Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been found to have various applications in food manufacturing industries, including the production of food enzymes. These enzymes are typically better suited for specific industrial applications than their native counterparts and are used in baking processes. They can be downregulated to produce toxic glycoalkaloids, such as alpha-chaconine and alpha-solanine, and are used to improve the characteristics of the enzymes produced. Traditional methods for identifying GM crops include polymerase chain reaction, southern blot, western blot, and other techniques.
Genetic modifications are made to provide resistance to herbicides like glyphosate or glufosinate and improve oil composition. Enzymes produced by GMOs include 6-phytase and alpha-amylase. The resulting double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) complex is thought to be degraded through the activity of dsRNA-degrading enzymes or hindered in certain ways.
The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA and is intended for use in baking processes. It is capable of digesting compounds that increase iron bioavailability via digestion of phytate, an inhibitor of iron absorption.
GMO microbial rennet produces a specific enzyme called chymosin, which helps coagulate milk and form curds. Historically, chymosin was extracted from plants and used in various industries. However, research has shown that GMOs are not more likely to cause reactions than non-GMOs.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public … | By AS Bawa. The genetic modifications are made for the purpose of providing resistance to herbicides, such as glyphosate or glufosinate, and also for the purpose of improving the oil composition. Following the completion of the aforementioned steps, | pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |
| Genetically Modified Wheat – an overview | It is postulated that the resulting double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) complex is then degraded through the activity of dsRNA-degrading enzymes or hindered in … | www.sciencedirect.com |
| Enzymes from Genetically Modified Organisms and Their … | This chapter places particular emphasis on the enzymes derived from genetically modified organisms, the methods used to generate genetically modified organisms, and the use of genetically modified organisms. | www.researchgate.net |
📹 GMOs
Since our first episode, you’ve begged us to cover Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. Honestly, I often can’t tell if those of …
What are restriction enzymes in GMOs?
A restriction enzyme is a protein isolated from bacteria that cleaves DNA sequences at sequence-specific sites, producing DNA fragments with a known sequence at each end. The use of restriction enzymes is critical to certain laboratory methods, including recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering.
Restriction enzyme. Restriction enzymes are incredibly cool, and there are at least three thousand of them. Each one of these enzymes cuts a specific DNA sequence and doesn’t discriminate as to where the DNA comes from — bacteria, fungi, mouse, or human, snip, snip, snip.
What is the enzyme for genetic modification?
Enzymes used in genetic engineering. Different “enzymes are used in genetic engineering”. The most used enzymes are DNA polymerase, Reverse transcriptase, DNA ligase, restriction endonuclease, alkaline phosphatase. DNA polymerase functions in duplicating the content of DNA of a cell at the time of cell division. The synthesisation of DNA is the primary function of the enzyme.
Alkaline phosphatase functions to remove the single phosphate group from the 5′ ends.
The reverse transcriptase functions in generating complementary DNA from a template of RNA through the process of reverse transcription. Ligase enzymes are used in the process of joining and restriction enzymes are used to cut. Restriction enzymes can cut DNA in two various ways to yield blunt ends (cutting at the asymmetrical position and cutting at opposite sides of DNA).
What are 3 specific examples of GMO?
Only a few types of GMO crops are grown in the United States, but some of these GMOs make up a large percentage of the crop grown (e. g., soybeans, corn, sugar beets, canola, and cotton).
In 2020, GMO soybeans made up 94% of all soybeans planted, GMO cotton made up 96% of all cotton planted, and 92% of corn planted was GMO corn.
In 2013, GMO canola made up 95% of canola planted while GMO sugar beets made up 99. 9% of all sugar beets harvested.
What enzyme corrects mutations?
Most of these errors are corrected by DNA polymerase during replication with its inherent proofreading mechanism via its 3′-exonuclease activity. This mechanism allows for the polymerase to read the most recently placed base before adding the next one. If the base does not pair correctly with the base on the template strand, then the exonuclease mechanism of DNA pol III cuts the phosphodiester bond holding that section of the strand and releases the nucleotide. This process is not perfect, however, and incorrect bases are commonly left in the newly synthesized DNA strand. Mismatch repair proteins correct this by locating incorrectly matched nucleotides and excising them before placing the correct nucleotide in its place.
Exogenous damage, also called induced damage, is the result of external factors acting on the cell. The common causes of exogenous damage include Radiation such as UV light exposure (UVA and UVB) and ionizing radiations, thermal disruptions, toxins, and drugs that cause base-pair mismatches, intercalation causing inhibition of replication. UV damage causes the cross-linking of adjacent cytosine and thymine bases, forming harmful dimers.
Ionizing radiations such as X-rays can dissociate water molecules in the cell, producing hydroxyl radicals that can react with DNA, altering its structure and cause DNA strands to break. Certain toxins and drugs cause chemical associations resulting in single or double-strand breakage in the DNA helix. Thermal disruption via DNA being exposed to high temperatures causes higher rates of depurination to occur, as well as single-strand breaks. Radiation exposure also causes strand breaks. These types of induced damage are very severe and can cause irreparable damage and harm to the cell. Similarly, environmental toxins such as cigarette smoke contain carcinogens like benzo-pyrene. These chemicals can be oxidized by cellular enzymes and cause DNA damage by forming DNA adducts.
What are GMO enzymes?
Genetically modified enzymes are designed to improve or alter the enzymological properties and/or increase purity and yield of expression, changes which can be attributed to the altered amino acid sequence, resulting from gene sequence manipulation.
About ScienceDirect Shopping cart Contact and support Terms and conditions Privacy policy.
Cookies are used by this site. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B. V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply.
What are the negative effects of GMO crops?
- Increased Herbicide Use: The widespread cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant crops has pushed up the use of herbicides such as glyphosate. Herbicide sales in Canada have increased by 244% since GM crops have been introduced (1994-2021).
- “Superweeds”: The use of specific herbicides with GM herbicide-tolerant crops has led to the evolution and spread of “superweeds,” or weeds that can no longer be killed by those herbicides. Since 1996, 59 weed species have developed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.
- “Superpests”: Some insects have developed resistance to the toxins in GM insect-resistant ( Bt ) crops. The first case in Canada was reported in May 2019.
- Contamination: Contamination from GM plants has serious ecological, economic and social impacts. Gene flow from GM crops poses a threat to wild and weedy crop relatives, non-GM crops and foods, and organic farming. There have been escape events in Canada with GM canola, flax, wheat and pigs.
- Biodiversity Loss: The use of some GM crops can have negative impacts on non-target organisms and on soil and water ecosystems. For example, the expansion of GM herbicide-tolerant corn and soy, which are twinned with herbicides, has destroyed much of the habitat of the monarch butterfly in North America.
On this page. Increased Pesticide Use Superweeds Superpests Contamination Biodiversity Non-Target Effects Related Information.
Increased Pesticide Use. Herbicide-Tolerant Crops and Herbicide Use. 100% of the GM crops currently grown in Canada – corn, soy, canola, sugar beet and alfalfa – are engineered to be tolerant to one or more specific herbicides. Most are tolerant to multiple herbicides. Glyphosate is the top pesticide ingredient sold in Canada, and its use tripled between 2005 and 2011. Between 1994 and 2021, herbicide sales in Canada increased by 244%. CBAN Factsheet: Genetically engineered crops have increased herbicide use, May 2024.
Is microbial enzyme GMO?
Although the production organism is genetically modified the enzyme it produces is not. Enzymes produced through biotechnology are identical to those found in nature. Additionally, enzymes produced by microorganisms are extracted and purified before they are used in food manufacturing. Genetically modified microorganisms are useful from a commercial standpoint but would not survive in nature.
In Canada, enzymes that are used in food processing are regulated as food additives. An enzyme meets the definition of a food additive, as set out in section B. 01. 001 of the Food and Drug Regulations, when it affects the characteristics of the food and/or it or its by-products become part of the food. It is the physical enzyme residues, not enzyme activity, that are considered in determining if enzyme residues remain in or on a food.
As with other food additives, Health Canada is responsible for conducting the pre-market safety assessment of enzymes and approving their use in foods. Enzymes that are permitted for use in foods sold in Canada, along with the permitted sources of each enzyme, are listed in the List of Permitted Food Enzymes which is published on Health Canada’s website.
What are the 4 types of restriction enzymes?
Types of Restriction Enzymes. Based on the composition, characteristics of the cleavage site, and the cofactor requirements, the restriction endonucleases are classified into four groups, Type I, II, III, and IV.
Why is GMO banned in Europe?
One cause of European opposition to GMOs is that the advantage to agriculture and food production is often considered weak or non-existent, while the risks are considered substantial.
Opponents of genetic engineering presented it as a technology with high potential risks and no advantages except to the few firms that developed it. Consumers’ and society’s safety appeared to be sacrificed. On the other hand, arguments that tried to present the potential advantages of GMOs were often rejected because they were perceived as hypocritical. GMOs thus lacked supporters and allies in many European countries.
Factors involved in the perception of risk/benefit assessment.
What are the two types of DNA modifying enzymes?
The enzymes that effect change in the DNA chemical constitution or topology are generally referred to as DNA modifying enzymes. Broadly they can be grouped into two categories based upon the nature of modification performed, i. e., composition modifying and topology modifying.
What are 10 disadvantages of GMOs?
Genetic engineering has led to unexpected health risks and effects, including toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immuno-suppression, cancer, and loss of nutrition. A significant percentage of processed foods today contain genetically engineered (GE) food products, causing millions of Americans to eat these foods without their knowledge. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling or pre-market safety testing of GE foods, making millions of consumers unknowingly testing the safety of dozens of gene-altered food products.
The FDA admitted in court that it had made “no dispositive scientific findings” about the safety of genetically engineered foods, giving the biotech industry carte blanche to produce and market any number of GE foods without mandatory agency oversight or safety testing. Genetic engineering allows foreign genes, bacterial and viral vectors, viral promoters, and antibiotic marker systems to be engineered into food, which should be subject to extensive safety testing. In 1992, the FDA ruled without any scientific basis that genetically engineered foods present no different risks than traditional foods. FDA scientists have consistently stated that there is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering.
📹 The Truth About GMOs
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: https://nebula.tv/videos/real-science-the-truth-about-gmos New streaming platform: …
So happy to see a rational take on the GMO argument. Most of the people I deal with are antiGMO and some are actively pushing against Monsanto. I’ve kept an open mind about GMOs but see a potential for good in their use, a potential many of my friends disagree with. So again, very glad you made this article, I hope it gets people questioning and looking at facts instead of simply listening to rhetoric from either side of the debate.
Guys, this is a healthcare website meaning his main focus is on the health impacts of GMOs, not the political aspect of GMOs. Why are you mad that he isn’t addressing Monsanto and similar things when that is not the main focus of the article. Just Bc he didn’t address that side is GMOs doesn’t mean he doesn’t care or sides with private companies, but that would have strayed from the overall goal of the article.
Yeah. This is pretty close to where I stand on the issue. The technology has amazing potential and no immediately obvious drawbacks. Some of the practices of the companies creating and selling GMOs are sketchy as all hell and there is a possibility for significant unforeseen consequences, so there needs to be a major increase national and international regulation and oversight of agriculture.
I hadn’t considered the possibility of potential new allergies in foods being a downside to GMO’s, so that’s actually a good point to remember. Obviously not a strong enough disadvantage to fight GMO, but still worth remembering. And yeah, the only other real detriment that can occur with GMO is some farmers being irresponsible with their pesticides. But that’s not actually a problem with the food, that’s a problem with those specific farmers.
No matter what is said about GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, people are bound to get upset in some way, shape, or form just because of how controversial the topic is. I liked what this particular article covered on the topic by offering clear views on the use of GMOs. Nearly 9 out of 10 scientists that were surveyed by the Pew Research Center claim that GMOs are “generally safe” to eat…but are they really? There have been multiple risks found throughout the years that point to the fact that we don’t truly know enough about GMOs and their effects that may show up later in life to “care-freely” consume foods containing them. One of the major risks that stuck out to me was the research showing that GMOs can negatively affect gluten levels. From the perspective of someone who has issues with their gluten levels it makes me question whether or not my issues stem from genetic causes, or from the fact that I have consumed GMOs as a part of my regular everyday eating. Researchers have also linked tumor growth to the consumption of GMOs, along with early onset of Alzheimer’s as well as having a potentially higher risk for Autism. But is it really the genetically modified organisms that are causing all of these changes in our bodies? Or could it possibly be something else entirely? I know family and friends that have avoided genetically modified food as much as they possibly could and they still have some of the health issues that you can commonly find on a Google search that people claim are potential risks of consuming GMOs.
I would like to point out to all the people criticizing this article for not covering the societal and economic implications of GMOs that this is a healthcare website, where they talk about health. Not sociology, not economics, but health. And as of right now, no reputable health organization has found that GMOs, in and of themselves, pose any reasonable health risks, so that is the information this health focused website presented in their health based article. I hope I used the word health enough.
I’m afraid this topic is a little too complex for the comments section, but the most notable harm of GMO is the way it enforces a technological hegemony on developing countries. It’s a technological exports multiplier. Take, for example, the issue of monocropping corn. The US grows the hell out of corn. We use expensive technological developments, banks, roads, rail, shipping ports, local processing, spraying, monitoring… the whole agritech industry is set up to make billions of tons of exportable corn. GM corn means the US can make corn at a lower cost per bushel, and that makes our exports more profitable. Now imagine a farmer in Iran. How could he ever compete with foreign corn imports? He doesn’t have access to the benefits of the US farmer: subsidies, low-cost bank loans, roads, rail, farming automation, etc. Even with GM corn, he’ll never fully reap the benefit because he’s limited by his own infrastructure. His return on the technological benefit is less. So, he keeps less acreage in production of fungible export products. That means that developing markets are dependent on expensive imports from the US and they don’t invest in ag infrastructure. It’s not that GM technology is harmful to one’s health, but they do enforce a world trade situation that promotes dependency and stagnation. It’s not the genetic modification at fault, it’s a narrow-minded approach to agriculture. What I think we need is a more diversified crop base, more local crops (teff, millet, cowpea), and a focus on protecting domestic agriculture in developing markets.
I enjoy this website a lot. Really. As in one of the best, hands down. I have a lot of respect for the work you do and the factual way you report on issues. That said, even though I agree with everything you said, I feel a little let down that you completely omitted so many of the social and economic issues around GMOs. You cover those issues when talking about healthcare – costs, benefits, how other countries are dealing with the issues, and so forth. I can understand why you would not want go into off-topic details – it was not strictly relevant to the question you set out to answer – in such a short article, but even just mentioning that there might be problems (even just one sentence) would have gone a long way.
I was already mad before the intro ended! j/k This was a fairly well done and even handed approach. With GMOs there are concerns beyond “is it safe to eat” and you touched on many of those well. GMO crops are not generally modified to increase yields and none (that I know of, though I am not all knowing- surprise!) are modified to improve the quality of the crops. The vast majority are modified to sell herbicides or sell more seeds. The people selling this stuff (most notably Monsanto) have (mis)behaved for decades in a manner few people do not find objectionable in regards to litigation,other bullying tactics, ag gag, and labeling laws. That the makers of GMO are the fiercest opponents of marketing their products (gmo labeling) makes it hard to feel very confident, nor is this the first time that Monsanto has released some wonder product that was the future and safe and oh wait it turns out DDT is terrible.
GMOs aren’t bad at all, actually I am happy that they are growing, and I want them to grow and probably develop some that take less resources to grow, like water and we can actually feed more people! I love GMOs and the people who don’t, well they won’t understand like people who aren’t up for vaccines. What I do want is regulation and more standards, but that to all foods, and well what I do not like is the added hormones in some foods, like the feed we use for cows, that is actually a bit dangerous not only to them but to us, AND I am not blaming diseases on just them since we’ve had a lot of diseases since a long time before we got industrialized, so yeah GMOs arent bad.
Hi! Very good article. I would like to make some comments: My understanding is that proper claims against GMO’s don’t come from criticism towards genetic engeneering itself, but to the pesticide and land damage arguments, as well as a political, economical, and social issue regarding unethic business practices of leading GMO companies such as Monsanto. About the pesticide, like you said that should get checked out, but it doesn’t. No one does. About the land damage, it’s true at least about soy (as your article says, my country, Argentina, is the third world farmland, so I know first hand). Nothing grows ever again in those fields once they’ve been used for a while. Besides, it seems that you use the fact that GMO’s are common as an argument towards defending them, when one of the claims from anti-GMO people, are the monopolic and oligopolic business practices by GMO giants like patented seeds and legal prohibitions to harvest anything but what they sell. So of course they’re common, that’s part of the issue. Everybody I respect as a scientific popularizer has treated this issue answering to the literal genetic engeneering process, but not the actual important issues around it. Besides, having anti-GMO’s depicted as anti-genetic engeneering makes look like the same anti-vaccination bunch and I am pro vaccine. Love the website.
Allow me to bring up the part about GMOs that make them “controversial”. It’s the fact that GMOs are all classed into the same category by the public. In other words, if one GMO is found to cause an issue, then public logic jumps on the all-or-nothing bandwagon, claiming that “if that GMO corn is bad, then the GMO tomatoes, spinach, oranges, or whatever else which are produced by multiple different independent manufacturers must also be terrible!” This is ridiculously bad logic, and shows its true colors if you apply the same logic to all food: “If fried foods are bad for you, then apples, oranges, lettuce, carrots and broccoli must also be bad, cause they’re all: food!” Cultivation has repeatedly resulted in some terrible crops in the past. GMOs are demonized for not being absolutely, one-hundred percent, failsafe perfect, when nothing concerning food ever is. GMOs are to cultivation, what a nailgun is to a hammer. Does the same thing, but is substantially faster and more efficient. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of organic nature wants to kill you. Why? Because plants have defenses just like animals do. It’s cultivation over thousands of years that have resulted in the food we have today. Damn near nothing you eat is exactly how it was 12 000 years ago.
Thank you, Healthcare Triage team, for a focused article on one portion of this debate. I realize, and appreciate that you guys are not trying to argue one side or another, but are only trying to share relevant information about GMO’s affect on human health. I also respect your decision to not reference the economic and political ramifications of this subject, as they are not what, I feel, Healthcare Triage should be about. Great article guys!
Though GMO’s may not sognificantly endanger consumers. There is a huge point to make that it is putting middle class/lower class farmers out of bussiness because of their price. Also in terms of spraying crops with herbicides and pesticides its not an ideal thing to be sprayed on the food you eat and also as the same that weeds get resistant to herbicides eventually so does the resistance break down of gmo’s so really their only good use is that they produce a better yield and maybe better taste. And whose to say if the pros outweigh the cons? I think the cons outweigh them:)
The biggest objection I’ve seen people having about GMO’s is the idea that it promotes much stronger pesticides and herbicides that are either transmitted through the food to the marketplace somehow or that they’re extremely harmful to the environment and certain wildlife like the bee population. You mention this for only a moment so would it be possible to expand on this more? To be specific: what does the science have to say on the types of pesticides and herbicides we currently use (due to man-made plant resistances to them) concerning how they affect our health and the health of our environment and wildlife?
“In the late 1960s, researchers from the US Department of Agriculture, Penn State University and the Wise Potato Chip Company collaborated to breed the “Lenape” potato. This new breed soon became hugely popular with potato chip manufacturers, due to the fact that it had the perfect combination of sugar and starch to produce the thin, crispy golden brown potato chips that we know today. But the Lenape potato’s biggest legacy might be its impact on the GMO debate. After the new breed was introduced, the USDA found that it contained heightened levels of solanine, an alkaloid that helps protect the potato against pests that is also slightly toxic and harmful to humans. The Lenape potato shows that risk and uncertainty is not just associated with genetically modified crops, but crops that come from conventional breeding as well. According to a new article on Boing Boing, “there’s actually a lot more risk and uncertainty with conventional breeding, than there is with genetic modification. That’s because, with GM, you’re mucking about with a single gene. There are a lot more genes in play with conventional breeding, and a lot more ways that surprising genetic interactions could come back to haunt you.” geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/04/potato-chips-dangerously-delicious/ If you are a conspiratard who says the GLP put a spin on this, note they only reproduced the story from another site and they provide hyperlinks to more coverage.
What about studies on how GMO crops affect the health of pollinators? I know this website specifically addresses human health issues, but there is a trickle up effect…if we’re damaging the pollinators we’re ultimately damaging our own health. Then there’s also the problem of Monsanto suing neighbor organic farmers out of existence for “stealing” their patent, but I suppose that’s a topic for another website.
Healthcare Triage is a powerhouse of controversial topics and I could not appreciate that more. Here are GMO’s, although I believe the article is more specifically discussing genetically modified crops, that tends to be what most people are talking about when the mention GMO’s. My absolute favorite subject mentioned is that this happens in nature. Organisms, including plants, genetically modify themselves with every generation to be better. When the available science is compiled (ignoring in this moment that a possible 2/3’s of the studies involve groups with special interests) the conclusions are that GE’s are not anymore harmful than consuming conventional crops. Even with special interests considered, this was agreed upon by The Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, the European Union, and The World Health Organization, now maybe that means there really is not a looming danger. Then again, it could mean that all of these organizations are working together to eradicate humans from the earth (oh wait, its been 50 years and life expectancy, and the overall population are still increasing). A very real question I have is, what is the alternative now? With a planet that is producing a lot of food on an annual basis to feed a lot of hungry humans, what would we do without GE’s? Ignoring all of the politics, do people really think that it is feasible to grow the quantities of food that we do now “naturally” without nature having her way with them? My answer to all of these questions would be: don’t know, many would starve, and no way.
Healthcare Triage There’s a whole other area of anti-GMO argument you didn’t cover: e.g. modifications can create deliberately sterile crops to force farmers into long-term coercive contracts with the crop creator, and farmers can be sued for re-planting seeds without a license or for having crops on their field that they didn’t buy but blew over from a neighbor. These aren’t healthcare related, but they’re still reasonable policy or economic basis for objecting to (some kinds of) GMO. (They don’t, however, make a reasonable basis for objecting to all GMO without differentiation as to those effects.)
Growing up on a farm, I get questioned about GMOs all of the time. I am a firm believer that consuming GMOs does no harm to us whatsoever. People get freaked out about the fact that scientists are hand selecting genes to create a “designer” organism, if you will, that suits our needs. The simple fact of the matter is that the stuff that you are scared to consume is simply DNA which every single living thing that we already consume has. As stated in the article, humans have been essentially creating GMOs for years if you count the selective breeding that has gone on for the past 1200 years. All GMOs are is a very specific form of selective breeding. All of the corn and soybeans that are grown on my farm are genetically modified as they are what we call “Roundup Ready” which is a form of GMO that is resistant to Roundup weed killer. This allows us to spray the weeds in our crops without harming the plants themselves, thus leading to a much better yield. The article stated that 90% of soy beans and 80% of corn grown in the states is genetically modified. Without these GMOs, we would not be able to feed the world. Take away GMOs and what you have left are wimpy crops with crappy yields. Hundreds of studies have been done that prove that GMOs are NOT harmful to consume. I’m not sure how many more times it has to be proved for people to start believing it and stop dissing farmers that use GMOs.
Considering that the GMO debate has been in a stalemate for 1.5 decades, I say that we, the GMO-supporters of the Internet, shall do what 4chan tried to do: DDoS Tumblr. Then all of those hippie-environmentalist-SJWs will be eradicated from the internet. Then, with the internet backing up biotech companies, we can finally see GMOs reach full acceptance. PS I hate 4chan’s /b/, but I have Tumblr more. The Actual PS: I’m trolling.
This article definitely helps. I feel like it glosses over the sizeable evidence that does exist for the effects of increased use of herbicide, and the comments are full of reminders that the biggest harm is probably in the IP laws, not the health or even ecological implications. Still, the idea that GE crops are dangerous to our health is one that needs to be brought in line with the research. Bravo.
I decided to share this on FB pages both for and against GMOs. The non-partiality and accessibility of the information makes it easy to understand and difficult to argue, no matter how passionate someone’s position may be. It should be required knowledge before taking part in discussions on the subject.
This might fall beyond the scope of this website but it would be nice to see a article, maybe on scishow, about the different methods of genetic modification used to force certain traits to come to the fore in our food. I’ve heard that some organic foods still genetically modify their crops but they do so by irradiating a plant and picking out a mutation that shows favorable traits and breeding it in large scale. The problem with this is that it’s such a shotgun approach that you end up changing a lot more than the one gene you really wanted to change.
You said it all. The majority of the studies are funded by those with a financial stake. Just like every other thing you talk about here. I love the fact that more people are getting into small scale farming. In MN, there are a lot of CSA programs that supply naturally grown foods from people in the community. Most of them won’t get organic certification because it’s not worth in and in many cases their products are far more naturally grown than those that are organic. Not only that, the price is very competitive with mass farmed products in the supermarkets. In my opinion, this is the best reason and the best way to support non-gmo foods.
Do you feel you are preaching to the converted? There are a lot of people that will either reject the science (ironically whilst enjoying its fruits like mobile phones) or worse, cherry pick the scientific papers that support their argument and reject all others. The kind of people that subscribe to your website are probably open minded and believe in scientific argument. I do hope I’m wrong and your articles are watched by those closed minded groups.
People need to talk to farmers like me and others to get the facts about GMO’s. In the drought of 2012 I was able to get 130 bushel corn when the norm is 200+ bushel corn. It didn’t rain hardly at all in that year. In the drought of 1988 my grandfather got 40 bushel corn when the norm was about 130 bushels. GMO’s have made the way for farmers to keep growing crops with bad weather. To clear up the point on replanting harvested grain it is not possible. I can’t put leftover corn in the planter in the field because it doesn’t grow. Also the herbicide thing is that we use less than we used to because of precision ag having us put it on in small amounts. Weeds are always going to become resistant like they did in the past. Please talk to farmers because I grow the food you eat everyday.
As soon as you demonstrate how CP4EPSPS or truncated cry proteins insert themselves into the genome of any plant in nature, and how a plasmid is analogous to a mutation, you will have made a science based argument. Unfortunately, you sound like a person who memorized a bunch of generalities and platitudes, many of which are misleading, but who has not done any reading of original science independently, thereby not contributing anything original to the GMO conversation. There is an equilibrium of independent studies demonstrating harm to animals health from GMOs and those suggesting GMOs are harmless, which argues against a consensus on their safety, which you implied. The EU study you mentioned didn’t actually do any safety testing. It was a research project to refine methods, not a safety study. I also didn’t appreciate your statement that AMA endorses the position that GMOs are harmless while omitting the fact that the AMA represents a tiny minority of physicians 20- 30%. kevinmd.com/blog/2011/06/ama-decline-doctors-care.html Thus you earned a C for not doing your homework and lying by omission.
I had heard briefly of this controversy prior to this article, but I never would have guessed the extent to which this has been debated. Most importantly, we should all recognize that the idea behind this technique was intended for good. Crops that are genetically resistant to certain pesticides means more available produce for consumers. This should be considered a serious benefit, as the population continues to increase and more resources are needed to support that. It’s easy to discuss the “evil” behind GMOs when you are a middle class citizen with enough funding and access to basic needs, such as food. Additionally, GMOs allow crops to be able to withstand more harsh environments, allowing fresh foods to become available to many more citizens. Outside of this, he presents research that confirms there is no evidence at this point to show that GMOs pose any greater danger to people than the conventional crops. Most of the argument here comes from those that are afraid of what they don’t understand, but we already know that the genetic modifications that are being performed on organisms by scientists also occur in nature. The technology we have at our disposal is ever advancing, and we should be facilitating our abilities so that we can continue to use it to our benefit.
There is one point in this debate that rarely gets mentioned. For many decades, agricultural scientists who are impatient with the speed of natural mutations have sped them up — by irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation. This counts as “conventional plant breeding,” since the techniques of biotechnology are not used. But if ever there was a practice where one should be worried about unintended consequences, this surely fits.
There are a lot of practices surrounding GMO crops that need to be monitored and controlled, but most of the GMO alarmists prefer to scapegoat food like it’s the thing spraying the chemicals. So we need to watch out for the pesticides, watch out for the shady business practices, but keep in mind that we’ve been eating genetically modified food all our lives and it’s not inherently harmful. Shift the focus to what’s important instead of labelling everything so that the ignorant can live in fear.
Thanks for this informative article. It would be nice if all discussions on this topic were as well-reasoned and supported by evidence. There has definitely been scare-mongering on the part of some gmo critics. I realize this article is about health effects so the labeling issue is not addressed. But it is also about science. Science is all about the dissemination of knowledge. And that is where gmo producers often come up short. Why spend millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives when polls show over 90% of the population supports them? Since when is science at odds with transparency? Why sue a state whose residents have already passed such an initiative? It only raises suspicions that gmo producers have something to hide. Not only are the rights of consumers being disregarded, those of researchers are also. End user agreements have been used by Monsanto and other corporations to prevent investigations into gmo’s by independent researchers. It would be nice to believe that, since gmo’s were developed by scientists, we could trust the motives of corporations that act to limit consumer awareness and suppress research. But it actually should come as no surprise that consumers want to protect the ability to make informed decisions about the food they eat. The scientific community should support them. scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
I have absolutely no problem with the GMO foods. My problem with it (completely separate to anything mentioned in this article and rightly so since it’s about the science) mostly comes from the unethical business senses that can force their product to be bought and purchased each year ad infinitum because of patents they can put on these modifications…. Which could, as was talked about in this article, be modifications that eventually take place anyway through selective breeding or random chance.
