Myths and Realities about Genetically Modified Food: A Risk-Benefit Analysis
and Conrado Carrascosa Iruzubieta 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is very interesting, the problem is well described and various controversial issues are brought to the table. This article will be of great interest to readers. It contains well-documented data, and addresses the legal framework for GMOs. However according to turnitin there are 32% of similarity with other papers. Considering that in this review there is no methodology that could coincide, it is very important to reduce the similarity to less than 15% by means of rephrasing the ideas. The manuscript will only be accepted, when the similarity is reduced.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
General comments
This article is very interesting, the problem is well described and various controversial issues are brought to the table. This article will be of great interest to readers. It contains well-documented data, and addresses the legal framework for GMOs. However according to turnitin there are 32% of similarity with other papers. Considering that in this review there is no methodology that could coincide, it is very important to reduce the similarity to less than 15% by means of rephrasing the ideas. The manuscript will only be accepted, when the similarity is reduced.
First of all, we would like to thank the time spent reviewing the article and the improvement suggestions made. They have undoubtely served to improve the quality and value of the paper.
-Following your recomendations, the manuscript have been reviewed and rewritten for reducing the similarity index by native English reviewer. See attached invoice.
We have made a new Turnitin analysis, with a new parameters (5 words is considered coincidence) and without taking the first analysed manuscript into account.
We hope that the new similarity percentage is enough to be accepted. See attached Turnitin report.
Following editor´s recommendations, we have incorporated to the manuscript new tables and new figures. The tables and figures are highlighted with green marker and new text with red words.
- Line 117: figure nº2
- Line 222: figure nº3
- Line 270: figure nº4
- Line 334: table nº1
- Line 404: table nº2
- Line 472: figure nº5
- Line 543: figure nº6
- Line 657: table nº3
- Line 724: table nº4
- Line 767: figure nº7
We hope that these new figures and tables are pleasurable for you and can be useful for improve the manuscript.
Please, I am attaching the similarity report.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject is relevant. I don't see problems in relation to the arguments presented in relation to the use of GMOs for human or animal food, such as toxicity and other factors mentioned, for example.
In the same way, GMOs can contribute to the improvement of food production in quantity and quality.
However, the article sometimes takes a simplistic approach by not exploring other issues that are also worthy of reflection.
I quote a few below:
- The green revolution brought increased productivity along with the demand for monocultures and increasing demands for the use of fertilizers and pesticides due to the monoculture cycle itself.
- Holders of the GMO seeds that create the monopolies, incidentally the same business groups that control the pharmaceutical, pesticide and fertilizer industry.
- Issue of biodiversity and identity in the use of local species. The more the varieties and patterns of different species are reduced, this interferes directly in the environment.
- Globalization of consumption patterns with standardized use of a determined number of species;
Furthermore, in addition to the issue of defending the use of GMOs to guarantee food production, aspects such as current consumption patterns that are unsustainable need to be considered. The current pattern, especially in the amount of consumption of animal products (which are grain-fed) is one of them. I believe that the current problem is not just the amount of food produced, but especially fairer distribution and better control of waste in food production and consumption.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to value your words about the article and the fact that you share our interest in this topic. We also want to thank you for the time spent in reviewing the document and the suggestions made. They have undoubtedly served to improve the quality and the value of the paper.
General comments
The subject is relevant. I don't see problems in relation to the arguments presented in relation to the use of GMOs for human or animal food, such as toxicity and other factors mentioned, for example. In the same way, GMOs can contribute to the improvement of food production in quantity and quality. However, the article sometimes takes a simplistic approach by not exploring other issues that are also worthy of reflection.
Following editor´s recommendations, we have incorporated to the manuscript new tables and new figures. The tables and figures are highlighted with green marker and new text with red words.
- Line 117: figure nº2
- Line 222: figure nº3
- Line 270: figure nº4
- Line 334: table nº1
- Line 404: table nº2
- Line 472: figure nº5
- Line 543: figure nº6
- Line 657: table nº3
- Line 724: table nº4
- Line 767: figure nº7
We hope that these new figures and tables are pleasurable for you and can be useful for improve the manuscript.
- Next, we will answer in detail each of the notes suggested by you:
RW: The green revolution brought increased productivity along with the demand for monocultures and increasing demands for the use of fertilizers and pesticides due to the monoculture cycle itself.
AU: Line 30-36: Following your suggestion a new paragraph about Green Revolution has been added.
RW: Holders of the GMO seeds that create the monopolies, incidentally the same business groups that control the pharmaceutical, pesticide and fertilizer industry.
Issue of biodiversity and identity in the use of local species. The more the varieties and patterns of different species are reduced, this interferes directly in the environment.
