Agriculture across the globe has contributed up to 84% global value since 2000 to 2021. As per the United Nations that there will be appalling food security reported in 2.4 billion people in 2022, this explains the unavailability of nutrition. The UN aims to achieve Zero Hunger by 2030(Martin, n.d.). To support zero hunger there is constant emphasis being put on developing infrastructure and technology to upscale agricultural productivity(Galabada 2022). In order to support the goals of the UN countries are adopting methods like drip irrigation supporting sustainable agriculture technique(Yang et al. 2023), precision farming that makes use of the softwares to understand the on field need of the crop at a specific time for  increased productivity(Singh et al. 2020).

Reports suggest that the plant breeding techniques can help improve the crop by developing high yielding crops compared to their previous generation along with traits and abilities to withstand harsh weather conditions which their older generation would not have been, therefore boosting food security (B. K. Joshi, Shrestha, and Ayer 2023). There are several to address the matter of food security some of the many include : Vertical Expansion(vertical Farming techniques), horizontal Expansion(horizontal Farming techniques) and Gene Manipulation (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Ways to achieve food security.(Joshi 2017) Figure 2: Role of different technologies over the years on plant performance(Orton 2020).

History of developing genetically modified crops

History of manipulating the crops for improving the quality , introducing desired traits is very long. Breeding techniques like selective breeding and cross breeding techniques are well known. The pros of having breeding techniques like these include developing disease resistant, pest or insecticide resistant. These breeding techniques not only helped develop compound resistant crops, they also helped in developing high yielding crops with elevated physiological appearances(Anand, Subramanian, and Kar 2022). Breeding of plants  is a  human act of  producing plant and crop of the desired quality by introducing or removing heritable characters. Development of different technologies over  time have helped in the development of the plants (figure 2).

Darwin had proposed that the organisms of desired traits could be produced by allowing the breeding between the organisms of the desired trait only. Later the entire genetics of selective breeding  to produce the organisms with desired traits was discovered by Gregor Mendel in 1865(Fairbanks 2020). Even later the discovery of deoxy ribonucleic acid(DNA) by Watson and Crick in the year 1953 was revolutionary(Cobb 2013) and pathbreaking to understand the depth of the breeding techniques.

With a clear understanding of the DNA and its base nucleotides it became easier for the scientists to understand organisms. Genetic manipulation(Genetic Engineering) is the change in the genetic makeup of the organisms by either inserting or deleting a gene or DNA sequence or single base pairs(Adenine, Guanine, Thymine or Cytosine) in order to produce desired traits in them(Rosenberg 2017). One of the major sectors that has progressed overtime with immense involvement of genetic engineering is agriculture. The technology has helped develop crops that are significantly high yielding , disease free, pest free and high in nutritious value , such crops are called Genetically Modified crops (GM crops) which have their DNA altered in ways that are not present in the species as created by default in nature(Frez 2005). 

Genetic Engineering and different ways to develop GM organisms

Several years after the discovery of DNA and related experimentation with the gene transfer, the federal government formulated regulatory bodies in 1986 which were assigned with the safety of GM organisms and they were named as : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA). First ever commercially available GM crop was Flavrsavr Tomato, that had an increased shelf life in 1994(Nutrition 2024).Amongst a few crops that have been modified genetically include: potato, soybean, sugar beet,canola, maize wheat and many more(Bawa and Anilakumar 2013).There has been an immense increase in the countries growing genetically modified crops amongst which USA tops the chart, followed by Brazil, Argentina, Canada, India and so on (figure3).

First ever genetic modification in the plants was done using the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens in 1983 , that has the tumor inducing plasmid in it, where the oncogene sequence was replaced with the gene of interest and the bacteria was then allowed to infect the cell of the target plant(Barton et al. 1983) (figure 4). Two types of generic transfer include : transgenesis: in this method the gene of interest belongs form a completely different species of organism (sexually non compatible species)(Butler and Douches 2016) while another one is cisgenesis: here the gene of interest belongs from a closely related species of the target species(sexually compatible species) whereas Intragenesis is the transfer of the new set of genes inclusive of the regulatory sequences as well of the same species into the target species(Espinoza et al. 2013).

Figure 3: Countries growing Gm crops across the globe.(Lengyel et al. 2019)

Figure 4:Gene transfer using Agrobacterium tumefaciens(Jhansi Rani and Usha 2013). Figure 5: Genetic Modified crop produced using Particle Bombardment(Narusaka et al. 2012)

Next in the order was a fresh technology namely RNA interface where the double stranded RNA are used to silence a set of genes in the target plant. One of the structures of RNA called the hairpin RNA is used in gene manipulation(Tabassum et al. 2016). Further was seen the introduction of the Sequence Specific Nucleases(SSN) which gives double stranded nicks in the target genome at a specific loci which can further be inserted with the desired gene to produce genetically modified crops(Voytas 2013). Biolistics is another technology that makes use of a gene gun where in the particles are coated with the desired gene and is precisely targeted to hit the specific loci where the gene is to be inserted. This technology is quite efficient as it is target specific and has very few constraints biologically along with no need of a carrier/vector to deliver the gene(Ozyigit and YucebilgiliKurtoglu 2020) (figure 5) .

Factors leading to  the discovery of Genetically engineered crops and solutions provided by them:

Changing climatic conditions is a daunting challenge to the farmers that presents problems like floods, drought , soil erosion which eventually affects the crop productivity. Change in the demands of the people with time has been another task for commercial agriculture to meet(Ali et al. 2017). The idea of  consumers is shifting from "enough food" to "good food" , that is they require more nutrition with whatever little they eat in their meals(Andress et al. 2020). Meeting the ever increasing population demands for high yielding crops that grow in a short span of time.  Another pressing concern is the depletion of the non renewable resources, agriculture alone consumes about 70% of world's fresh water therefore leaving scanty amounts for direct human consumption. Apart from water agriculture needs the use of energy, fossil fuels and other machinery to be run for the smooth functioning and hence again depleting the resources, development of crops that could help reduce the stress on these non renewable resources can prove to be a boon for this sector(Ingrao et al. 2023). All these problems cannot be single handedly met with growing crops the conventional way, therefore the breakthrough technology that can help serve the problems is switching to Genetically modified crops (figure 6)

In order to overcome the abiotic stress like drought: drought tolerant crops are developed like Zea maize(maize) (McMillen et al. 2022), Triticumaestivum (wheat) (Ambati et al. 2022), Saccharumofficinarum (sugarcane) (Dlamini 2021), Hordeumvulgare(Barley)(Mosaddek Ahmed et al. 2016).

For better availability of nutrients like Vitamin A, Golden rice were developed where the beta carotene gene was isolated from daffodils and a soil bacteria and was inserted in the rice genome using Agrobacterium tumefacienswhich helped produce rice with high quality Provitamin A (which gets converted in Vitamin A in human body) being produced. The name was given as “Golden Rice” due to its significant yellow-orange color. This process of producing crops with increased amounts of nutrients is called biofortification(De Steur et al. 2017).

Figure 6:A brief timeline showcasing the development of the genetically modified crops over a period of time(Khan 2019).

Benefits of GM crop:

1. Environmental and Social benefits of GM crops

Looking at the trend that started from 1994, there has been an immense increase of trust in the GM crops. The scale has been uptrend for the cultivation and their adoption in the farmers and the consumers too are happily accepting the products. The technology has been challenging the traditional ways of farming the agro chemicals used to keep away the rodents, pests , weeds or even fertilizers that were used to provide proper nutrition to the plant for healthier growth. With the insertion of transgene the plants developed have the capacity to fight the specific pest, weed or even able to grow at a faster scale.

Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria first discovered by a japanese scientist in 1901, years later it was found that the bacteria produced a crystal during its sporulation stage. The crystal protein , the cry toxin , is produced by the cry genes which were isolated and inserted in the genome of cotton plants to develop Bt cotton. The plant could now produce the crystal protein that could kill the pest called the ballworms. The gene is activated once it enters the intestine of the pest and causes the pest to die, saving the plant and protecting the reproduction of the pests(fall in their number)(Abbas 2018). The major advantage the environment has is the reduled use of hazardous chemicals saving the microscopic lifes, human health and aquatic life (in case of chemical leaching). The technology has helped shift to a more greener farming technique with low costs and increased crop yields.

Just like cotton . Bt. corn was also developed and was a huge hit in the western countries. In 1997 Canada, USA and Europe started the cultivation of Bt corn and within a decade the crop was grown in huge areas where almost 85% of USA’s total land consisted of Bt corn, for Canada and Argentina it was 84% and 57% respectively(Abbas 2018).

The adoption of the technology also helped in safeguarding the natural resources , as crops with drought resistant genes were also developed where they could survive scarce water conditions and grow with less amount of water, this is truly a boon to the agriculture sector as water scarcity is one of the biggest issues it faces.

Economic benefits of GM crops

Crop biotechnology has a global value which can be judged from the economic benefits it brings. The economics of the GM crops is assessed at different levels : production cost, to yield impact the GM crop brings, the field (farm) income. The most commercialized crops include corn, soybean, canola, cotton. Their production is done globally and their yield has increased tremendously.

Reports say that ever since 1994 , tomatoes were the first planted Gm crops whose area for cultivation increased to 1.6 million hectares and for 2012 this area increased to 160 million hectares, which clearly explains the buzz around the GM crops and how openly they are accepted globally.

One of the aim of the Gm crops was also to provide income source and employment to the  farmers. The most benefited farmers globally due to adoption of the GM crops are from the US, they have  nearly made a profit of 111 billion dollars extra as they were the first ones to adopt the cultivation of GM crops (between the years 1996-2020). There have been farm incomes of 71.6 billion dollars in South America. India and China were also monetarily benefited with 53.6 billion dollars after the cultivation of  GM IR cotton(Brookes,2022.). Herbicide resistant (HT) soybeans have had the benefits at the farm level due to the reduction in the use of the chemicals used to control weeds. The yield gain and the field incomes have gone hand in hand sur to the reduction in the production cost ( as no herbicides were used)

Using the GM crop technology has helped gain farm incomes of about 5.4 billion dollars from 1996-2012 , where 26% were only because of the yield increment while rest was due to reduced farm costing for HT soybeans(Brookes and Barfoot 2014).

2. Health benefits

India reports of the maximum number of farmer suicide cases, introduction of GM crop has reduced the number of suicide rates as they able to make profits and a better lifestyle for them. Agriculture is a sector that has a lot of unsaid stress that takes a toll over the mental health of the farmers and adoption of the technology has reduced the stress by many folds. A study revealed the suicide rates went static after the adoption of GM cotton(Gruère and Sengupta 2011). Nearly 75,000 lives were saved once Gm cotton was introduced and cultivated.

Pests damage the crops in a manner that there are increased capacity human health damages. It was conferred from a 21 year long study that Bt maize had lower concentrations of carcinogens and mycotoxins(Pellegrino et al. 2018). These compounds are related to neural disorders and causing cancer therefore can be lethal for human consumption(Missmer et al. 2006)n. That is, the wild variety of maize created  more chances for humans to develop lethal diseases like these.
Challenges and Controversies Associated with GM crops:
WHO predicted a raging increase of 9 billion people on earth by the end of 2050 with a whooping demand of more than 50% increase in the food crop to serve the consumers , there would be a huge demand increase in every food type from meat to sugarcane to oil seeds to cereals compared from yesteryear to 2050(Figure 7).  With earth facing global issues like scarce availability of non renewable resources and global warming will pose immense barriers in achieving the goals(Prakash and Srivastava 2019) and therefore the evolution of breeding and gene manipulation was brought. With the advancement in the techniques and comparatively easier availability of food and other resources people fail to care about the negatives associated with them. There have been endless speculations made on very many GM crops and commercialization for human consumption in the USA, different parts of Europe and many other countries(Trewavas and Leaver 2001).

Figure 7:  world’s production and use of major crop and food products (“World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 – The 2012 Revision | Global Perspectives Studies | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,” n.d.)

Challenges For GM Crops To Be Accepted Commercially

The uncertainty of how the GM crops may react with the human and animal bodies along with the environment is the biggest risk proposed forward. There are multiple regulatory bodies that pay complet surveillance over the attributes and behavior pattern of the GM crops(R et al., n.d.). Multiple tests and analysis are run on them to clear the safety check which take place in 2 stages: check of the entire GM plant as a unit and next one being the assessment of just the gene inserted or the protein. The GM plants are compared to their original counterparts , as they are closely related, assessed for their performance when exposed to the environment and humans. If the GM crops are very similar to the original plant the quality check is considered successful and the GM crop is signaled green to go on the floor. The European Union has its own detailed checklist for the GM crops to commercialize. The coexistence of Gm crops with humans, animals and other biodiversity of the environment is analyzed, ways to keep the GM and non GM crop segregated is scrutinized(Raybould and Poppy 2012)

Risk to Environment, Biodiversity and Humans

a. Crop diversity is affected

For the future to be secured with food it is of utmost importance that the diversity with the crops is maintained. Humans consume nearly about 7000 types of plant species and out of them the world demands mostly 4 crops namely: rice, maize, Potato and wheat. Therefore due to increasing burden on these crops they are the only ones getting the limelight to be protected to either increase their yield, make them abiotic or biotic stress resistant or elevate the seed quality using Modern day agricultural technology like Genetic manipulation.

This step directly poses a threat for the rest of the plant species which are left behind and not been considered significant enough and hence there eradication is quite possible with time.

There have been studies that showcase how the world is now  trying to focus and grow GM crops and less of their wild counterparts. As per the survey conducted, Brazil which is a country known for producing non GMO soybean is now cultivating  GM soybean whose rate of cultivation has peaked by 95%, which clearly speaks of the shift towards GM crops(Sieradzki et al. 2021). Surprisingly Argentina is nearly producing only GM crops, that is a completely saturated production of GM crops only(Lewi and Vicién 2020).

b. Microbial diversity and soil quality is affected

At the farm level there have been certain studies that have reported either the soil quality being affected or the microbes and other organisms to be affected due to the presence of GM crops. There is no evidence as yet to challenge that the transgene or the Transgenic plant has posed a problem for other organisms but still their remnants in the soil have their impact.

Cry gene in the Bt cotton does not directly affect any of the microbe, worms or decomposers present in the soil but in some specific areas it was noticed that the respiration of the soil was lowered where there was either Bt cotton was grown or even if its biomass was added compared to the soul that had the non GM cotton growing.

This would directly impact the existence of the bacteria and other microbes in the soil hence affecting the entire mechanism of nutrient cycling , decomposition and nutrient availability to the microbes and to the plants.  This clearly explains how GM crops can be harmful for biodiversity. 

c. Gene flow and GM crops

Gene flow is a phenomenon where there is observed a change in the gene in a groom of species either by means of polling seeds or genes from transgenic plants(Mitton 2013) (figure 8). This could pose a tremendous problem if visioned in a long period.

One such gene flow example is the oil rape seeds (canola), Brassica napus, that is herbicide resistant which has multiple wild variesteies of it in UK.  Even if the cross between the wild variety and the GM crop happens the possibility of survival is very low as the gene of resistance has to be completely translated so that the survival rate is increased. Even then the rape seeds being weedy and being of feral population have the ability of the hybridizing the non GMO variety , also because of the agricultural practices and also due to transportation. Even though the cross between the non GM rape seed and the GM crop is an opportunistic event but there are many reports that suggest the loss of the non GMO rape seed. This clearly explains the threat brought by the GM crops for the rest of the non-GMO crops(Sohn et al. 2021).
China a few years back had been reporting gene flow by means of pollen (called the pollen gene flow-PGF) from Btcotton  (GM crop) and the non-GM cotton. They conducted a study in order to study how physical barriers can help reduce the gene flow via pollen by separating the two types of cotton varieties by growing other food crops and separation nets with holes in them of different numbers per cm². It was found that the process of gene flow could be controlled in one of the set ups. Even then this explains how much precautions have to be taken in order to save the non GM crops or the wild varieties to be saved from hybridization from GM crops(Yan et al. 2018)

Figure 8: different unintended routes of gene flow from GM crop to non GM crop(Ryffel 2014).

d. Risks to Humans and Animals 

Commercialisation of Gm crops and their benefits are well discussed above but their biosafety for  consumption for humans and animals is yet to be discussed. The following discussion will talk about in depth details how developments in the Gm crops has or not affected human and animal health.(figure 9 )

GM crops may act as allergens

America nearly faces 4 to 8%  of immunoglobulin E allergies every year caused by food. The allergic reactions are majorly generated due to the proteins which leads to severe anaphylaxis and can even lead to death. Therefore proteins in food can be dangerous for some consumers. GM crops are introduced with new proteins, which can be potential allergens (Dunn et al. 2017).

If the gene of interest belongs from a source that can induce hypersensitive immune response in humans then the source would be considered an allergen and the GM crop carrying the gene would possess an attribute of allergenicity. The higher the capacity of allergenicity the more dangerous the GM crop can be.

One such example is a gene from Brazilian nut for its methionine rich protein that was introduced in soybean (a staple crop for oil) and its consumption in humans led to allergic reactions. This was completely due to the protein introduced in the soybean plant which in general too has allergic effects in humans. Due to the response to this GM soybean, this variety of soybean was discontinued to be produced, cultivated and commercialized(Nordlee et al. 1996).

GM crops as potential carcinogens in long run

There are speculations that mention GM crops being potential carcinogens. But till today there has no study put out that proves the point. All the GM crops that are bulk produced are generally used in industries and very sparse amounts are used by humans for direct consumption(Smyth 2020). One such GM crop is Zea mays which is widely used in the industry for the production of ethanol , a fuel(Erenstein et al. 2022). This somewhere clears the picture that the GM crops are not available for direct consumption and hence rules out the conjecture of them causing cancer in humans.

Secondary metabolites within the plants:

 The changes made in the genes of the plants  which control the production of the secondary metabolites during the process of genetic engineering can be dangerous for human consumption. Secondary metabolites are compounds produced within the plant for the protection of the plant from microbes and any other outside threats for the plant. Also there have been reports of them being useful for the basic regulatory processes of the plant(Teoh, n.d.).
For example there have been multiple experiments run on potato for the increase of the nutritional value, for the increment of the resistance against pests and insects and now to increase the secondary metabolites. Increased production of glycoalkaloids, a secondary metabolite, when increased in the potatoes can cause diarrhea, vomiting and other gastric issues. One such exact example is Swish potatoes that were discontinued for sale in the 1980's that were produced as a result of conventional breeding, these had high concentration of glycoalkaloids(Hellenäs et al. 1995).

Figure 9: Modes of how Gm crops can affect human health(de Vendômois et al. 2010).

Effect of feeding animals with GM crops:

There were multiple speculations made about how the transgene can reach the gut intact. This was tested on human level and finally was reported that not the transgene intact that reaches the gut but the fragments of it. Similar study was done in the cows which were fed on the GM crops and there were only fragments of DNA of chloroplast in the milk(Furgał-Dierżuk et al. 2015). In order to keep the study close to humans pigs were used as the experiment organization. The pigs were fed with Bt maize and the effect of the crop on the pigs was observed. The gene was looked in the blood samples, and in the different organs was looked for, fragments of Cry1Ab transgene were found in the kidney, spleen and blood of the pig. The intact gene was not found though(Mazza et al. 2005).

What does the future hold for GM Crops?

Technological changes have led to improvement and development in the world and there is a constant need for such improvements to elevate the living standards, to cater the needs of the population, create a safe environment for the people away from bacterial, viral or fungal diseases. With such developments there are threats to the world in every sector. The boost in infrastructure, industrialization, and urbanization is taxing biodiversity and the ecosystem. 

Reports estimate an increase up to 60% in the crop production by year 2030 globally compared to the late 90’s. Even then the annual productivity rate globally is less due to low yielding crops and hence there is a need to shift to smarter versions by putting faith in technology which have developed GM crops. The technology promises to provide livelihood to the poor by helping them cultivate crops at a faster rate, also the newly developed crops can reduce the burden on the natural resources which are depleting in haste(“World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 – The 2012 Revision | Global Perspectives Studies | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,” n.d.).  The word 'framing’ has a great role to play in how the GM crops are perceived globally. The focus activists have a clear intention to project a certain positive or negative as per their perception of day to day experiences also from a cultural point of view.

From the early times Gm crops are framed in manner they have been challenged for destroying the ways to reach sustainable agriculture even though the main aim of the GM crops was to produce high yielding crops, disease free, virus free, herbicide resistant and may more qualities. In support of the statement from the data from Phillipines there has been an increase of about 37% in Maize yield and 60% reduction in use of insecticides since there has been a switch to Btmaize(International, n.d.) The concept of negative framing was seen to Europe as well as in the USA, where there has been a mass alarm being put against the Gm crops even then there has been an increase in the use of GM crops there as well(Clancy and Clancy 2016). The boon is equally challenged by the banes it provides the world with:  the advancements in genetic engineering comes with its own set of problems, where some of them include evolution of nearly 48 varieties of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate(Dill 2005), this is due to the continuous cultivation of glyphosate herbicide resistant crops being grown for more than 2 decade. Another drawback is the concept of crop rotation done in order to maintain the soil fertility is stopped as the GM crops have taken over and hence this idea has immensely supported weed management as they grow more and more due to development of resistance in them due to continuous use of the same herbicides. There are reports that the herbicides used in large quantities due to the cultivation of glyphosate resistant crops , the glyphosate leeches in the soil and also to the aquatic bodies causing immense harm to aquatic life(Kanissery et al. 2019).

Cases like such put the future of the GMO (genetically modified organisms) in danger, yet the need of the upcoming time to create food security still depends on the GM crops.
GM crops are now developed by private companies too as per their specific requirement and to commercialize their product. This has become a money making venture for them as in future they might refuse to share the detailed information about theGM crop developed by them. Also there is a huge possibility of them growing the same GM crop generations after generation causing the parent variety to be lost and hence disturbing the biodiversity. The debate goes endless on whether the Gm crops are a boon or a curse to the world but the benefits it has brought globally are blatant and undisguised. Also what’s non negotiable is the fact that if the technology is taken way too rigorously without being mindful about the little losses it brings offcourse the world can lose a lot in years to come.

The problems at the global level challenge science and technology to develop strategies and innovation to combat. Global food security and optimum nutrition for all is a challenge that boosted the commercialization of GM crops. GM crops have undoubtedly been successful in achieving the agendas they were created for. They are serving a higher number of people with reduced Risks of exposure to pesticides, herbicides and other agrochemicals. However, it is of vital importance that the regulatory bodies keep a close eye on the performance of the crops both at the consumer level, considering their biosafety, and commercial level, if they are able to fulfill all the criteria well. Misinterpretation and limited knowledge can be dangerous in such cases hence there should be better and stringent rules for the GM crops with maximum risk minimization.

1. Abbas, Mohamed Samir Tawfik. 2018. “Genetically Engineered (Modified) Crops (Bacillus Thuringiensis Crops) and the World Controversy on Their Safety.” Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 28 (1): 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-018-0051-2.

2. Ali, Sajjad, Ying Liu, Muhammad Ishaq, Tariq Shah, null Abdullah, Aasir Ilyas, and Izhar Ud Din. 2017. “Climate Change and Its Impact on the Yield of Major Food Crops: Evidence from Pakistan.” Foods (Basel, Switzerland) 6 (6): 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6060039.

3. Ambati, Divya, Sai Sakuru, Jang Singh, Rahul Phuke, Thorehalli Prakasha, Akilesh Mishra, Kailash Sharma, et al. 2022. “HI 8802 (Pusa Wheat 8802) a High Yielding, Drought Tolerant and Biofortifed Durum Wheat Variety for Peninsular India.” Journal of Cereal Research 13 (January): undefined. https://doi.org/10.25174/2582-2675/2022/117107.

