Editing Genetically modified maize (section)

== Controversy ==
{{Main|Genetically modified food controversies}}

<!-- The following language and sources, per [[WP:GMORfC]], must not be altered without achieving consensus-->There is a [[scientific consensus]]<ref name="Nicolia2013"/><ref name="FAO"/><ref name="Ronald2011"/><ref name="Also"/> that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,<ref name="AAAS2012"/><ref name="ECom2010"/><ref name="AMA2001"/><ref name="LoC2015"/><ref name="NAS2016"/> but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.<ref name="WHOFAQ"/><ref name="Haslberger2003"/><ref name="BMA2004"/> Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.<ref name="PEW2015"/><ref name="Marris2001"/><ref name="PABE"/><ref name="Scott2016"/> 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.<ref name="loc.gov"/><ref name="Bashshur"/><ref name="Sifferlin"/><ref name="Council on Foreign Relations"/><!--End of restricted section -->

The scientific rigor of the studies regarding human health has been disputed due to alleged lack of independence and due to conflicts of interest involving governing bodies and some of those who perform and evaluate the studies.<ref>{{cite news |title=Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research | vauthors = Pollack A |date=19 February 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html |newspaper=New York Times }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/european-food-safety-official-resigns-amidst-conflict-interest-controversy|title=European Food Safety Official Resigns Amidst Conflict of Interest Controversy|publisher=Science Magazine|access-date=28 October 2014|date=9 May 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors =  | title = Fields of gold | journal = Nature | volume = 497 | issue = 7447 | pages = 5–6 | date = May 2013 | pmid = 23646363 | doi = 10.1038/497005b | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref name="wired.com"/> However, no reports of ill effects from GM food have been documented in the human population.<ref name="AMA">{{cite web | publisher = American Medical Association | date = 2012 | url = http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf | title = Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf | archive-date = 7 September 2012 }}</ref><ref name=NRC2004>{{cite book | author = United States [[Institute of Medicine]] and [[United States National Research Council|National Research Council]] | date = 2004 | title = Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. | publisher = National Academies Press | doi = 10.17226/10977 | pmid = 25009871 | isbn = 978-0-309-09209-8 | url = http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc }} See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.</ref><ref name="Key">{{cite journal | vauthors = Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM | title = Genetically modified plants and human health | journal = Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine | volume = 101 | issue = 6 | pages = 290–8 | date = June 2008 | pmid = 18515776 | pmc = 2408621 | doi = 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372 }}</ref>

GM crops provide a number of ecological benefits, but there are also concerns for their overuse, stalled research outside of the Bt seed industry, proper management and issues with Bt resistance arising from their misuse.<ref name="wired.com">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/|title=Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It|magazine=WIRED|access-date=28 October 2014|date=17 March 2014}}</ref><ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite web | vauthors = Pollack A | work = The New York Times | date = 13 April 2010 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/energy-environment/14crop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 | title = Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Lochhead C |url=http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Genetically-modified-crops-results-raise-concern-3520087.php|title=Genetically modified crops' results raise concern|date=30 April 2012|work=SFGate|access-date=28 October 2014}}</ref>

Critics have objected to GM crops on ecological, economic and health grounds. The economic issues derive from those organisms that are subject to intellectual property law, mostly patents. The first generation of GM crops lose patent protection beginning in 2015. Monsanto has claimed it will not pursue farmers who retain seeds of off-patent varieties.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html| title=As Patent Ends, a Seed's Use Will Survive | vauthors = Pollack A  |date=17 December 2009 |newspaper=New York Times}}</ref> These controversies have led to litigation, international trade disputes, protests and to restrictive legislation in most countries.<ref name="Wesseler-2005">Wesseler, J. (ed.) (2005): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Press</ref>

Introduction of Bt maize led to significant reduction of mycotoxin-related poisoning and cancer rates, as they were significantly less prone to contain [[mycotoxin]]s (29%), [[fumonisin]]s (31%) and thricotecens (37%), all of which are toxic and [[carcinogen]]ic.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Smyth SJ | title = The human health benefits from GM crops | journal = Plant Biotechnology Journal | volume = 18 | issue = 4 | pages = 887–888 | date = April 2020 | pmid = 31544299 | pmc = 7061863 | doi = 10.1111/pbi.13261 }}</ref>

