Conventional Breeding Creates Safer Foods Than Genetic Engineering: Fact or Assumption?

I am currently serving as Invited Lecturer at Jilin University (China), offering a college course entitled, Introduction to Genetically Engineered Crops: Risks and Benefits.  During this experience, it has dawned on me how commonly my students mistakenly believe that conventional breeding techniques creates foods that somehow are safer than those whose pedigree includes genetic engineering (GE).  During the course, I challenge them to understand that this is an assumption rather than established fact, and that this assumption can be challenged with scientific knowledge enumerated here.  (Note that this paragraph was edited post-publication for clarity.  Also, some of the text below was modified from my recent review paper [1]).

  1. Position statements of diverse, prestigious scientific organizations all support this conclusion [2-18].
  2. Scientific review papers supporting this position are readily found in the scholarly literature [19-26].
  3. As far as I can tell, when people express fears about food risks relating to GE, their predominant fear concerns recombinant DNA.  That being the case, it is noteworthy that recombinant DNA is a completely normal part of our diet.  Naturally produced recombinant DNA in our crops can result from diverse mechanisms, listed in my recent review paper [1].  In fact, all land plants are “natural GMOs,” as all contain genes acquired horizontally [27-43].  To my knowledge, there is no published, validated research showing any fundamental biochemical or biophysical difference between DNA recombined in a test tube vs. that recombined in a living cell.
  4. Compared to other breeding techniques, targeted DNA manipulations achieved during transgenesis, cisgenesis, intragenesis, or genome editing are no more disruptive—and are commonly less disruptive—to a plant’s genome, transcriptome, proteome, and composition than other methods of crop improvement [25, 26, 44-49].
  5. It seems logical to assume, since conventional breeding techniques can be centuries old, that the products derived from such must be safe.  However, every plant is a unique genetic and epigenetic creation.  Therefore, every new plant presents unknown risks as a result of its unique genetic and epigenetic heritage.
  6. Conventional breeding can produce plants with interactions of thousands of genes, which may create unintended outcomes and hazardous new products [3].

Scientists recognize that there is always the possibility of a GE plant that has some unintended, negative effect on a consuming animal or human.  However, the same risk applies to conventionally bred crops, for which harmful cases have been documented [50, 51].  Thus, what matters to food safety is not the process used to create a plant, but the properties of the resulting plant [11, 52-55].  In fact, instead of posing a routine food-safety risk, the reverse is true: GE traits can actually increase food safety as compared to conventional crops (see [56] and citations in [57]).

Comments are most welcome, but attempts to dispute my conclusion must include citations to relevant scholarly literature.

Literature Cited

  1. Vincelli, P., Genetic engineering and sustainable crop disease management: Opportunities for case-by-case decision-making. Sustainability, 2016, Vol. 8, p. 495, DOI: 10.3390/su8050495. Available from:
  2. American Medical Association. Genetically Modified Crops and Foods, Summaries and Recommendations of Council on Scientific Affairs Reports, 2000, AMA Interim Meeting. p. 18-19 Available from:
  3. The National Academies Press. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Washington, D.C. 256 pp. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  4. European Academies Science Advisory Council. Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture. 978-3-8047-3181-3. Halle/Saale, Germany. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  5. The Royal Society. Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update. Report Number 0 85403 576 1. 20 pp. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  6. The Royal Society. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. ISBN 978-0-85403-784-1. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  7. Hollingworth, R. M., Bjeldanes, L. F., Bolger, M., Kimber, I., Meade, B. J., Taylor, S. L. and Wallace, K. B., Society of Toxicology position paper: the safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicological Sciences, 2003, Vol. 71, p. 2-8. Available from:
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  9. American Phytopathological Society Council. Compulsory Labeling of Plants and Plant Products Derived from Biotechnology. St. Paul, MN. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  10. International Union of Nutritional Sciences. Statement on Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Foods for Human Health and Nutrition. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  11. American Medical Association. H-480.958 Bioengineered (Genetically Engineered) Crops and Foods. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  12. Britsh Medical Association, Board of Science and Education. Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  13. Bruhn, C., Earl, R. and American Dietetic, A., Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural and food biotechnology. J Am Diet Assoc, 2006, Vol. 106, p. 285-93, DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.12.017. Available from:
  14. Biochemical Society. Genetically Modified Crops, Feed and Food: A Biochemical Society Position Statement. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  15. American Society for Microbiology. Statement of the American Society for Microbiology on Genetically Modified Organisms. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  16. Crop Science Society of America. Researchers and farmers utilize GM technology to address society’s growing global food production, security, and safety needs. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  17. Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). FASS Facts: On Biotech Crops – Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs. Savoy, IL. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  18. National Academies Press. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. Washington DC. 420. Available from: Accessed 18 May 2016.
  19. Key, S., Ma, J. K. and Drake, P. M., Genetically modified plants and human health. J R Soc Med, 2008, Vol. 101, p. 290-8, DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. Available from:
  20. Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F. and Rosellini, D., An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 2014, Vol. 34, p. 77-88, DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. Available from:
  21. European Union Publications Office. A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001-2010). ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Luxembourg. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  22. Van Eenennaam, A. L. and Young, A. E., Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. J Anim Sci, 2014, Vol. 92, p. 4255-78, DOI: 10.2527/jas.2014-8124. Available from:
  23. Delaney, B., Safety assessment of foods from genetically modified crops in countries with developing economies. Food Chem Toxicol, 2015, Vol. 86, p. 132-143, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.10.001. Available from:
  24. Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Berge, J. B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A. and Ricroch, A. E., Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol, 2012, Vol. 50, p. 1134-48, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048. Available from:
  25. Ricroch, A. E., Assessment of GE food safety using ‘-omics’ techniques and long-term animal feeding studies. N Biotechnol, 2013, Vol. 30, p. 349-54, DOI: 10.1016/j.nbt.2012.12.001. Available from:
  26. Herman, R. A. and Price, W. D., Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. J Agric Food Chem, 2013, Vol. 61, p. 11695-701, DOI: 10.1021/jf400135r. Available from:
  27. Tarrio, R., Ayala, F. J. and Rodriguez-Trelles, F., The Vein Patterning 1 (VEP1) gene family laterally spread through an ecological network. PLoS One, 2011, Vol. 6, p. e22279, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022279. Available from:
  28. Yang, Z., Zhou, Y., Huang, J., Hu, Y., Zhang, E., Xie, Z., Ma, S., Gao, Y., Song, S., Xu, C. and Liang, G., Ancient horizontal transfer of transaldolase-like protein gene and its role in plant vascular development. New Phytol, 2015, Vol. 206, p. 807-16, DOI: 10.1111/nph.13183. Available from:
  29. Emiliani, G., Fondi, M., Fani, R. and Gribaldo, S., A horizontal gene transfer at the origin of phenylpropanoid metabolism: a key adaptation of plants to land. Biol Direct, 2009, Vol. 4, p. 7, DOI: 10.1186/1745-6150-4-7. Available from:
  30. Kyndt, T., Quispe, D., Zhai, H., Jarret, R., Ghislain, M., Liu, Q., Gheysen, G. and Kreuze, J. F., The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015, Vol. 112, p. 5844-9, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1419685112. Available from:
  31. Bock, R., The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants. Trends Plant Sci, 2010, Vol. 15, p. 11-22, DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.10.001. Available from:
  32. Wang, Q., Sun, H. and Huang, J., The evolution of land plants: a perspective from horizontal gene transfer. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 2014, Vol. 83, p. 363-368, DOI: 10.5586/asbp.2014.043. Available from:
  33. El Baidouri, M., Carpentier, M. C., Cooke, R., Gao, D., Lasserre, E., Llauro, C., Mirouze, M., Picault, N., Jackson, S. A. and Panaud, O., Widespread and frequent horizontal transfers of transposable elements in plants. Genome Res, 2014, Vol. 24, p. 831-8, DOI: 10.1101/gr.164400.113. Available from:
  34. Fortune, P. M., Roulin, A. and Panaud, O., Horizontal transfer of transposable elements in plants. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2008, Vol. 1, p. 74-77. Available from:
  35. Yue, J., Hu, X. and Huang, J., Horizontal gene transfer in the innovation and adaptation of land plants. Plant Signal Behav, 2013, Vol. 8, p. e24130, DOI: 10.4161/psb.24130. Available from:
  36. Bergthorsson, U., Richardson, A. O., Young, G. J., Goertzen, L. R. and Palmer, J. D., Massive horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes from diverse land plant donors to the basal angiosperm Amborella. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2004, Vol. 101, p. 17747-52, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0408336102. Available from:
  37. Geering, A. D., Maumus, F., Copetti, D., Choisne, N., Zwickl, D. J., Zytnicki, M., McTaggart, A. R., Scalabrin, S., Vezzulli, S., Wing, R. A., Quesneville, H. and Teycheney, P. Y., Endogenous florendoviruses are major components of plant genomes and hallmarks of virus evolution. Nat Commun, 2014, Vol. 5, p. 5269, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6269. Available from:
  38. Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Gao, Q., Zhang, E., Zhu, L., Hu, Y. and Xu, C., Evolution of land plant genes encoding L-Ala-D/L-Glu epimerases (AEEs) via horizontal gene transfer and positive selection. BMC Plant Biol, 2013, Vol. 13, p. 34, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-13-34. Available from:
  39. Matveeva, T. V. and Lutova, L. A., Horizontal gene transfer from Agrobacterium to plants. Front Plant Sci, 2014, Vol. 5, p. 326, DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00326. Available from:
  40. Huang, J. and Yue, J., Horizontal gene transfer in the evolution of photosynthetic eukaryotes. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 2013, Vol. 51, p. 13-29, DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-6831.2012.00237.x. Available from:
  41. Diao, X., Freeling, M. and Lisch, D., Horizontal transfer of a plant transposon. PLoS Biology, 2006, Vol. 4, p. e5. Available
  42. Stegemann, S., Keuthe, M., Greiner, S. and Bock, R., Horizontal transfer of chloroplast genomes between plant species. PNAS, 2012, Vol. 109, p. 2434–2438, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1114076109. Available from:
  43. Markova, D. N. and Mason-Gamer, R. J., The role of vertical and horizontal transfer in the evolutionary dynamics of PIF-like transposable elements in Triticeae. PLoS One, 2015, Vol. 10, p. e0137648, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137648. Available from:
  44. Schnell, J., Steele, M., Bean, J., Neuspiel, M., Girard, C., Dormann, N., Pearson, C., Savoie, A., Bourbonniere, L. and Macdonald, P., A comparative analysis of insertional effects in genetically engineered plants: considerations for pre-market assessments. Transgenic Res, 2015, Vol. 24, p. 1-17, DOI: 10.1007/s11248-014-9843-7. Available from:
  45. Gao, L., Cao, Y., Xia, Z., Jiang, G., Liu, G., Zhang, W. and Zhai, W., Do transgenesis and marker-assisted backcross breeding produce substantially equivalent plants? A comparative study of transgenic and backcross rice carrying bacterial blight resistant gene Xa21. BMC Genomics, 2013, Vol. 14, p. 738, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-738. Available from:
  46. Batista, R., Saibo, N., Lourenco, T. and Oliveira, M. M., Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2008, Vol. 105, p. 3640-5, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707881105. Available from:
  47. Lehesranta, S. J., Davies, H. V., Shepherd, L. V., Nunan, N., McNicol, J. W., Auriola, S., Koistinen, K. M., Suomalainen, S., Kokko, H. I. and Karenlampi, S. O., Comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties, landraces, and genetically modified lines. Plant Physiol, 2005, Vol. 138, p. 1690-9, DOI: 10.1104/pp.105.060152. Available from:
  48. Ladics, G. S., Bartholomaeus, A., Bregitzer, P., Doerrer, N. G., Gray, A., Holzhauser, T., Jordan, M., Keese, P., Kok, E., Macdonald, P., Parrott, W., Privalle, L., Raybould, A., Rhee, S. Y., Rice, E., Romeis, J., Vaughn, J., Wal, J. M. and Glenn, K., Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants. Transgenic Res, 2015, Vol. 24, p. 587-603, DOI: 10.1007/s11248-015-9867-7. Available from:
  49. El Ouakfaoui, S. and Miki, B., The stability of the Arabidopsis transcriptome in transgenic plants expressing the marker genes nptII and uidA. Plant J, 2005, Vol. 41, p. 791-800, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02350.x. Available from:
  50. Koerth-Baker, M., How the ‘Poison Potato’ impacted the GMO debate. 2013 [30 May 2016]; Available from:
  51. Finkelstein, E., Afek, U., Gross, E., Aharoni, N., Rosenberg, L. and Halevy, S., An outbreak of phytophotodermatitis due to celery. International Journal of Dermatology, 1994, Vol. 33, p. 116-118. Available
  52. National Research Council, Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, Science and Regulation. ISBN 0-309-50467-8. Washington, D.C. . 292 pp. Available from: Accessed 28 Feb 2016.
  53. Hartung, F. and Schiemann, J., Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant J, 2014, Vol. 78, p. 742-52, DOI: 10.1111/tpj.12413. Available from:
  54. Kolseth, A.-K., D’Hertefeldt, T., Emmerich, M., Forabosco, F., Marklund, S., Cheeke, T. E., Hallin, S. and Weih, M., Influence of genetically modified organisms on agro-ecosystem processes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2015, Vol. 214, p. 96-106, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.08.021. Available from:
  55. Conko, G., Kershen, D. L., Miller, H. and Parrott, W. A., A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nature Biotechnology, 2016, Vol. 34, p. 493-503, DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3568. Available from:
  56. Diaz-Gomez, J., Marin, S., Capell, T., Sanchis, V. and Ramos, A. J., The impact of Bacillus thuringiensis technology on the occurrence of fumonisins and other mycotoxins in maize. World Mycotoxin Journal, 2015, p. 1-12, DOI: 10.3920/WMJ2015.1960. Available from:
  57. Vincelli, P., GMOs and Corn Mycotoxins. Grain Crops Update 2013 [Accessed 28 Feb 2016]; Available from:



Genetically Engineered Crops Can Help Reduce Pesticide Use

Ask just about anyone the question, “Are you in favor of reducing pesticide use on crops?” and you will almost certainly get the same answer: Yes!  We all want fewer pesticides on our foods.  So if we essentially all agree, how do we get there?

For infectious diseases, there are four general approaches to disease management, as follows:

  1. Genetic resistance: Basically we are taking advantage of the plant’s capacities to defend itself from microorganisms through its own biochemistry.
  2. Cultural practices: This means that we manage diseases through the way we grow the plant. Examples include crop rotation, using pathogen-free seed, careful management of fertilizer, etc.
  3. Biological control: This involves taking advantage of living organisms that suppress or destroy the infectious agent of concern.
  4. Pesticides.


Figure 1. Central American family living on the edge of rice field regularly treated with aerially applied pesticides.






We already agree we want to eliminate pesticides, so let’s remove that from the discussion.  Biological control is wonderful and is active in essentially all agricultural soils.  Unfortunately, destructive diseases still occur in cropping systems, so natural biological control is commonly not enough.  Cultural practices can be powerful tools for disease control, but like biological control, they are often insufficient.

That leaves genetics, by which I mean “genetic modification” in the broadest sense.  I am being highly inclusive, in that I am including the full range of genetic tools for crop improvement, from the most traditional breeding technique known—simple selection—to the most sophisticated, diverse strategies of genetic engineering (GE).  Genetic tools offer a wide spectrum of techniques that can provide pesticide-free disease control.

Just a few days ago, an invited review paper of mine was published in the open-access journal, Sustainability.  The title is, “Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-By-Case Decision-Making.”  The content in the paper is quite solid scientifically.  It has gone through multiple rounds of peer review, including a university seminar on this topic, to take advantage of the opportunity for peer-review before the outstanding molecular biologists in my department.

The manuscript describes nearly a dozen distinct strategies for engineering disease resistance in plants.  Indeed, in preparing the review by reading the relevant scientific literature, I was astounded by the diversity of approaches molecular biologists have for engineering disease-resistant plants.  There are many opportunities already, with more coming with each year of rapidly advancing science.

Can genetic engineering really reduce pesticide use?  Yes.  We know this is true.  Bt crops, which are crops engineered to be resistant to certain insects, have consistently provided for reductions in insecticide use around the world.  The benefits of these pesticide reductions have included:

  • Lower production costs for farmers
  • Fewer pesticide poisonings in countries with developing economies
  • Increased insect biodiversity

It is important to keep in mind that no single tactic for controlling diseases is “the final answer.”  Disease-causing organisms always adapt to whatever we do in the agroecosystem.  Thus, we always need to continue to find ways to reduce selection pressure on these organisms, whether we are using GE or not.  (See Section 3 of my review paper for more on this topic.)  But I see GE as analogous to a cell phone.  Yes, there are risks, but there are many benefits.  Why not wisely take advantage of useful technologies?

For evidence-based citations in support of the statements made in this post, please see my review paper and the recent report by the National Academy of Science, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.