Health Impacts

  • Martina Newell-McGloughlinEmail author
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 37)


From a public health perspective, an important group of the coming generations of genetically modified (GM) crop plants and livestock are those with the value-added output traits of improved nutrition and food functionality. Continuing improvements in molecular and genomic technologies contribute to the acceleration of development of these products. Newell-McGloughlin (2008) presents examples of crops that have been genetically modified with macronutrient and micronutrient traits that may provide benefits to consumers and domestic animals. These new products and new approaches require a reassessment of appropriate criteria to assess benefits for human and animal health and well-being, and manage potential risks, while ensuring that the development of innovative technologies and processes is encouraged to provide value-added commodities for the consumer.


Genetically Modify Genetically Modify Crop Food Sovereignty Genetically Modify Food Computable General Equilibrium Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Académie Des Sciences Française (2002) Les plantes génétiquement modifiées Rapport sur la science et la technologie n 13.
  2. Anderson K, Jackson LA, Nielsen CP (2005) GM rice adoption: implications for welfare and poverty alleviation, J Econ Integr 20(4):771–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BASF (2011) Business BASF applies for approval for another biotech potato. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
  4. Beckman M, Enot DP, Overy DP et al (2007) Representation, comparison and interpretation of metabolome fingerprint data for total composition analysis and quality trait investigation in potato cultivars. J Agric Food Chem 55: 3444–3451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bidlack W, Rodriguez RL (2011) Nutritional genomics: dietary regulation of gene function and human disease. Taylor and Francis/CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Bino RJ, de Vos CHR, Lieberman M et al (2005) The light-hyperresponsive high pigment-2dg mutation of tomato: alterations in the fruit metabolome. New Phytol 166:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Block G, Patterson B, Subar A (1992) Fruit, vegetables, and cancer prevention: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Nutr Cancer 18:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Botella-Pavı´a P, Rodriguez-Conceptı´on M (2006) Carotenoid biotechnology in plants for nutritionally improved foods. Plant Physiol 126:369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford KJ, Gutterson N, Parrott W et al (2005a) Reply to “Regulatory regimes for transgenic crops.” Nat Biotechnol 23:787–789Google Scholar
  10. Bradford KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N et al (2005b) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brigelius-Flohe R, Joost HG (2006) Nutritional Genomics: impact on health and disease. Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, pp 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruce W, Folkerts O, Garnaat C et al (2000) Expression profiling of the maize flavonoid pathway genes controlled by estradiol-inducible transcription factors CRC and P. Plant Cell 12:65–80Google Scholar
  13. Carrari F, Baxter C, Usadel B et al (2006) Integrated analysis of metabolite and transcript levels reveals the metabolic shifts that underlie tomato fruit development and highlight regulatory aspects of metabolic network behavior. Plant Physiol 142:1380–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chassy B, Egnin M, Gao Y et al (2008) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: case studies comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety 7, pp 50–99Google Scholar
  15. Codex Alimentarius (2003) Proposed draft principles and guidelines for the conduct of microbiological risk management (at step 3 of the procedure). Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Scholar
  16. Corthe´sy-Theulaz I, den Dunnen JT, Ferre´ P et al (2005) Nutrigenomics: the impact of biomics technology on nutrition research. Ann Nutr Metab 49:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. da Silva José Graziano (2012) Remarks by FAO’s Director-General, Rome, UN officials stress link between food security and peace in Sahel. UN News Centre Accessed 25 Feb 2013
  18. Davidovich-Rikanati R, Sitrit Y, Tadmor Y et al (2007) Enrichment of tomato flavor by diversion of the early plastidial terpenoid pathway. Nat Biotechnol 25:899–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies KM (2007) Genetic modification of plant metabolism for human health benefits. Mutat Res 622:122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DellaPenna D, Pogson BJ (2006) Vitamin synthesis in plants: tocopherols and carotenoids. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:711–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dixelius C, Fagerström T, Sundström JF (2012) European agricultural policy goes down the tubers. Nat Biotechnol 30:492–493. doi:10.1038/nbt.2255Google Scholar
  22. Eggeling L, Oberle S, Sahm H (1998) Improved L-lysine yield with Corynebacterium glutamicum: use of dapA resulting in increased flux combined with growth limitation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 49:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EU Commission Report (2001) EC-sponsored research into the safety of genetically modified organisms. Fifth Framework Programme—External Advisory Groups “GMO research in perspective”. Report of a workshop held by External Advisory Groups of the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
  24. EU Commission Report (2011) A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) Reference: IP/10/1688 Event Date: 09/12/2010 Accessed 25 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  25. Europa Press Release (2010) Commission publishes compendium of results of EU-funded research on genetically modified crops Accessed 17 Mar 2013Google Scholar
  26. Falco SC, Guida T, Locke M et al (1995) Transgenic canola and soybean seeds with increased lysine. Biotechnology 13:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Food and Agriculture Organization (2006) State of food insecurity in the world. Food and Agricultural Organisation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. FAO/WHO (1997) Risk management and food safety. Report of a joint FAO/WHO consultation, January 27–31, 1997. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization, Rome, Italy. Scholar