=== Effects on nontarget insects ===
Critics claim that Bt proteins could target predatory and other beneficial or harmless insects as well as the targeted pest. These proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with no ill effects on the environment reported.<ref name="UC-history">{{cite web |url= http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html |title=History of Bt |publisher= University of California|access-date=8 February 2010}}</ref> While ''cyt'' proteins are toxic towards the insect order [[Diptera]] (flies), certain ''cry'' proteins selectively target [[lepidopterans]] (moths and butterflies), while other ''cyt'' selectively target [[Coleoptera]].<ref>{{Cite journal| vauthors = Al-Deeb MA, Wilde GE, Blair JM, Todd TC |title=Effect of Bt Corn for Corn Rootworm Control on Nontarget Soil Microarthropods and Nematodes|journal=Environmental Entomology|language=en-US|volume=32|issue=4|pages=859–865|doi=10.1603/0046-225x-32.4.859|year=2003|doi-access=free}}</ref> As a toxic mechanism, ''cry'' proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut ([[epithelial]]) cells, resulting in rupture of those cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate gut receptors cannot be affected by the ''cry'' protein, and therefore Bt.<ref>{{cite web |title=Bt corn: is it worth the risk?|url=http://www.scq.ubc.ca/bt-corn-is-it-worth-the-risk/| vauthors = Hall H |date=30 May 2006|publisher=The Science Creative Quarterly}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Dorsch JA, Candas M, Griko NB, Maaty WS, Midboe EG, Vadlamudi RK, Bulla LA | title = Cry1A toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis bind specifically to a region adjacent to the membrane-proximal extracellular domain of BT-R(1) in Manduca sexta: involvement of a cadherin in the entomopathogenicity of Bacillus thuringiensis | journal = Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology | volume = 32 | issue = 9 | pages = 1025–36 | date = September 2002 | pmid = 12213239 | doi = 10.1016/s0965-1748(02)00040-1 }}</ref> Regulatory agencies assess the potential for the transgenic plant to impact nontarget organisms before approving commercial release.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A, Gatehouse AM, Herman RA, Huesing JE, McLean MA, Raybould A, Shelton AM, Waggoner A | display-authors = 6 | title = Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants | journal = Transgenic Research | volume = 20 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–22 | date = February 2011 | pmid = 20938806 | pmc = 3018611 | doi = 10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MM, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD | display-authors = 6 | title = Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods | journal = Nature Biotechnology | volume = 26 | issue = 2 | pages = 203–8 | date = February 2008 | pmid = 18259178 | doi = 10.1038/nbt1381 | s2cid = 1159143 | url = https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=ent_pubs }}</ref>

A 1999 study found that in a lab environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto [[milkweed]] could harm the [[monarch butterfly]].<ref name="pmid10353241">{{cite journal | vauthors = Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME | title = Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae | journal = Nature | volume = 399 | issue = 6733 | pages = 214 | date = May 1999 | pmid = 10353241 | doi = 10.1038/20338 | bibcode = 1999Natur.399..214L | s2cid = 4424836 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Engineered corn kills monarch butterflies | date=19 May 1999 | publisher=Cornell News | url=http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html}}</ref> Several groups later studied the phenomenon in both the field and the laboratory, resulting in a [[risk assessment]] that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible.<ref name="pmid11559842">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP | display-authors = 6 | title = Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 98 | issue = 21 | pages = 11937–42 | date = October 2001 | pmid = 11559842 | pmc = 59819 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.211329998 | bibcode = 2001PNAS...9811937S | jstor = 3056827 | doi-access = free }}</ref> A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population".<ref name="pmid12047949">{{cite journal | vauthors = Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ | title = The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned | journal = Trends in Genetics | volume = 18 | issue = 5 | pages = 249–51 | date = May 2002 | pmid = 12047949 | doi = 10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02664-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Monarch butterflies: A threat to individual caterpillars, but not to the population as a whole |date=Dec 2004 |publisher=GMO Safety |url=http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173513/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html |archive-date=21 July 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| title=Butterflies and Bt Corn| work=United States Department of Agriculture| url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| access-date=19 June 2005| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050318233043/http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html| archive-date=18 March 2005| url-status=dead}}</ref> A 2007 review found that "nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with [[insecticide]]s. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P | title = A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates | journal = Science | volume = 316 | issue = 5830 | pages = 1475–7 | date = June 2007 | pmid = 17556584 | doi = 10.1126/science.1139208 | s2cid = 23172622 | bibcode = 2007Sci...316.1475M }}</ref>

=== Gene flow ===
[[Gene flow]] is the transfer of genes and/or alleles from one species to another. Concerns focus on the interaction between GM and other maize varieties in Mexico, and of gene flow into refuges.

