As Peter Celec describes, "benefits of the first generation of GM foods were oriented towards the production process and companies, the second generation of GM foods offers, on contrary, various advantages and added value for the consumer", including "improved nutritional composition or even therapeutic effects.
Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the essential amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan.
[6] Roundup Ready Soybeans express a version of EPSPS from the CP4 strain of the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, expression of which is regulated by an enhanced 35S promoter (E35S) from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP4) coding sequence from Petunia hybrida, and a nopaline synthase (nos 3') transcriptional termination element from Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
[7] The plasmid with EPSPS and the other genetic elements mentioned above was inserted into soybean germplasm with a gene gun by scientists at Monsanto and Asgrow.
[10] First approved commercially in the United States during 1994, GTS 40-3-2 was subsequently introduced to Canada in 1995, Japan and Argentina in 1996, Uruguay in 1997, Mexico and Brazil in 1998, and South Africa in 2001.
With a slightly lower yield than newer Monsanto varieties, it costs about 1/2 as much, and seeds can be saved for subsequent years.
In 2015, HB4 soybean was approved in Argentina, then in Brazil (May 2019), the United States (August 2019), Paraguay (2019),[15] Canada (2021)[16] and the People's Republic of China (2022).
In the US, the American Soybean Association (ASA) is generally in favor of allowing new GM soy varieties.
[22] Soy beans are allowed a Maximum Residue Limit of glyphosate of 20 milligrams per kilogram (9.1 mg/lb)[23] for international trade.
[40][41][42][43] 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.
[44][45][46][47] A 2010 study found that in the United States, GM crops also provide a number of environmental benefits.
These controversies have led to litigation, international trade disputes, and protests, and to restrictive legislation in most countries.
However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed.
Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.Krimsky, Sheldon (2015).
I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs.
Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data.
Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.