I’m glad to see you guys remade this article. I was fairly unimpressed with your first article, as that it showed an obvious bias and lack of deeper investigation into the issue. Thank you for remaking this, and including a more objective and open look at the issue. You guys rock for doing this. It shows me that your egos aren’t as important to you as the truth. And that, is something the rest of the scientific community needs to get in touch with. A+ !!! 😀
Hey! I was wondering if you could do a article solely on Heart Disease. It is the number 1 killer in most countries and from a quick Youtube search there doesn’t seem to be any well produced articles on the topic. I think nobody is more qualified to make a Heart Disease Youtube article than yourself, so it would be much appreciated by me and probably a lot of members in the Community too!
Really, in a way, GMO’s are MORE controlled and safer than conventional breeding methods, because harmful mutations will not be selected to insert into the genome, whereas random chance produces harmful mutations the majority of the time. That is, harmful to the organism (in this case a plant) who has the mutation, not necessarily to us, but it still stands: in GMO crops, you CHOOSE the traits to put in. The act of adding or removing genes does not have any significant effect on the organism or organisms that eat them, beyond the effects of the traits that were added or removed. In fact, most organisms have DNA added and removed all the time, by viruses. Now normally the virus turns off the regular DNA and tells the cell to ONLY use the viruses DNA, which makes it produce more viruses, but there are also cases where the virus will just add in it’s DNA without doing anything. This doesn’t affect the cell at all, until those genes are turned on. Again, it’s the traits you add that give the effects, it’s not the act of changing genes that causes an effect.
Genetic modifications of agricultural products has been a massive step forward in solving some of the problems currently occurring, and those that we are likely to face in the future. You could have mentioned Golden Rice which is modified to have more vitamin A which will lead to less deficiency in the developing world. The modifications to be pesticide resistance, specifically “Roundup Ready cotton”, is widely used, but is this only because it is not a food crop? Also, I know that recently within Australia there was a large court case on the loss of a canola farm’s organic certification because GM strains were found in its fields, assumably from a neighbouring property that was growing GM canola. Where do people stand on the classification of GMOs as non-organic? They could potentially lead to less chemicals being used due to disease resistance and yield increases.. I will acknowledge, however, that there is still the potential for unknown, long term negative effects to arise as a result of genetic modification. As with anything, there will always be some level of risk associated, and accepting that risk does not appear something the majority currently is willing to do.
One time I was at the grocery store, and this women had cornered an employee, talking about how it was so hard to make sure her kids at all organic foods with no GMOs. And then she said, “You know, I used to think that the inoculations caused autism, but now I’m thinking it’s the GMOs,” and I had to walk into the next aisle because I just burst out laughing.
Part 1: The first issue i have with this is the topic of GMO’s and herbicides. Altering a plants DNA strain is fine and even altering it to be resistant to herbicides is fine too, but when you spray chemicals on plants that are intended to kill other plants and feed humans, thats where a problem arises. Basically any chemical that isn’t 100% organic will damage the cells in the human body and will potentially cause cancer. Especially from a chemical that is intended to kill living organisms. These large corporations have genetically modified strains of crops to withstand the poisons of the weedkiller but one thing we are missing is the fact that humans aren’t genetically modified to withstand them too, and those poisons are going into our bodies. If you look back throughout history you’ll notice the incline of cancer cases. Since the 1940’s the rate of cancer has almost quadrupled in humans. I believe this is contributed mostly to the large spike in cigarette and tobacco consumption in the 1950’s to the 1980’s but there could be other factors. As the tobacco use declined from the 1980’s, the increase of genetically modified crops rose. Part 2: In the United States corn is the number 1 legal crop. It is used in nearly every food as a sweetener under the name “High Fructose Corn Syrup”. I suppose the reason is because it is cheaper and more easily renewable for this country but nevertheless it is not good for you. Corn is very hard to break down in the human body. If you have ever eaten corn and gone to the bathroom you’ll notice almost solid pieces in your feces.
I have more or a problem with the idea of ‘owning’ a gene sequence, specifically, Monsanto owning their genetically modified soybeans, and then a) being able to tell farmers they cannot seed bank for the next season, and b) sueing farmers who did NOT buy from Monsanto, whose seeds blew into their field and are now growing their crop both without Monsanto’s consent OR the farmer’s desire. I have enough faith in the relative oversight organizations to ensure the food itself is not actively bad for us (not necessarily good either, but not going to kill us.)
The biggest problem I have with GMO food(tm) as it gets more complicated and widespread, isn’t even a health issue. It has now been established that specific genetic modifications to crop seed can be patented and declared the property of the corporation that developed them. This would be fine if they weren’t introducing these genes into sexually reproducing organisms. Once introduced, they become a part of the gene-pool which respects no court order or corporate patent. Monsanto Foods(tm) has already been successfully suing soy farmers in the developing world for supposedly stealing their modified seed from neighboring farms they own. They then seize their land, and force them to grow their food(tm) products or walk away, if they don’t commit suicide that is. There is no way to say for certain that the modified genes must have been stolen. It’s more likely they were introduced via pollination, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Companies like Monsanto already have a frightening amount of control over the world’s food(tm) supply. Now food(tm) itself is being declared to be their property. As always when technology changes regulators are two decades behind the curve, and try to apply old principals of law to entirely new situations. We’re talking about food(tm) and cash crops right now, not to say that isn’t important but what happens when genetic modification becomes more common in animals with a central nervous system? What happens when it eventually progresses to humans(tm)? Is some bio-medical firm going to be able to patent your great grandbabies?
This article really makes me question what all the uproar is about with GMOs. I was surprised to hear that they really have no known health effects on people. Organisms will mutate in the wild anyways, so why is it different in a laboratory setting? I think that people just need to be educated about GMO’s, though some will always express negativity towards it. Overall, GMOs are helping us sustain our population and help with efficiency. I see no downsides to creating organisms that will all around benefit us, while not affecting ones health.
Nice article and your point is an important one, almost any critisism of GM can also be launched at other methods but GM gets a lot of hate. IMHO due to it requiring big companies to make GMOs so it quickly gets linked to any bad practices they do relating to GMOs, sadly those bad practices are not limited to GMOs but sadly due to psychology and people do not see that. Anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements like to target GMOs (like we have seen in India with GM cotton being wrongly linked to farmer suicides). The anti-GM movement has an agenda but they are very good at painting the pro-GM researchers as the ones with the agenda!
I trust the research that GMOs are safe for us to consume. However, I do have my doubts about the corporations behind the GMOs not fully considering the environmental impact of their products, eliminating biodiversity and the creation of biological monopolies is worrying and not in our long-term interests regarding food security. These are fixable problems. Bottom line: I trust the science; I just don’t trust the corporations involved to behave ethically.
Genetically modified food seems like not a bad idea, but as mentioned in the article there has many issues that have occurred from it. As mentioned over 90% of crops has GMOs, this almost all of crops we eat. Some of the issues that have occurred are that we are not eating the healthiest of foods and it’s starting to create health problems. There are two sides of this ethical controversy, one, is that we have been genetically modifying foods for a long time now and it is one of the only way to speed up evolution. Secondly, by using GMOs we are cause more bad effects than we are doing any good. As time goes on, we are starting to see more of the negative effects, which makes this ethical question more prevalent. Should we have genetically modified food? If you analyze this from a Utilitarian’s point of view the answer would be no. Based on the negative effects it has had on society versus the positive effects, it is causing more harm than good. One thing I would like to address is whether or not the farmers are being negligent? We know that modifying our food causes obesity and health problems but we, farmers, continue to do it. These farmers and food distributors are intentionally being negligent by allowing modified food to be distributed to our community. Some people could argue that it is ethical because we are able to modify food to how we want it, large, small, more sweet, more bitter, less sugar, which would help the community because we are giving them what they want, but I disagree because not all people are aware of what they are eating.
While I believe that there are most defiantly negatives associated with GMOs, I prefer to view them as a positive advancement to both the human race and other living organisms. GMOs are useful in agriculture, the food industry, and even in the medical field. Although there are health risks associated, such as allergies, the likelihood that we stop using GMOs anytime soon is slim. At this point, we are very dependent on GMOs, not only plants but also animals and bacteria. The GMOs help us modify crops to provide adequate nutrition for people around the world. GMOs are also useful for modifying genes to weed out diseases and potentially even find cures for diseases in the future. While there are both positive and negative factors that go into the use of GMOs, the chances that GMOs will become eliminated are slim so I prefer to focus on the positives.
Also, since technically all living organisms are genetically modified by natural selection, mutations, etc, I like to refer to what most people call “GMOs” and “GEOs” to let people know what the difference is and that GMOs are naturally occurring. Same way I tell people that “Organic” doesn’t have the meaning they think it does, since there’s a lot of stuff that’s organic that you wouldn’t wanna eat.
I’m not attacking GMOs, but one thing that is commonly forgotten, is when a company changes their crops, typically they’ll put out a patent, which creates a whole mess of problems. These seeds can get anywhere and everywhere, and big companies will use this as a reason to attack smaller, nearby farms. If a single one of these seeds is found in another farm, they’ll use it as an excuse to shut them down. (Source: the documentary Food Inc.)
I think that it is amazing that scientist have the ability today to change DNA directly to get the traits that they want in certain animals or plants. Its an amazing thing, but also not something that I agree with. I was always told that food was the healthiest in its natural state, which doesn’t include adding chemicals and unneeded things to our food. Why add chemicals to our food when there is even a risk of it being harmful to our bodies? A lot of money and time is being spent researching GMO’s, and figuring out on how to make them less harmful. So much of that time and money could be saved if we eliminated GMO’s all together. Yes GMO’s can create bigger, “better” crops, but do the benefits really outweigh the risks? Thousands of people are starving each year, but how much of in increase in crops does GMO’s create? And is there more people getting sick from GMO’s than people benefiting from them? I feel like GMO’s is something to make companies produce more and make more money, but it is just adding to the list of potential harms for public health, and just another thing people need to be conscious of and look for. Maybe in the future, once there is a cure for cancer and all the other debilitating diseases, scientists can then spend the time to learn to modify our food for everyone’s benefit. But for now it seems quite silly.
I feel as though GMOs or genetically modified organisms are not good for us to consume. Yes I understand that pants modify overtime to adjust to their environment, but they do not make adjustments such as being able to with stand pesticides being sprayed on them. In Michigan the Monarch butterfly is becoming endangered because the corn it typically feeds on has been changed so much so that it can no longer eat the corn. The butterfly would help pollinate the corn making to grow stronger. There for naturally the corn would not mutate to make it so Monarch butterflies couldn’t use it. Another problem that has arisen sense the spread of genetically is the amount of allergies. Allergic reactions to all kinds of foods are popping up everywhere. 40 years a child telling you they can’t eat carrots because they are allergic to them would have been taken as a joke and just a way out of eating their vegetables. I personally am allergic to carrots, it didn’t start from birth but actually showed up in middle school when I was at a friends party eating a carrot when next thing I knew my voice was getting very high and I was beginning to have a hard time breathing. Some scientists have said that these allergies are appearing due to genetically modified organisms. They say that not that the DNA of the organism is different our body isn’t registering it. The body thinks this foreign DNA is an intruder and begins the allergic reaction to try its best to fight it off. It has also been shown that the genetically modified foods don’t produce the same nutrition.
The ONLY thing I can agree with, when it comes to the anti-gmo group, is that currently the law hasn’t caught up with the technology. Patenting ‘life’ is in my eyes not a very smart thing to do, BUT the technology itself is still expensive, making it ludicrous to invest in R&D of new crops, if you cannot patent it. Quite frankly, I don’t have an answer to that. All other points that get raised by the anti-gmo group fall into the categories ‘stupid’ and ‘hillarious’.
This has probably been said but…patenting genes, and patenting life, is one of my main concerns about GMOs. I recognize that they generally aren’t harmful to human health, although one does wonder about the role of a suddenly-introduced, “new species” which has been modified faster than through the usual processes of breeding, in an existing ecosystem.
I think you should have go more indepth about the allergy argument. I am deathly allergic to soy. Their is a protein in soy that is a great natural pesticide, so of course scientists found a way to get other plants to produce that protein to get the pesticide properties. Turns out, that is the protein in soy that causes me to have an allergic reaction. So when I eat GMO fruits that have been modified with the protein, I have a wonderful allergic reaction. This is despite the fact that allergy panel after allergy panel told me I was not allergic to these fruits. At least now we know why.
I have no problem at all with genetically modifying food. In fact, I think it’s an amazing advance in technology and has the potential to do tons of good. The issues I have with GMOs are everything that surrounds them and the corporations that develop them. Patenting genes, making crops sterile so farmers constantly have to buy new seed, and not labelling products containing GMOs so that consumer can make their own choices are all unethical practices, and this industry needs regulation.
The problem I have with GMO is that it’s a make work program for patent lawyers and litigation. Plant a GMO crop and its pollen strays into a neighbor’s field and starts taking root. Then send in a legal team to sue them for growing “unlicensed” crops. GMO is a strong-arm lever to put people out of business who can’t defend themselves from corporate legal teams for simply being down-wind.
One piece of additional information to consider at some point: denverpost.com/ci_23561024/genetically-modified-wheat-seed-was-stored-at-fort It looks like the stuff found growing in Oregon was supposed to have been in secure storage in Colorado and subsequently destroyed. Foul play is being considered in this case.
The problem with GMOs are that they can be patented by Monsato for example. That means that farmers need to always buy seeds annually from them and also the pesticides (which aggravate soil erosion and infiltrate in the groundwater). The pesticides are petrol based which is a falling industry so it’s not sustainable. Also the GMOs can multiply out of their bounds leading to farmers that don’t grow them that are sued for growing them without a permit (even though they weren’t growing them in first place). In Brazil there is a big problem with the GMOs because the rainforest is being cut, planted with GMOs, sprayed, and after 2-3 years the soil hasn’t the same fertility anymore, so they hop to the next field. The soil that they leave behind needs to be burned every year because the tropical weeds are very ferocious and animals cannot graze it. Again not sustainable!
Sir David King, former UK government chief scientist: ‘GM is a complex technology, not a homogeneous technology. It has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.’ GM crops(plants) are just one of the three main genetically modified organisms the other two being bacteria and animals I.m surprised this article didn’t mention them.
My main irritation with GMOs as they are is that the companies developing them seem so heavily focused on building better pesticide-resistant strains so they can stay barely one step ahead of the pests and blights inevitable to any monoculture plant ecosystem. We could be doing so much more with them, including experiments with multi-crop plantings of GMO plants designed to amplify their pre-existing benefits (like modifying corns, beans, and squash so that they amplify the benefits they provide to each other when planted together). But yeah, the idea that they’re somehow dangerous is nonsense. I’d say it’s more a consequence of people being so well-fed and fed so cheaply in rich countries that new agricultural technologies don’t have as obvious benefits as earlier agricultural improvements back when the cost of food was a huge part of your average family’s budget.