In 2009 the government of Mexico created a regulatory pathway for genetically modified maize,<ref>{{cite web | work = GMO Compass | date = 5 June 2009 | url = http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/447.mexico_controlled_cultivation_genetically_modified_maize.html | title = Mexico: controlled cultivation of genetically modified maize | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131005010033/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/447.mexico_controlled_cultivation_genetically_modified_maize.html | archive-date = 5 October 2013 }}</ref> but because Mexico is the [[center of diversity]] for maize, gene flow could affect a large fraction of the world's maize strains.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Shanahan M | work = Science and Development Network | date = 10 November 2004 | url = http://www.scidev.net/en/news/warning-issued-on-gm-maize-imported-to-mexico.html | title = Warning issued on GM maize imported to Mexico }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Mantell K | work = Science and Development Network | date = 30 November 2001  | url = http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-maize-found-contaminating-wild-strains.html | title = GM maize found 'contaminating' wild strains }}</ref> A 2001 report in ''Nature'' presented evidence that Bt maize was cross-breeding with unmodified maize in Mexico.<ref name="pmid11734853">{{cite journal | vauthors = Quist D, Chapela IH | title = Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico | journal = Nature | volume = 414 | issue = 6863 | pages = 541–3 | date = November 2001 | pmid = 11734853 | doi = 10.1038/35107068 | s2cid = 4403182 | bibcode = 2001Natur.414..541Q }}</ref> The data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact. ''Nature'' later stated, "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper".<ref name="pmid11935145">{{cite journal | vauthors = Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M | title = Biodiversity (Communications arising): maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts | journal = Nature | volume = 416 | issue = 6881 | pages = 601–2; discussion 600, 602 | date = April 2002 | pmid = 11935145 | doi = 10.1038/nature739 | s2cid = 195690886 | bibcode = 2002Natur.416..601K }}</ref> A 2005 large-scale study failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ortiz-García S, Ezcurra E, Schoel B, Acevedo F, Soberón J, Snow AA | title = Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003-2004) | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 102 | issue = 35 | pages = 12338–43 | date = August 2005 | pmid = 16093316 | pmc = 1184035 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0503356102 | bibcode = 2005PNAS..10212338O | doi-access = free }}</ref> However, other authors also found evidence of cross-breeding between natural maize and [[transgenic maize]].<ref name="pmid19143938">{{cite journal | vauthors = Piñeyro-Nelson A, Van Heerwaarden J, Perales HR, Serratos-Hernández JA, Rangel A, Hufford MB, Gepts P, Garay-Arroyo A, Rivera-Bustamante R, Alvarez-Buylla ER | display-authors = 6 | title = Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations | journal = Molecular Ecology | volume = 18 | issue = 4 | pages = 750–61 | date = February 2009 | pmid = 19143938 | pmc = 3001031 | doi = 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03993.x }}</ref>

A 2004 study found Bt protein in kernels of refuge corn.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Chilcutt CF, Tabashnik BE | title = Contamination of refuges by Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes from transgenic maize | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | volume = 101 | issue = 20 | pages = 7526–9 | date = May 2004 | pmid = 15136739 | pmc = 419639 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0400546101 | bibcode = 2004PNAS..101.7526C | doi-access = free }}</ref>

In 2017, a large-scale study found "pervasive presence of transgenes and glyphosate in maize-derived food in Mexico"<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = González-Ortega E, Piñeyro-Nelson A, Gómez-Hernández E, Monterrubio-Vázquez E, Arleo M, Dávila-Velderrain J, Martínez-Debat C, Álvarez-Buylla ER | title = Pervasive presence of transgenes and glyphosate in maize-derived food in Mexico. | journal = Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems | date = November 2017 | volume = 41 | issue = 9–10 | pages = 1146–61 | doi = 10.1080/21683565.2017.1372841 | s2cid = 44076727 | url = https://www.uccs.mx/images/library/file/Agricultura_y_alimentacion/alisa/2017_gmo/Pervasive_presence_of_transgenes_in_maize_food_2017.pdf | access-date = 5 November 2017 | archive-date = 7 November 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171107023747/https://www.uccs.mx/images/library/file/Agricultura_y_alimentacion/alisa/2017_gmo/Pervasive_presence_of_transgenes_in_maize_food_2017.pdf | url-status = dead }}</ref>

