical and biosafety concerns as GMOs. I guess there is a risk-benefit balance much deviated to benefits as it happens for the safe and regulated use of some deeply studied and characterized GMOs. I agree with a case by case analysis and cautios use of GM when the benefit is too obvious.

David Fisher your combined answer is very useful sir and relevent too