  29. Fraser PD, Enfissi EMA, Goodfellow M et al (2007) Metabolite profiling of plant carotenoids using the matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Plant J 49:552–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giliberto L, Perrotta G, Pallara P et al (2005) Manipulation of the blue light photoreceptorcryptochrome 2 in tomato affects vegetative development, flowering time and fruit antioxidant content. Plant Physiol 137:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Go VLW, Nguyen CTH, Harris DM et al (2005) Nutrient-gene interaction: metabolic genotype-phenotype relationship. J Nutr 135:3016S–3020SGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldberg I (1994) Functional foods, designer foods, pharmafoods, nutraceuticals. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Haake V, Zrenner R, Sonnewald U et al (1998) A moderate decrease of plastid aldolase activity inhibits photosynthesis, alters the levels of sugars and starch, and inhibits growth of potato plants. Plant J 14:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall RD, Brouwer ID, Fitzgerald MA (2008) Plant metabolomics and its potential application for human nutrition. Plant Physiol 132:162–175Google Scholar
  35. Hajirezaei M, Sonnewald U, Viola R et al (1994) Transgenic potato plants with strongly decreased expression of pyrophosphate:fructose-6-phosphate phosphotransferase show no visible phenotype and only minor changes in metabolic fluxes in their tubers. Planta 192:16–30Google Scholar
  36. Herman EM, Helm RM, Jung R et al (2003) Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean. Plant Physiol 132:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. International Life Sciences Institute (2004a) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through bio- technology. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 3:35–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. International Life Sciences Institute (2004b) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: an executive summary. J Food Sci 69: CRH62–CRH68Google Scholar
  39. International Life Sciences Institute (2008) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: case studies. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 7:50–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalaitzandonakes N, Alston J, Bradford K (2007) Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Nat Biotechnol 25(5):509–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kinney AJ, Knowlton S (1998) Designer oils: the high oleic acid soybean. In: Roller S, Harlander S (eds) Genetic modification in the food industry. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp 193–213Google Scholar
  42. Lavelle M, Garber K (2008) Eight ways to fix the global food crisis. US News&World Report posted May 9, 2008.
  43. Liu Q, Singh S, Green A (2002) High-oleic and high-stearic cottonseed oils: nutritionally improved cooking oils developed using gene silencing. J Am Coll Nutr 21:205S–211SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Long M, Millar DJ, Kimura Y et al (2006) Metabolite profiling of carotenoid and phenolic pathways in mutant and transgenic lines of tomato: identification of a high antioxidant fruit line. Phytochemistry 67:1750–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCue KF, Allen PV, Rockhold DR et al (2003) Reduction of total steroidal glycoalkaloids in potato tubers using antisense constructs of a gene encoding a solanidine glucosyl transferase. Acta Hortic 619:77–86Google Scholar
  46. McHughen A (2007) Fatal flaws in agbiotech regulatory policies. Nat Biotechnol 25:725–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McHughen A, Smyth S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified organism(GMO), rDNA or transgenic crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol J 6(1):2–12Google Scholar
  48. Mathers JC (2006) Plant foods for human health: research challenges. Proc Nutr Soc 65:198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marti A, Goyenechea E, Martínez JA (2010) Nutrigenetics: a tool to provide personalized nutritional therapy to the obese. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 3(4–6):157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mazzatti DJ, van der Ouderaa F, Brown L (2007) The future of food: nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. Agro Food Ind Hi Tech 18:63–66Google Scholar
  51. Memelink J (2004) Tailoring the plant metabolome without a loose stitch. Trends Plant Sci7:305–307Google Scholar
  52. Mutch DM, Wahli W, Williamson G (2005) Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics: the emerging faces of nutrition. FASEB J 19:1602–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nature (2010) How to feed a hungry world. Nature 466(7306): 531–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newell-McGloughlin M (2008) Nutritionally improved agricultural crops. Plant Physiol 147:939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2003) Considerations for the safety assessment of animal feed stuffs derived from genetically modified plants. ENV/JM/MONO. 2003.11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Quinn PR, Nelssen JL, Goodband RD et al (2000) Nutritional value of a genetically improved high-lysine, high-oil corn for young pigs. J Anim Sci 78:2144–2149Google Scholar
  57. Oksman-Caldenty KM, Inze´ D (2004) Plant cell factories in the post genomic era: new ways to produce designer secondary metabolites. Trends Plant Sci 9:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paul MJ, Knight JS, Habash D et al (1995) Reduction in phosphoribulokinase activity by antisense RNA in transgenic tobacco: effect on CO2 assimilation and growth in low irradiance. Plant J 7:535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Potter JD, Steinmetz K (1996) Vegetables, fruit and phytoestrogens as preventive agents. IARC Sci Publ 139:61–90Google Scholar
  60. Potrykus I (2010) Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature Jul 29, 466(7306):561–561Google Scholar
  61. Royal Society Report (February (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update.
  62. Society of Toxicology (SOT) (2003) The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol Sci 71(1):2–8. Google Scholar
  63. Schauer N, Fernie AR (2006) Plant metabolomics: towards biological function and mechanism. Trends Plant Sci 11:508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siritunga D, Sayre RT (2003) Generation of cyanogen-free transgenic cassava. Planta 217:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Times of India (2012) No moratorium on GM crop trials till stakeholders heard: SC. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
  66. Trewavas A (2008) The cult of the amateur in agriculture threatens food security. Trends Biotechnol 26(9):475–478. doi://000259324200002 AND
  67. Uauy C, Distelfeld A, Fahima T, Blechl A, Dubcovsky J (2006) A NAC gene regulating senescence improves grain protein, zinc, and iron content in wheat. Science 314:1298–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration.
  69. Wambugu F (1999) Why Africa needs agricultural biotech. Nature 400:15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. World Health Organization (2006) Nutrition for Health and Development. World Health Organization. Accessed 15 April 2008

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations