Genetically modified food has been a major controversy in recent years. Despite strong scientific consensus for the safety of genetic modification, many people still oppose GMOs, mainly due to utterly ridiculous arguments like "natural = good". We've been genetically modifying food for ten thousand years through selective breeding, direct genetic modification is simply a faster more direct way to achieve the same goals. Anyway, here is the evidence: http://goldenrice.org/PDFs/Opportunity_squandered_Miller_TIBTEC_2009.pdf http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19079913/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430566 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926437 http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/ http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/mcgloughlin.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22967571 http://www.nationofchange.org/dr-oz...foods-they-re-same-non-gmo-organic-1354555215 http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...lergies_don_t_believe_elle_s_scary_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/s...-by-altering-its-dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977 http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...on-proof-that-gm-is-good-for-the-environment/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019 http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801324 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450390512331342368 http://europepmc.org/abstract/AGR/IND44014656 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478951 http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Snell_2012.pdf http://www.aspajournal.it/index.php/ijas/article/viewFile/ijas.2004.107/185 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sowing-a-gene-revolution So, what do you think? Is the evidence compelling in favor of the safety of GM food? Or am I just a dishonest shill for Monsanto and Big Pharma?
Who financed this "evidence" ? I have worked for the V.A. where pharmaceutical studies were conducted financed by the company seeking to achieve approval for their new medicine. I have witness how researchers who are NOT independent from the financial source alter data. Really. If a new "food" is produced the old fashion way, by cross breeding and hybridizing I have no problem. To take a genome from outside the "bio-realm" of my food and place it in my food is problematic. 1) What if some people are sensitive to that "worm poison" now produced by the corn. 2) What of the accumulation effect of adding corn with worm poison to the diet over 80 years ? Or consuming the chicken, pork, beef, raised with such corn + worm poison. 3) Once created, the genomes cannot be "contained". Pollen has escaped and spread. And we can never "weed it out" of our food supply. Feeding hormones and antibiotics can be stopped. Frankenfoods are with us forever. In the case of Salmon, a threat to native species. And they have escaped. Frankenfoods cannot be contained. They should be stopped from further research and production. Moi
Nature has a very pragmatic approach to "genetic engineering". Only very small variations are introduced and over very long time a new "balance" is established which includes genetic variants of other species counter balancing the advantage of another. Genetical modified plants override Millions of years of evolution with no "balance" ever to be established. That only can lead to total failure of the system.
I've clicked on a few of these and they didn't claim GMO food was safe in the long term. Can you please narrow it down? Which study do you think concludes there are no long term health risks from these foods?
My understanding is that most GM foods are modified to increase crop yields. Long term health risks of consuming them will require long term exposure to them, but this ignores the real problem here - too many people. Humans are breeding like bacteria, overrunning every ecosystem on the planet, trashing the oceans, draining the aquifers, deforesting as fast as slash-and-burn agriculture can advance. And STILL billions of people around the world are going hungry. GM crops today are no longer an option, they are a necessity because the alternative is truly mass starvation. Eating a GM food beats not eating. Unfortunately, the more successful the GM crops are, the more people get fed, and as soon as they eat, they breed. We're only postponing the implosion, and making it worse when it comes. Let's all hope someone invents a GM crop that's tasty, nutritious, and can be irrigated with salt water.
While I don't have a particular problem with crop manipulation I do admit to getting a bit worried about some of the stuff like the Salmon that grow to full size in days or months or whatever it was, basically a much shorter time frame than normal. If they ever get loose and through some fluke manage to breed in the oceans that could be absolutely devastating. I do get a giggle out of some people basically complaining out of their ass and their mouth at the same time. On one hand they complain that farmers in the third world need to buy new seed from companies like Monsanto every year instead of just using seeds left over from the previous year. And then they complain about what would happen if those crops every became self reproductive and took over the savannahs and grasslands. Pick one or the other to complain about they are by definition mutually exclusive.
I don't understand how GM food could hurt us, it's genetics not chemicals right and we are omnivores we can eat almost anything... my only concern is it having an effect on bees?...I read an article commenting on a study that indicated it may be hurting bees and other insects, insects aren't high on most peoples priorities to save from extinction but they are essential to our survival...it was only one study but something to look into...
Millions of years? Look how much potatoes have changed in the past few centuries. Are two centuries really that different from the time it takes to genetically modify food in a lab compared to millions of years, as you claim?
1. You see the endpoint of a genetic development which lead to a plant "potato". If the potato would not have had any natural "enemies" like potato bugs or human beings eating them or if genetic engineering would make it resistant to natural enemies and more resistant to climate conditons we would have potatoes growing everywhere today. One good example of an eco system being "taken by surprise" not having had the time to develop is the rabbit in Australia. The Wikipedia article about rabbits in Australia starts: Rabbits in Australia are a serious mammalian pest and invasive species and cause millions of dollars of damage to crops. Rabbits were introduced to Australia in the 18th century with the First Fleet and became widespread after an outbreak caused by an 1859 release. Various methods in the 20th century have been attempted to control the population. Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but these had only limited success. In 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits. The myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population. Here you see that humans do everything to contain a "mammalian pest" which has no other reason rabbits in Australia having no natural enemies or being resistant to natural enemies. The introduction of a virus causing a certain cancer in rabbits was then introduced to control the pest. However rabbits are part of the human food chain and from AIDS and avarian flues it is known that virus affecting animals have the ability to change their own genetic code then affecting humans. Genetic engineering of crops bears the risk that a domestic eco balance is brought out of control, the engineered organism overgrowing the domestic eco system. All control measures then have own inherent risks which are unpredictable today. Just imagine a plant being poinsonous or developing an own mechanism to be poisonous after being brought out would overgrow domestic plants and could not be controlled. The result would be the extermination of mankind. Last but not least bringing out such an organism destroying domestic agriculture is a cheap alternative for future terrorist attacks as soon as the technology is available to everyone.