=== Food ===
The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois ''et al.'' study and concluded that it "presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp9612a2 |title=Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled 'A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health' |publisher=UK Food Standards Agency |page=2 |access-date=11 November 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105222929/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp9612a2 |archive-date=5 November 2013 }}</ref> However, the French government applies the [[precautionary principle]] with respect to GMOs.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669870050043116|title=France: broadening precautionary expertise?|journal=Journal of Risk Research|volume=3|issue=3|pages=247–254|date=15 April 2011|access-date=23 October 2021|doi=10.1080/13669870050043116|first1=Alexis|last1=Roy|first2=Pierre-Benoit|last2=Joly|s2cid=144316140 |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kuntz M | title = The GMO case in France: politics, lawlessness and postmodernism | journal = GM Crops & Food | volume = 5 | issue = 3 | pages = 163–9 | date = July 2014 | pmid = 25437234 | pmc = 5033180 | doi = 10.4161/21645698.2014.945882 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|journal=South African Journal of Science|eissn=1996-7489|issn=0038-2353|doi=10.17159/sajs.2015/20130255|last1=W. Jansen van Rijssen|first1=Fredrika|last2=N. Eloff|first2=Jacobus|last3=Jane Morris|first3=E.|title=The precautionary principle: making managerial decisions on GMOs is difficult|year=2015 |volume=111 |issue=3/4 |pages=1–9 |doi-access=free|hdl=2263/45681|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

A review by [[Food Standards Australia New Zealand]] and others of the same study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event/gmo100127-m.pdf | title = EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Mofified Organisms | date = 27–28 January 2010 | location = Parma, Italy | quote = Annex 1, Vendemois et al. 2009, European Food Safety Authority report, | access-date = 27 July 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC | title = Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863) | journal = Food and Chemical Toxicology | volume = 45 | issue = 11 | pages = 2073–85 | date = November 2007 | pmid = 17900781 | doi = 10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033 | quote = The Se´ralini et al. reanalysis does not advance any new scientific data to indicate that MON 863 caused adverse effects in the 90-day rat study. }}</ref>

A 2011 Canadian study looked at the presence of CryAb1 protein (BT toxin) in non-pregnant women, pregnant women and fetal blood. All groups had detectable levels of the protein, including 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses at concentrations of 0.19 ± 0.30 and 0.04 ± 0.04 mean ± SD ng/ml, respectively.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Aris A, Leblanc S | title = Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada | journal = Reproductive Toxicology | volume = 31 | issue = 4 | pages = 528–33 | date = May 2011 | pmid = 21338670 | doi = 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004 | s2cid = 16144327 }}</ref> The paper did not discuss safety implications or find any health problems. FSANZ agency published a comment pointing out a number of inconsistencies in the paper, most notably that it "does not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/fsanzresponsetostudy5185.cfm |title=FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods - Food Standards Australia New Zealand |publisher=foodstandards.gov.au |date=27 May 2011 |access-date=7 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120103123151/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/fsanzresponsetostudy5185.cfm |archive-date=3 January 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In January 2013, the [[European Food Safety Authority]] released all data submitted by Monsanto in relation to the 2003 authorisation of maize genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance.<ref>{{cite press release |title=EFSA promotes public access to data in transparency initiative|date=14 January 2013|publisher=European Food Safety Authority|url=http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130114}}</ref>