AU: Line 47-51: Following your recommendations, a new paragraph has been added. “On the other hand, economic expansion, and globalization and population growth, have brought about structural shifts in consumption patterns worldwide. Surprisingly, meat demand has grown the most in the world and the cattle industry has been identified to emit the most greenhouse gases. This rising demand has significantly impacted carbon emissions and land use [8, Sharma R, Nguyen T, Grote U]
RW: Globalization of consumption patterns with standardized use of a determined number of species;….
AU: Line 235-257. According to your suggestions, a new paragraph about consumption patterns has been added. Therefore, we believe that the new version of the paragraph is more focused in this OGM topic and current problems.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is very well written review paper dealing with extremely important subject which can turn-over agricultural production and solve many important problems facing humanity.
This review deals with all aspects of the Genetically Modified Organisms - GMO. I do not think that this term is right one. These authors also mentioned that genetically modified plants were achieved years ago by selecting genotypes from wild plants (row 214). It was performed throughout human history. I deal with domestication of wild fruit trees and many of my selections are genetically modified from the wild germplasm. Also, hybridization creates new genotypes which are genetically modified. The right term should be Genetically Engineered Crops -GEC, and they do use this term. In this review they deal in depth with all aspects of GM crops, with possible risks associated with its use, and with the huge human benefits which can solve many existing and future problems of the world. It is very clear text which every reader should easily understand it.
I do think that minor corrections are needed as follows:
Why in Table 1 they draw a horizontal line of 125%? It is not needed. Also, the percent values of the various crops came out of their proper places.
They cite that Reference 14 (row 77) deals with delayed ripening. According to its title it deals with animals. I was unable to get this reference.
On row 123 remove the dot before 15.
Rows 231, 523, 554, 573, 603, they print scientific names in normal letters while they should be printed in Italics.
Row 592 remove p from the word serious.
On rows 573-576 they cite reference 95 on mushrooms while the paper deals with wheat.
May be that they miss one reason for those who object to GE plants, namely, religious people who say that it is intervention in God's creation. It is almost perfect review paper which deserves publication.
Sincerely yours,
Yosef Mizrahi
Author Response
Reviewer 3
First of all, we would like to value your words about the article and the fact that you share our interest in this topic. We also want to thank you for the time spent in reviewing the document and the suggestions made. They have undoubtedly served to improve the quality and the value of the paper.
General comments
This review deals with all aspects of the Genetically Modified Organisms - GMO. I do not think that this term is right one. These authors also mentioned that genetically modified plants were achieved years ago by selecting genotypes from wild plants (row 214). It was performed throughout human history. I deal with domestication of wild fruit trees and many of my selections are genetically modified from the wild germplasm. Also, hybridization creates new genotypes which are genetically modified. The right term should be Genetically Engineered Crops -GEC, and they do use this term. In this review they deal in depth with all aspects of GM crops, with possible risks associated with its use, and with the huge human benefits which can solve many existing and future problems of the world. It is very clear text which every reader should easily understand it.
- Next, we will answer in detail each of the notes suggested by you:
Following editor´s recommendations, we have incorporated to the manuscript new tables and new figures. The tables and figures are highlighted with green marker and new text with red words.
- Line 117: figure nº2
- Line 222: figure nº3
- Line 270: figure nº4
- Line 334: table nº1
- Line 404: table nº2
- Line 472: figure nº5
- Line 543: figure nº6
- Line 657: table nº3
- Line 724: table nº4
- Line 767: figure nº7
We hope that these new figures and tables are pleasurable for you and can be useful for improve the manuscript.
RW: Why in Table 1 they draw a horizontal line of 125%? It is not needed. Also, the percent values of the various crops came out of their proper places.
AU: Line 75: Following your suggestion the table has been modified. Now, the values are on the blue lines.
RW: They cite that Reference 14 (row 77) deals with delayed ripening. According to its title it deals with animals. I was unable to get this reference.
AU: Line (78-81). According to your suggestions, we add the new reference 16 by Liu, Q. et aal., where the authors explain the knowledge about biofortification of crops and agronomic approach of biofortification. The reference from Novoselec et al.2018 (http://dx.doi.org/10.18047/poljo.24.1.4), has been deleted.
RW: On row 123 remove the dot before 15.
AU: (Line 126). Following your recommendations, the dot has been deleted.
RW: Rows 231, 523, 554, 573, 603, they print scientific names in normal letters while they should be printed in Italics.
AU: Line 232, 540, 575, 594, 624. According to your suggestions, all scientific names have been written in italics.
RW: On row 592 remove p from the word serious.
AU: (Line 613). Following your recommendations, the letter p has been deleted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is very well written and substantiated, as well as being of great interest to readers. The authors responded to all requests. So it can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The addition of new paragraphs and figures made the article more adequate.
