IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i2p1722-d1037792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Benefits and Risk of Genetically Modified Plants and Products: Current Controversies and Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Bimal Kumar Ghimire

    (Department of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea)

  • Chang Yeon Yu

    (Bioherb Research Institute, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea)

  • Won-Ryeol Kim

    (Department of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea)

  • Hee-Sung Moon

    (Department of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea)

  • Joohyun Lee

    (Department of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea)

  • Seung Hyun Kim

    (Department of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea)

  • Ill Min Chung

    (Department of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

Genetic transformation has emerged as an important tool for the genetic improvement of valuable plants by incorporating new genes with desirable traits. These strategies are useful especially in crops to increase yields, disease resistance, tolerance to environmental stress (cold, heat, drought, salinity, herbicides, and insects) and increase biomass and medicinal values of plants. The production of healthy plants with more desirable products and yields can contribute to sustainable development goals. The introduction of genetically modified food into the market has raised potential risks. A proper assessment of their impact on the environment and biosafety is an important step before their commercialization. In this paper, we summarize and discuss the risks and benefits of genetically modified plants and products, human health hazards by genetically transformed plants, environmental effects, Biosafety regulations of GMO foods and products, and improvement of medicinal values of plants by the genetic transformation process. The mechanisms of action of those products, their sources, and their applications to the healthcare challenges are presented. The present studies pointed out the existence of several controversies in the use of GMOs, mainly related to the human health, nutritions, environmental issues. Willingness to accept genetically modified (GM) products and the adoption of biosafety regulations varies from country to country. Knowledge about the gene engineering technology, debate between the government agencies, scientist, environmentalist and related NGOs on the GM products are the major factors for low adoptions of biosafety regulation. Therefore, the genetic transformation will help in the advancement of plant species in the future; however, more research and detailed studies are required.

Suggested Citation

  • Bimal Kumar Ghimire & Chang Yeon Yu & Won-Ryeol Kim & Hee-Sung Moon & Joohyun Lee & Seung Hyun Kim & Ill Min Chung, 2023. "Assessment of Benefits and Risk of Genetically Modified Plants and Products: Current Controversies and Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1722-:d:1037792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1722/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1722/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    2. Piotr Rzymski & Aleksandra Królczyk, 2016. "Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 689-697, June.
    3. Jeremy Hall & Stelvia Matos & Cooper Langford, 2008. "Social Exclusion and Transgenic Technology: The Case of Brazilian Agriculture," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 45-63, January.
    4. Tironi, Manuel & Salazar, Maite & Valenzuela, Daniel, 2013. "Resisting and accepting: Farmers' hybrid epistemologies in the GMO controversy in Chile," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 93-104.
    5. Bob B.M. Wong & Ulrika Candolin, 2015. "Behavioral responses to changing environments," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(3), pages 665-673.
    6. Aerni, Philipp & Bernauer, Thomas, 2006. "Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issue of public trust," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 557-575, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    2. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Waldhof, Gabi & Fritsche, Ulrich, 2023. "Understanding moral narratives as drivers of polarization about genetically engineered crops," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 78, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    4. Giovanni Polverino & Upama Aich & Jack A Brand & Michael G Bertram & Jake M Martin & Hung Tan & Vrishin R Soman & Rachel T Mason & Bob B M Wong, 2023. "Sex-specific effects of psychoactive pollution on behavioral individuality and plasticity in fish," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(6), pages 969-978.
    5. Long, X. & Ji, Xi & Ulgiati, S., 2017. "Is urbanization eco-friendly? An energy and land use cross-country analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 387-396.
    6. Levi, Sebastian, 2021. "Living standards shape individual attitudes on genetically modified food around the world," SocArXiv kqdje, Center for Open Science.
    7. Changxin Yu & Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu, 2019. "Attitude Gaps with Respect to GM Non-Food Crops and GM Food Crops and Confidence in the Government’s Management of Biotechnology: Evidence from Beijing Consumers, Chinese Farmers, Journalists, and Gov," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Joel Isabirye, 2021. "The Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Foundations, Tenets and Relevance," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 19(1), pages 324-335, May.
    9. Mawasha, Joseph Leshasha, 2020. "An assessment of South Africa’s non-genetically modified maize export potential," Research Theses 334758, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:639-651 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Gauder, Martin & Graeff-Hönninger, S. & Claupein, W., 2011. "The impact of a growing bioethanol industry on food production in Brazil," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 672-679, March.
    12. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    13. Harry R Harding & Timothy A C Gordon & Emma Eastcott & Stephen D Simpson & Andrew N Radford & Leigh Simmons, 2019. "Causes and consequences of intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(6), pages 1501-1511.
    14. Júnior, Emerson Campos Barbosa & Rios, Vitor Passos & Dodonov, Pavel & Vilela, Bruno & Japyassú, Hilton F, 2022. "Effect of behavioural plasticity and environmental properties on the resilience of communities under habitat loss and fragmentation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    15. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    16. Carina Lackmann & Antonio Šimić & Sandra Ečimović & Alma Mikuška & Thomas-Benjamin Seiler & Henner Hollert & Mirna Velki, 2023. "Subcellular Responses and Avoidance Behavior in Earthworm Eisenia andrei Exposed to Pesticides in the Artificial Soil," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Resnick, Danielle & Babu, Suresh & Haggblade, Steven & Hendriks, Sheryl L. & Mather, David, 2015. "Conceptualizing Drivers Of Policy Change In Agriculture, Nutrition, And Food Security: The Kaleidoscope Model," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 258732, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    18. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Aerni, Philipp & Rae, Allan & Lehmann, Bernard, 2009. "Nostalgia versus Pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 227-235, April.
    20. David E. Ervin & Leland L. Glenna & Raymond A. Jussaume, 2011. "The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(6), pages 1-28, June.
    21. Rongting Zhou & Dong Wang & Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei & Muhammad Azfar Anwar & Ali Hammad & Fahad Asmi & Qing Ye & Muhammad Asim Nawaz, 2019. "GMO/GMF on Social Media in China: Jagged Landscape of Information Seeking and Sharing Behavior through a Valence View," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1722-:d:1037792. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.