=== Starlink corn recalls ===
{{main|Starlink corn recall}}

StarLink contains Cry9C, which had not previously been used in a GM crop.<ref name=ColStateExt-Starlink>{{cite web | work = Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University | date = 11 March 2004 | url = http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | title = What is StarLink Corn | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060907235951/http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html | archive-date = 7 September 2006 }}</ref> Starlink's creator, [[Plant Genetic Systems]],  had applied to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to market Starlink for use in animal feed and in human food.<ref name=Pew>{{cite web | vauthors = Taylor MR, Tick JS | work = Resources for the Future, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology | url = http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/food_and_biotechnology/hhsbiotechstarcasepdf.pdf | title = The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future }}</ref>{{rp|14}} However, because the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.<ref>{{cite web | quote = While EPA had no specific data to indicate that Cry9C was an allergen, the protein expressed in StarLink corn did exhibit certain characteristics (i.e. relative heat stability and extended time to digestion) that were common to known food allergens such as those found in peanuts, eggs, etc. EPA's concern was that StarLink corn may be a human food allergen and in the absence of more definitive data, EPA has not made a decision whether or not to register the human food use. | author = Staff | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | date = November 2000 | url = http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf | title = Executive Summary: EPA Preliminary Evaluation of Information Contained in the October 25, 2000 Submission from Aventis Cropscience }}</ref>{{rp|3}} As a result, PGS split its application into separate permits for use in food and use in [[compound feed|animal feed]].<ref name="ColStateExt-Starlink"/><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-11-26/pdf/97-31131.pdf | title = Plant Genetic Systems (America) Inc.: PP 7G4921 | journal = Federal Register | volume = 62 | issue = 228 | date = 26 November 1997 | page = 63169 }} bottom of middle column - 63170 right column; see especially p63169 top of right column</ref> Starlink was approved by the EPA for use in animal feed only in May 1998.<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|15}}

StarLink corn was subsequently found in food destined for consumption by humans in the US, Japan, and South Korea.<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|20–21}} This corn became the subject of the widely publicized [[Starlink corn recall]], which started when [[Taco Bell]]-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain the corn. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = King D, Gordon A | collaboration = Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition | url = http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | title = Contaminant found in Taco Bell taco shells. Food safety coalition demands recall | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20001209004300/http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html | archive-date=9 December 2000 | location = Washington, DC | publisher = Friends of the Earth | date = 3 November 2001 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Fuler M | date = 23 September 2000 |url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-23-mn-25314-story.html |title=Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn | work = The Los Angeles Times |access-date=31 December 2013}}</ref> The registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Pioneer had been bought by AgrEvo which then became Aventis CropScience at the time of the incident,<ref name=Pew/>{{rp|15–16}} which was later bought by [[Bayer CropScience|Bayer]].<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Carpenter JE, Gianessi LP | title = Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. | location = Washington, DC | publisher = National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy | date = January 2001 | url = http://ucbiotech.org/biotech_info/PDFs/Carpenter_2001_Updated_Benefits.pdf }}</ref>

Fifty-one people reported adverse effects to the FDA; [[US Centers for Disease Control]] (CDC), which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink.<ref>{{cite web | author = Staff, EPA review committee. | url = http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx | title = LLP Incidents | work = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency }}</ref> However, the CDC studied the blood of these 28 individuals and concluded there was no evidence of hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/default.htm |title= Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn | work = CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | location = Atlanta, GA | publisher = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | date = 2001 |access-date=28 October 2014}}</ref>

A subsequent review of these tests by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel points out that while "the negative results decrease the probability that the Cry9C protein is the cause of allergic symptoms in the individuals examined ... in the absence of a positive control and questions regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the assay, it is not possible to assign a negative predictive value to this."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2001/july/julyfinal.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001|website=epa.gov|access-date=8 April 2018}}</ref>

The US corn supply has been monitored for the presence of the Starlink Bt proteins since 2001.<ref>{{cite web|title=Starlink Corn Regulatory Information |url=http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |date=April 2008 |publisher=Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115215719/http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm |archive-date=15 January 2013 }}</ref>

In 2005, aid sent by the UN and the US to Central American nations also contained some StarLink corn. The nations involved, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala refused to accept the aid.<ref>{{cite web | date = 16 February 2005 | work = Environment News Service |url=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-16-09.asp#anchor2 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080905025904/http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-16-09.asp | archive-date = 5 September 2008 |title=Banned as Human Food, StarLink Corn Found in Food Aid |publisher=Ens-newswire.com |access-date=31 December 2013}}</ref>

=== Corporate espionage ===
On 19 December 2013 six Chinese citizens were indicted in Iowa on charges of plotting to steal genetically modified seeds worth tens of millions of dollars from [[Monsanto]] and [[DuPont]]. Mo Hailong, director of international business at the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., part of the Beijing-based [[DBN Group]], was accused of stealing [[trade secrets]] after he was found digging in an Iowa cornfield.<ref>{{cite news | vauthors = Cronin Fisk M |title=Six Chinese Accused of Stealing Genetically Modified Corn|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/six-chinese-accused-of-stealing-genetically-modified-corn-1-.html|access-date=24 March 2014|newspaper=Bloomberg News|date=19 December 2013}}</ref>