4. Anand, Achala, Madhumitha Subramanian, and Debasish Kar. 2022. “Breeding Techniques to Dispense Higher Genetic Gains.” Frontiers in Plant Science 13: 1076094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1076094.

5. Andress, Lauri, Carmen Byker Shanks, Annie Hardison-Moody, T. Elaine Prewitt, Paul Kinder, and Lindsey Haynes-Maslow. 2020. “The Curated Food System: A Limiting Aspirational Vision of What Constitutes ‘Good’ Food.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (17): 6157. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176157.

6. Barton, Kenneth A., Andrew N. Binns, Antonius J. M. Matzke, and Mary-Dell Chilton. 1983. “Regeneration of Intact Tobacco Plants Containing Full Length Copies of Genetically Engineered T-DNA, and Transmission of T-DNA to R1 Progeny.” Cell 32 (4): 1033–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(83)90288-X.

7. Bawa, A. S., and K. R. Anilakumar. 2013. “Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks and Public Concerns—a Review.” Journal of Food Science and Technology 50 (6): 1035–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1.

8. Borisjuk, Nikolai, Olena Kishchenko, Serik Eliby, Carly Schramm, Peter Anderson, Satyvaldy Jatayev, Akhylbek Kurishbayev, and Yuri Shavrukov. 2019. “Genetic Modification for Wheat Improvement: From Transgenesis to Genome Editing.” BioMed Research International 2019 (March): 6216304. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6216304.

9. Brookes, Graham. n.d. “Farm Income and Production Impacts from the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Technology 1996-2020.” GM Crops & Food 13 (1): 171–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2105626.

10. Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. 2014. “Economic Impact of GM Crops.” GM Crops & Food 5 (1): 65–75. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28098.

11. Butler, Nathaniel M., and David S. Douches. 2016. “Sequence-Specific Nucleases for Genetic Improvement of Potato.” American Journal of Potato Research 93 (4): 303–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-016-9513-9.

12. Clancy, Kelly A., and Benjamin Clancy. 2016. “Growing Monstrous Organisms: The Construction of Anti-GMO Visual Rhetoric through Digital Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 33 (3): 279–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1193670.

13.Cobb, Matthew. 2013. “1953: When Genes Became ‘Information.’” Cell 153 (3): 503–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.012.

14. De Steur, Hans, Saurabh Mehta, Xavier Gellynck, and Julia L Finkelstein. 2017. “GM Biofortified Crops: Potential Effects on Targeting the Micronutrient Intake Gap in Human Populations.” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Food biotechnology • Plant biotechnology, 44 (April): 181–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2017.02.003.

15. Dill, Gerald M. 2005. “Glyphosate-Resistant Crops: History, Status and Future.” Pest Management Science 61 (3): 219–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1008.

16. Dlamini, Philani Justice. 2021. “Drought Stress Tolerance Mechanisms and Breeding Effort in Sugarcane: A Review of Progress and Constraints in South Africa.” Plant Stress 2 (December): 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stress.2021.100027.

17. Dunn, S. Eliza, John L. Vicini, Kevin C. Glenn, David M. Fleischer, and Matthew J. Greenhawt. 2017. “The Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods from Genetically Engineered Crops: A Narrative and Systematic Review.” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 119 (3): 214-222.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2017.07.010.

18. Erenstein, Olaf, Moti Jaleta, Kai Sonder, Khondoker Mottaleb, and B.M. Prasanna. 2022. “Global Maize Production, Consumption and Trade: Trends and R&D Implications.” Food Security 14 (5): 1295–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7.

19. Espinoza, C., R. Schlechter, D. Herrera, E. Torres, A. Serrano, C. Medina, and P. Arce-Johnson. 2013. “Cisgenesis and Intragenesis: New Tools for Improving Crops.” Biological Research 46 (4): 323–31. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-97602013000400003.

20. Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2020. “Mendel and Darwin: Untangling a Persistent Enigma.” Heredity 124 (2): 263–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-019-0289-9.

21. Frez, William. 2005. “Genetically Engineered Foods.” In Encyclopedia of Toxicology (Second Edition), edited by Philip Wexler, 432–38. New York: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369400-0/01029-2.

22. Furgał-Dierżuk, I., J. Strzetelski, M. Twardowska, K. Kwiatek, and M. Mazur. 2015. “The Effect of Genetically Modified Feeds on Productivity, Milk Composition, Serum Metabolite Profiles and Transfer of tDNA into Milk of Cows.” Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 24 (1): 19–30. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/65649/2015.

23. Galabada, Jalini Kaushalya. 2022. “Towards the Sustainable Development Goal of Zero Hunger: What Role Do Institutions Play?” Sustainability 14 (8): 4598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084598.