As far as I’m concerned, GMO’s have no minuses apart from the ownership of that GMO. That one company, (we’ll call it monsanto for the sake of argument), insists that crops grown using their particular GMO is their property and must be paid for. Cross-fertilisation has no effect on this company’s claim; and any ‘benefits’ must therefore become the property of that company. So some companies modify plants not for the benefits of man but for that company’s bottom line or influence (or both)
I agree with the modifications you’ve discussed in this article, also, I understand that generic changes occur naturally, BUT, I do not think that modifying the seed to have the pesticides and herbicides inside them is a good thing,,, To have a crop equipped with round-up growing Inside it cannot be healthy for human consumption,
I have been torn about the GMO issues since I first learned about it. There is no argument they have increased the capacity and efficiency of agriculture. However, the most concerning argument I have heard is that there is a lack of long-term GMO studies. There is a lot of articles on the internet (sources may be questionable) That suggest long-term studies on mice and livestock have identified significant impacts. Any comment?
I largely agree and would even go as far as saying that with the growth of the world population, it would be impossible to feed everyone without GMO. I do however believe people have a right to know what they eat and so labeling is important in making that choice, especially in a free nation. I also don’t much care for the how companies like Monsanto do business. They bully farmers, drive prices up and are attempting to create a monopoly over every crop in america. I think there is some smart legislation that could be passed to curb that behavior.
Yeah, I can’t say I’ve ever been particularly worried about the health effects of GMOs (that argument always seemed to employ spurrious logic if you ask me), but I am concerned about what companies like ConAg and Monsanto are doing to our seeds and farmers. They bully and extort farmers by waving around their “patents” and sicking their vast legal teams on them until the farmers have no choice but to obey these massive companies (even if they have never bought seed from them). I understand the idea behind GMO patents, but I think it’s gotten terribly out of hand and someone needs to put a stop to this travesty immediately. Farmers shouldn’t be forced to buy seed from Monsanto or go bankrupt. That’s amoral, no matter how much R & D went into their products. That’s my problem with GMOs, but I suspect that it’s far beyond the perview of Healthcare Triage.
I absolutely agree that GMOs in itself are no danger to health. But the way they are used is. They are not produced to reduce the amount of pesticides used, but they are used to increase this amount, just because the GMO producing firms like Monsanto want to sell their pesticides in package deals together with the GMOs. And increased use of pesticides can be negative for peoples health, but even more for the environment where it kills a number of animals.
This question is not about GMO but in this article the topic of herbicides was brought up. A lot of people I know think that there are residual herbicides and pesticides in the skins of fruits or vegetables and that you must always peel them. Friends and family have a heart attack if I just eat an apple without peeling it, or black grapes, or cucumbers, or what ever. Is there any truth to this?
Quoting this article itself ’25’ years is not an average human lifespan and I think its not a representative sample of what could actually be happening in the long term . That aside I think that there is bigger controversy not so much as in the effects on humans but as to the unethical financial practices that arise from said GMO companies on farmers and related groups with seed monopolies or in certain cases being able to sue a farmer if they have a strain of GMO without having purchased said GMO crops. Also as the article pointed out there is huge conflict of interest and knowing corporate american politics it is likely that GMO companies can find themselves lobbying to pass laws which further allow for more aggressive and unethical financial practices .
What about the effects on the economy? My biology teacher showed us a clip of farmers talking about how companies can patent their new soybeans/genes and with the old soybeans the farmers would be able to collect the seeds and plant them again the next year but with the patented GMOs they weren’t allowed to do that and had to buy them again every year which is very expensive and farmers who were growing non-GMOs would sometimes get contaminated with GMO seeds because the wind would blow the seeds etc. and then inspectors would come and they would get sued and that’s pretty awful. So one company has a huge monopoly over the soybean industry for example (not saying this is entirely true it’s just an idea) and can control the whole crop.
Like he mentioned in the article, genes change all the time on their own! ‘GMOs’ are not a dangerous issue. I just wish that people would do their own research using credible sources instead of finding a fake news website to determine their stance. I personally have the best intentions for what I put into my body, and I see nothing wrong with GMOs. How are GMOs worse than processed foods? Processed foods are enriched, pumped with sugar, filled with preservatives to increase shelf life, and they are some of the worst things that you could eat. GMOs are just genetically altered to grow in certain conditions, withstand certain pesticides, and even create more nutritious foods for other countries. I recently heard about golden rice. It is genetically modified rice that also contains beta-carotene in order to get vitamin A to people who are deficient. This vitamin is mostly associated with eyesight, but without it, many young children die in countries all over the world. Since rice is a staple food in many poorer countries, it made sense to add beta-carotene and give people the vitamin that they are in desperate need of. Let me remind you, this was genetically modified to include the vitamin A! Someone please explain to me why this is such a bad idea? I understand people’s concerns about who is initiating the modification, but in reality no one’s trying to hurt anyone in the process. There’s no need for conspiracy theories or anything of the sort.
At first glance the thought of using or consuming something that has been genetically modified raises a lot of red flags. Why should something that has been used in one way for so long all of sudden need to be altered? It seems slightly off-putting for certain things. However, I do not think that they are as bad as some people think. As mentioned in the article gene alteration is a naturally occurring process that scientists have just sped up. The food is not as harmful as people believe because almost everyone consumes food that has been touched by GMOs at some point, and there has not been an outstanding number of bad side effects. I’m sure there are some risks for certain things, but I believe that as long as the gene modification stays moderately in check and doesn’t get out of hand GMOs are not as bad as people make them out to be.
I have absolutely no problems with GMOs themselves, but the way the patent laws concerning them are set up is terrible, and the fact that they reinforce the planting of giant, pesticide-dependent monocultures is also a problem. As soon as we can find a way to handle the negative effects that GMOs have on people and the environment, I’m all for them.
What bothers me, is the fact that people often consume and are grateful for genetically engineered organisms and then freak out about crops. Where do you think insulin comes from? genetically engineered pigs. The same is true for a massive number of life sustaining and often used medications. Did you know that broccoli is entired man made? It can’t even grow without direct intervention. Strawberries are supposed to look like this: farm2.staticflickr.com/1229/614715072_54292b2a28.jpg be grateful for the advancement of science.
I think people making arguments about the economics of GMOs are kind of missing the point. This is _health_care triage. And while GMOs can certainly have detrimental economic effects, I don’t think it’s out of line for this article to focus on the health effects and biological nature of GMOs. That’s the topic of the website.
What about the engineering of plants that don’t express seeds, thus creating plants that do not produce future generations? This is of course done so farmers are forced by the lack of seeds, not merely contractual rules, to go back to the company for new seed stock year after year. What about the possibility of such genetic modifications becoming dominant, leading to some species no longer existing in nature, and the possibility of these genes jumping species to eradicate other plants?
I’m not against GMOs because of the health reasons, but I am completely against almost all of the nonsense intellectual property rights issues surrounding them and the ridiculous lawsuits that hurt farmers. Getting sued because your neighbor’s seed blew in your yard? Having to buy seed every single year because they’ve been modified in just such a way to extort farmers? That’s a joke and I will gladly stay away from them for those reasons. However, I loved your arguments in the last article that no one should be told NOT to eat fruits and vegetables; it is still healthier no matter what to eat GMO or non-GMO, organic, non-organic, whatever, than it is to eat processed junk.
I kind of see gmos forming a simular risk as invasive species in a way that normal genetic mutation doesnt. Kudzu was imported to the U.S. and it causes problems with ecosystems. If a scientist were to genetically modify a plant into something similar to kudzu it would cause the same issue. However if a plant evolved naturally into something like kudzu it shouldnt cause issues because other organisms would simultaneously evolve to counter it.
