Who invented genetically modified corn

Currently, the GMOs on the market today have been given genetic traits to provide protection from pests, tolerance to pesticides, or improve its quality. Genetically modified foods are foods derived from GMO crops. For example, corn produced through biotechnology is being used in many familiar foods, including corn meal and tortilla chips. In addition, corn is used to make high fructose corn syrup, which is used as a sweetener in many foods such as soft drinks and baked goods.

While the FDA U. Food and Drug Administration regulates genetically modified foods, it considers Bt-corn to be nutritionally equivalent to traditional corn.

To transform a plant into a GMO plant, the gene that produces a genetic trait of interest is identified and separated from the rest of the genetic material from a donor organism. Most organisms have thousands of genes, a single gene represents only a tiny fraction of the total genetic makeup of an organism.

A donor organism may be a bacterium, fungus or even another plant. In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a protein that kills Lepidoptera larvae, in particular, European corn borer. This protein is called the Bt delta endotoxin. But changing plants and animals through traditional breeding can take a long time, and it is difficult to make very specific changes.

After scientists developed genetic engineering in the s, they were able to make similar changes in a more specific way and in a shorter amount of time. PDF KB. Circa BCE Humans use traditional modification methods like selective breeding and cross-breeding to breed plants and animals with more desirable traits.

This policy describes how the U. Not all are still available for sale. Genetic engineering is a process that involves:. Fact Sheet. That is the science that produced genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The art of gene splicing dates from In that year, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer developed techniques that made it possible to chemically cut and splice strands of DNA at specific places in the sequence. Boyer used an enzyme to cut the code for a specific protein and attach it to other DNA.

Cohen added a way to introduce these DNA sequences into bacteria and yeast cells. Together the two scientists turned these microbes into hormone factories.

In , they founded the new company Genentech and introduced human genes that produce insulin into strains of bacteria. Those bacteria started manufacturing insulin. Next, they manufactured human growth hormone. HGH was used to enable dwarf children to grow to normal size. Before genetic modification techniques, the only source for the drug had been human cadavers. Gene-splicing technology entered the food industry in when the FDA approved the safety of a new strain of GMO rennet. Corrected by subsequent publications, the field experiments did not support original laboratory results.

But effects on other nontarget organisms, such as soil microbes, remain a concern. When microbial genetics research uncovered how genes could be transferred between species in ways other than reproduction, so-called horizontal gene transfer, it not only explained why microorganisms were so diverse, but that microbes could potentially be endowed with GM plant DNA found in the soil. Opinions differ on this, however, and seem to follow the United States—European Union divide over the use of GM crops.

Given that plant DNA can last in soil for over two years, Nielsen does not believe the possibility can be dismissed and argues that long-term studies are necessary. Work continues in this area in Europe. The lack of baseline ecological data—even agreeing on what an appropriate baseline is—presents a substantial knowledge gap to environmental impact assessments.

Scientists, including Nielsen, wonder whether there could be unexpected risk factors. Allison Snow, weed expert at Ohio State University, agrees with what many feel is the most important risk—the inability to anticipate all the effects.

To two academicians that kindled the biotech revolution, the real GM risks lie in how science is misinterpreted and misused. In fact, much of the currently conducted basic research is not likely to be applied in the near future.

Public concerns coupled with corporate consolidation created huge roadblocks, especially in getting the technology to developing nations. Indeed, when does the risk of not using available technology factor into the debate?

See Box 3. Many scientists argue that genetic modification can help to ensure food security in developing countries, specifically in Africa. Current regulatory constraints have a choke-hold on innovations for genetic modifications that seek to improve subsistence crops, such as rice. Golden rice, yellowed in appearance because it is infused with the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene, could save thousands of malnourished people each year from blindness and the other vitamin A—deficiency diseases prevalent in Southeast Asia.

Intellectual property issues and opposition from anti-GM activists have confounded the development for years. Faced with patent issues and regulatory hurdles and costs, developer and academic researcher Ingo Potrykus formed an alliance with Syngenta then AstraZeneca Corporation to allow the free licensing of the patents to public research institutions for humanitarian use. After over a decade of work, golden rice is still not on the market. The retired Potrykus is determined to bring this technology to farmers once it passes regulatory field testing—an additional four-year delay that he feels is scientifically unnecessary.

He acknowledges, however, that field tests will be beneficial for acceptance of this and future bio-fortified products. He points out that of traditional staple crops such as cow peas and millet, only cassava has merited some publicly-funded research.

Given regulatory costs, neither industry nor universities can afford to develop products that do not have mass appeal. To ensure a return on research investments, with the regulatory costs often the biggest ticket item, developing blockbuster traits is a priority. The alternative, he adds, is to make it cheaper to innovate local varieties in ways that are likely to gain public acceptance.

See Box 4. One way to minimize the problems associated with gene flow is to introduce sterility, such that pollen cannot transmit information. Richard Jefferson has high hopes for an accessible, cheap way for farmers to produce genetically superior seeds, called apomixis. But similar concepts have been floated before. The controversial terminator technology prevented gene flow, but it also outraged activists because it kept farmers from reusing seed. In effect, seeds can be natural clones of the mother, instead of a genetic exchange between mother and father.

Therefore, hybrid quality can be maintained as farmers use seed year after year. Although apomixis occurs naturally in about plant species, Jefferson believes that it can be successfully developed as a useful trait in other crop plants. To ensure its widespread availability, Jefferson and collaborators pledged not to create restrictive patent rights that could block the development of apomixis.

Given monetary constraints that prevent access to many biotechnologies, many scientists worry that the Gene Revolution might as well. Looming trade issues coupled with food insecurity shape the debate in Africa. Caught between the United States and European Union trade disputes, sub-Saharan countries are eager to use any technology that will enhance production without jeopardizing trade.