24. Gruère, Guillaume, and Debdatta Sengupta. 2011. “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-Based Assessment.” The Journal of Development Studies 47 (2): 316–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2010.492863.

25. Hellenäs, Karl‐Erik, Carina Branzell, Håkan Johnsson, and Premysl Slanina. 1995. “High Levels of Glycoalkaloids in the Established Swedish Potato Variety Magnum Bonum.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 68 (2): 249–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740680217.

26. Ingrao, Carlo, Rossana Strippoli, Giovanni Lagioia, and Donald Huisingh. 2023. “Water Scarcity in Agriculture: An Overview of Causes, Impacts and Approaches for Reducing the Risks.” Heliyon 9 (8): e18507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18507.

27. International, CropLife. n.d. “Economic Impact of Bt Corn in the Philippines | Benefits & Safety of Biotechnology Database.” Accessed April 6, 2024. https://biotechbenefits.croplife.org/paper/economic-impact-of-bt-corn-in-the-philippines/.

28. Jhansi Rani, S., and R. Usha. 2013. “Transgenic Plants: Types, Benefits, Public Concerns and Future.” Journal of Pharmacy Research 6 (8): 879–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopr.2013.08.008.

29. Joshi, Bal. 2017. “Plant Breeding in Nepal: Past, Present and Future” 1 (January): 1–33.

30. Joshi, Bal Krishna, Hari Kumar Shrestha, and Dipendra Kumar Ayer. 2023. “Plant Breeding Strategies and Methods for Food Security: Review on the Technology.” In Emerging Solutions in Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security, edited by Sampat Ghosh, Amrita Kumari Panda, Chuleui Jung, and Satpal Singh Bisht, 213–54. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40908-0_9.

31. Kanissery, Ramdas, Biwek Gairhe, Davie Kadyampakeni, Ozgur Batuman, and Fernando Alferez. 2019. “Glyphosate: Its Environmental Persistence and Impact on Crop Health and Nutrition.” Plants 8 (11): 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110499.

32. Khan, Muhammad Abdullah. 2019. “Improving Quality & Productivity of Crops Using Genetic Engineering.” Scientia Magazine (blog). June 24, 2019. https://scientiamag.org/improving-quality-productivity-of-crops-using-genetic-engineering/.

33. Lengyel, Peter, K Majláth, IstvánFüzesi, and PancsiraJános. 2019. “NETWORK ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS” 15 (January): 21–28.

34. Lewi, Dalia Marcela, and Carmen Vicién. 2020. “Argentina’s Local Crop Biotechnology Developments: Why Have They Not Reached the Market Yet?” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 8 (April): 301. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00301.

35. Martin. n.d. “Goal 2: Zero Hunger.” United Nations Sustainable Development (blog). Accessed April 1, 2024. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/.

36. Mazza, Raffaele, Mirko Soave, Mauro Morlacchini, Gianfranco Piva, and Adriano Marocco. 2005. “Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues.” Transgenic Research 14 (5): 775–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-005-0009-5.

37. McMillen, Michael S., Anthony A. Mahama, Julia Sibiya, Thomas Lübberstedt, and Walter P. Suza. 2022. “Improving Drought Tolerance in Maize: Tools and Techniques.” Frontiers in Genetics 13 (October): 1001001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1001001.

38. Missmer, Stacey A., Lucina Suarez, Marilyn Felkner, Elaine Wang, Alfred H. Merrill, Kenneth J. Rothman, and Katherine A. Hendricks. 2006. “Exposure to Fumonisins and the Occurrence of Neural Tube Defects along the Texas-Mexico Border.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (2): 237–41. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8221.

39. Mitton, J. B. 2013. “Gene Flow.” In Brenner’s Encyclopedia of Genetics (Second Edition), edited by Stanley Maloy and Kelly Hughes, 192–96. San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374984-0.00589-1.

40. Mosaddek Ahmed, Imrul, Umme Aktari Nadira, Guoping Zhang, and Feibo Wu. 2016. “5 - Exploration and Utilization of Drought-Tolerant Barley Germplasm.” In Exploration, Identification and Utilization of Barley Germplasm, edited by Guoping Zhang and Chengdao Li, 115–52. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802922-0.00005-4.

41. Narusaka, Yoshihiro, Mari Narusaka, Satoshi Yamasaki, Masaki Iwabuchi, Yoshihiro Narusaka, Mari Narusaka, Satoshi Yamasaki, and Masaki Iwabuchi. 2012. “Methods to Transfer Foreign Genes to Plants.” In Transgenic Plants - Advances and Limitations. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/32773.

42. Nordlee, Julie, Steve Taylor, Jeffrey Townsend, Laurie Thomas, and Robert Bush. 1996. “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans.” The New England Journal of Medicine 334 (April): 688–92. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103.

43. Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied. 2024. “Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes.” FDA, March. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes.