I think you would agree that drinking herbacides is a bad thing. High Yield herbacides have been found in underground drinking water in several places in Texas. Gmo crops promoting this practice is dangerous. Safety is a practice that does not make any money in business and is the first to get neglected. Organic is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.
I think GMOs are the future because that’s what we need to provide food for all. But also, switching from so much meat to more veggies is going to be much more healthy despite whatever effect GMOs may or may not have. The benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables are already known and out there. There are many things that can kill us far easier than GMOs which we don’t actively prevent. We freak out over GMOs but we drive like morons. etc. If we’re going to scale our paranoia based upon the dangers of something based upon statistical data, GMOs are not in the top 10.
My issue with GMOs is that they’re typically strains owned by large companies which have lobbied so that the burden of proof is on the farmser’s side. A farmer who does not buy seed from them has to prove that the stray seeds which have appeared on his land was not planted intentionally, since it is also illegal to re-plant these strains instead of buying new ones every year. A “copyright” on a type of life. Hopefully we’ll have that entirely removed before human genetic modification begins.
Lets be real here guys, in the world we live in today, is there anything that humans haven’t tried to modify for the better of human kind? We have even made a knew type of fat (trans) just for a better texture and taste. What farmers are doing here though is a great idea. It will makes for a safer tastier consumption. And no one can say that they GMOs cause a threat because there is no research to prove this. Like the article states, plants can naturally modify on their own. Just like humans and animals, plants also evolve. One more thing, every year more and more people are born and in the future we are not going to have enough food to feed everyone. So in the future we are going to have to use this method to make sure that all the humans will have a good food source and we don’t all starve and die.
As stated in an earlier comment, this topic is controversial so no matter which side is taken there is bound to be some backlash. I particularly don’t agree with this article. It does not seem right to me that there can be a manipulation of the organisms in our food to make them turn out differently. I always thought that things that come from the ground were healthy and not messed with including all the chemicals and artificial crap that gets put into processed foods. After perusal this article it is clear to me that I cannot trust what comes out of the ground because farmers are manipulating it to make it a specific way. A good example of this is purple cauliflower, how is it possible for cauliflower that is originally white, to be purple? I don’t care that the article and research shows that it is not harmful, food was made a certain way for a reason and I believe that it shouldn’t be messed with. There is already so much processed food every where we go including grocery stores and fast food restaurants, we don’t need any more modified food in our bodies. Scientists can already do so many things that they never used to do before so instead of investing time into making new GMO’s, they should put their time into something useful that we need, like a cure for cancer.
In regards to health I don’t have much of an opinion on GMO’s however I am concerned about the potential economic and environment consequences of GMOs. Most supporters of GMO appear to proclaim that GMO technology is increasing agriculture yields that may feed the world an eliminate poverty. However the world already produces 120% of the food required to feed the world (FAO), yet we still have over 800 million food insecure people (WHO). There is no problem with production there is a problem with distribution. Additionally I feel the patenting of living organisms as intellectual property is concerning. Considering many of the organisms being patented were originally selected and breed by farmers for generations, the fact that GMO technology can warrant a patent is absurd. Owning essential resources is grossly unfair and ensures an uneven power balance between consumers and producers that allows exploitation.
The problem with agriculture in the U.S. is much larger than GMO’s. We try to grow the same crops in the same fields all year round. This does not happen in nature, therefore there is additional effort to maintain because nature always follows the most probable and most energetically favorable outcome. It is an unstable equilibrium. We are completeley reliant on just a few monocultures, which we fiercely maintain with mountains of herbicides and pesticides to maintain a high level of production. Practices that are sustainable such as crop rotation or delegation of certain fields to herbicides and certain ones to traditional farming are not enforced. The Incans in some areas practically lived off of potatos just like the irish. The incans flourished because they maintained a huge variety of potatos that flourished in different seasons and climates and under different pressures from organisms, a huge resevoir of biodiversity to combat any issue. The Irish had ONE variety. It got blighted, they were screwed. To maintain the health of our singular varieties of potatos of corn and soybeans and wheat and prevent such a failure, we have to spend a large amount of energy and resources. That’s fine for now. What about when the midwestern water sources dry up? What about when all the land is ruined by constant use? What about when the pests are resistant to the pesticides, when our monocultures fail? Well if they weren’t monocultures it wouldn’t matter. If the vast majority of a certain crop wasn’t dominated by one species it wouldn’t be a problem that one species is no longer viable.
The most compelling arguments against GMOs I’ve heard is the one that in the greed driven world having the right to every plant grown that way is something that shouldn’t exist. Just like if the WHO cries WOLF and pandemic on some influenza that pops up (swine flue I’m looking at you) and then the companies that have something for it are allowed to ask for money. If it’s about the survival of whole parts of humanity then there is NO money to be made. Same goes for GMOs. If you can make them so well, then it should be mandatory to give them to humanity instead of making endless money. State funding please.
I have no hypothetical issue with GMOs. The crops are great. What I don’t like are the humans in the equation. People aren’t allowed to patent life, oh except GMOs. The US supreme court ruled against it in medicine, but farmers are up shit creak if they have a certain patented strain in their field. It’s a dangerous precedent and I was very disappointed by the ruling. Also, regarding many of the comments, I don’t think the whole mono-culture debate should be involved in this debate because farmers have been planting swaths of cash crops before Monsanto ever came along.
I personally don’t believe that we should use GMO’s. one of the reasons is that we are messing with the DNA of plants and such which we shouldn’t do because there can be consequences. I also think that GMOs can be dangers because they could create new allergies for people that may of not been in the plant before they decided to modify it. We just shouldn’t mess with DNA.
I’m not getting into the sticky wicket that is GMOs, but you seemed to allude to the idea that all genetic mutations are positive from an evolutionary stand point. I’d just like to point out that sickle cell anemia is a mutation brought about through the survivors of malaria. Mother Nature doesn’t get it right all the time and we can’t expect man to get right either.
One aspect I find important with GMOs is the process of their patenting. One company, though using scientific methods of propagation available to any able person in their field, has the ability to patent different modifications of crops. I don’t find much wrong with out actual modification of plant species, but when that reality comes in play with capitalism and the economic engine, I don’t think there’s enough gravity given. I’ve heard cases of farmers being bankrupt and indebted for life because a crop that by nature pollinates happened to pollinate their crops, but the first crop was a patent of a corporation they didn’t have permission from. We didn’t create the plants we use, we didn’t create ourselves or any matter truly, but we did create the systems we use to govern them. I’m not as concerned with the effects of GMOs on people nutritionally or related to disease because I think most of the concern is pseudoscience. I am concerned about how the processes we figure out to govern them with seem to be giving more opportunity to oppress some people at the hands of larger powers. Granted, this aspect of GMOs isn’t as health care related.
A major problem with the discussion around the health of GM is that people generalise too much. GM varies in species, biological effect, and desired outcome hugely. You could theoretically genetically engineer wheat to contain cyanide…would that mean that all the other types of GM are dangerous? Of course not, those scientists would just be crazy. Each GM crop should be considered and trailed in isolation, using a similar testing procedures to drugs.
Thank you for this article; I showed my mom, who’s been staunchly anti-gmo for years despite my arguments that they’re not harmful and are necessary in the face of climate change, and she said she changed her views on the matter, and was incredibly grateful to have a woman creating educational articles for the STEM field. Keep it up, you make great content <3 I know this article is older, but I’ve watched your recent stuff too.