44. Ozyigit, Ibrahim Ilker, and Kuaybe Yucebilgili Kurtoglu. 2020. “Particle Bombardment Technology and Its Applications in Plants.” Molecular Biology Reports 47 (12): 9831–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-020-06001-5.

45. Pellegrino, Elisa, Stefano Bedini, Marco Nuti, and Laura Ercoli. 2018. “Impact of Genetically Engineered Maize on Agronomic, Environmental and Toxicological Traits: A Meta-Analysis of 21 Years of Field Data.” Scientific Reports 8 (1): 3113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2.

46. Prakash, Sadguru, and Seema Srivastava. 2019. “Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity: An Overview.” International Journal of Biological Innovations 01 (January): 60–65. https://doi.org/10.46505/IJBI.2019.1205.

47. R, Sendhil, Joan Nyika, Sheel Yadav, Joby Mackolil, Rama Prashat G, Endashaw Workie, Raja Ragupathy, and P. Ramasundaram. n.d. “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.

48. Raybould, Alan, and Guy M. Poppy. 2012. “Commercializing Genetically Modified Crops under EU Regulations: Objectives and Barriers.” GM Crops & Food 3 (1): 9–20. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.18961.

49. Rosenberg, Eugene. 2017. “Chapter 10 - Genetic Engineering.” In It’s in Your DNA, edited by Eugene Rosenberg, 81–93. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812502-1.00010-X.

50. Ryffel, Gerhart U. 2014. “Transgene Flow: Facts, Speculations and Possible Countermeasures.” GM Crops & Food 5 (4): 249–58. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.945883.

51. Sieradzki, Zbigniew, Małgorzata Mazur, Beata Król, and Krzysztof Kwiatek. 2021. “Prevalence of Genetically Modified Soybean in Animal Feedingstuffs in Poland.” Journal of Veterinary Research 65 (1): 93–99. https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2021-0012.

52. Singh, Prachi, Prem Chandra Pandey, George P. Petropoulos, Andrew Pavlides, Prashant K. Srivastava, Nikos Koutsias, Khidir Abdala Kwal Deng, and Yangson Bao. 2020. “8 - Hyperspectral Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture: Present Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.” In Hyperspectral Remote Sensing, edited by Prem Chandra Pandey, Prashant K. Srivastava, Heiko Balzter, Bimal Bhattacharya, and George P. Petropoulos, 121–46. Earth Observation. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102894-0.00009-7.

53. Smyth, Stuart J. 2020. “The Human Health Benefits from GM Crops.” Plant Biotechnology Journal 18 (4): 887–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13261.

54. Sohn, Soo-In, Subramani Pandian, Young-Ju Oh, Hyeon-Jung Kang, Tae-Hun Ryu, Woo-Suk Cho, Eun-Kyoung Shin, and Kong-Sik Shin. 2021. “A Review of the Unintentional Release of Feral Genetically Modified Rapeseed into the Environment.” Biology 10 (12): 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10121264.

55. Tabassum, Bushra, Idrees Ahmad Nasir, Anwar Khan, Usman Aslam, Muhammad Tariq, Naila Shahid, and Tayyab Husnain. 2016. “Short Hairpin RNA Engineering: In Planta Gene Silencing of Potato Virus Y.” Crop Protection 86 (August): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.04.005.

56. Teoh, Eng Soon. n.d. “Secondary Metabolites of Plants.” Medicinal Orchids of Asia, 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24274-3_5.

57. Trewavas, Anthony J., and Christopher J. Leaver. 2001. “Is Opposition to GM Crops Science or Politics?” EMBO Reports 2 (6): 455–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve123.

58. Vendômois, Joël Spiroux de, Dominique Cellier, Christian Vélot, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, and Gilles-Eric Séralini. 2010. “Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests.” International Journal of Biological Sciences 6 (6): 590–98. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.6.590.

59. Voytas, Daniel F. 2013. “Plant Genome Engineering with Sequence-Specific Nucleases.” Annual Review of Plant Biology 64 (1): 327–50. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042811-105552.

60. “World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 – The 2012 Revision | Global Perspectives Studies | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.” n.d. Accessed April 4, 2024. https://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/resources/detail/en/c/411108/.

61. Yan, Shuo, Weilong Zhu, Boyu Zhang, Xinmi Zhang, Jialin Zhu, Jizhe Shi, Pengxiang Wu, et al. 2018. “Pollen-Mediated Gene Flow from Transgenic Cotton Is Constrained by Physical Isolation Measures.” Scientific Reports 8 (1): 2862. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21312-1.

62. Yang, Pei, Lifeng Wu, Minghui Cheng, Junliang Fan, Sien Li, Haidong Wang, and Long Qian. 2023. “Review on Drip Irrigation: Impact on Crop Yield, Quality, and Water Productivity in China.” Water 15 (9): 1733. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091733.