Analysis of Article No, You Shouldn’t Fear GMO Corn by Jon Entine

The article “Not in my fridge” by Jeffery M. Smith elaborately discussed the health hazards of genetically modified (GM) products. This article has opened my eyes and revealed my ignorance of how unmindful of what I have eaten for years. I was very alarmed by many of the things I have learned in this article. After learning the side-effect of GM food, I was certainly concerned for our health. Moreover, learning that the biotech company’s strong stand in advocate of GM products as well as the United States governments and the Food and Drug administration (FDA) cover up of serious safety issues of GM highly disturbed me.

Not long ago a leading scientific journal called Nature, noted that the health minded are surrounded with advice pertaining to genetically modified crops. But they also noted that a lot of that information is false, on either side of the argument.

The human body is not designed to handle all the toxins that are put into GMO products, and as consumers, we should be informed of the potential harm we are putting into our bodies. Helke Ferrie, in his article “Evidence Grows of Harmful Effects of GMOs on Human Health” states, “…all modern human diseases are being caused by environmental toxins of our own making” (12), on the contrary, in the journal “GMOs – A solution or a Problem”, Mark Lynas claims that “… there has never been a single sustained health concern [caused by GMOs]” (132). Ferrie mentions multiple studies where GMOs have proven to “…increase the incidence of cancer, diabetes, hormone disruption, neurological, immunological and other metabolic disorders” (12). After mass amounts of research have been conducted to prove the dangers of GMOs, proof that has been gathered of the detriments genetically modified organisms bring to the human liver; researchers conclude, “… anything that upsets the liver must be… exceedingly

While the agricultural world is working hard to make positive influences on more efficient farming, individuals have treated GMO’s as a negative alteration in their produce. Farmers and researchers in the agricultural world claim no harm can be done by them. GMO’s have not yet been proven to be harmful to humans and have, in fac,t had a positive impact on the food industry today.

Gmos can cause very irrevocably damage towards the environment. And they cause a huge risk of food-based allergies towards the humans. Gmos are also not fully tested to be eaten. The pollen spreads the pharmaceutical genes into the gmo foods supply. They have a lack of consumers due to the creation of ethical dilemma. There is a toxin that fights pest is the caused of the allergies to start. But, gmos affect the younger kids more quicker than older people. The AAEM suggest non-gmos diet for every patient.

These concerns are about the potential of illnesses GMOs could cause. An article observes, “In the 20-plus years on the market, GMOs have not caused or contributed to a single illness or death” (“GMO Myths Vs. Facts”). There have not been any traces of illnesses after multiple testing of GMO products. Since there are only ten commercially farmed genetically modified crops in the United States, the possibility of people getting a disease from them is rare; especially because three of the crops are mainly for feeding livestock. People have believed multiple problems are linked to GMOs. For instance, “in 2013, the journal food and chemical toxicology retracted a paper linked to herbicide roundup and round up-tolerant GM corn to cancer and premature death in rats… they found researchers had used too few rats… and the results were inconclusive” (Colbert, par. 16). Since the researchers did not have enough evidence, the possibility of the problem being GMOs are

In December 2014, a Harvard professor wrote an article outlining the many benefits of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and why it is a good idea to use them. This professor is now surrounded by controversy because he failed to note his connection to the largest producer of GM seeds, Monsanto, who not only told him to write the article but also gave him the major points he was to address. Why was this such a huge deal, and why did Monsanto want a pro-GMO article out there so badly? The GMO debate is largely controversial, but largely misunderstood because of the misinformation given by biased writers, such as John Hibma, a nutritionist and author who wrote the article “More Pros Than Cons.” What many people do not realize is that genetic modification is a serious issue and that articles like Hibma’s fail to disclose the truth about the numerous health, crop, and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs.

There are multitudinous studies that prove biotech companies are developing genetically modified foods to prohibit allergies to mainly gluten. First and foremost, as claimed by Chen Zhang, “GMO is defined as follows by WHO (World Health Organization): “organisms (i.e plants, animals, or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”” (Zhang). It is evident Chen Zhang stems the fact that genetic material is being manipulated from selective breeding, also known as artificial selection. Several people are allergic to gluten, and gluten is made up of rye and barley. Also, it is a main ingredient in wheat. As a compromise, biotech companies have developed gluten-free wheat. As the world-famous scholar Janet Renee explains it, “...biotech companies have received approval to develop gluten-free wheat” (Renee). There have been obvious solutions for the allergy related concerns for GM foods. However, there has been increase in specific allergies, and there has not been any solution to those specific allergens. For example, ¨Of those, only soy is commercially available in genetically modified varieties. But if a person is allergic to conventional soy, s/he will also be allergic to GM soy as it is not different compositionally” (Lim). Later on it also states, The

“In a sweeping 400-page report, the country’s top scientific group found there was not evidence to support claims that genetically modified organisms are dangerous for either the environment or human health” (Heikkinen, 2016). Even Europe, a country that does not use this technology has proven that GMOs are a safe food source. “There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment” (Paarlberg, 2010). The biggest argument against GMOs would be that they are not safe to humans or the environment, but there has not yet been any documented evidence that approved GMOs have brought on new risks either to humans, animals or the environment (Paarlberg, 2010). Along with being scientifically proven numerous times to be a safe food source, there is also no confirmation that GMOs pose any risk to humans, animals, or the environment. “The central issue with GM crops is that because there are no concrete adverse effects for people to quantify, they can only focus on theoretical and largely unquantifiable ones” (Buiatti, Christou, & Pastore, 2013). Hundreds of experts have all concluded that GMOs have not presented any new risks to humans. “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris organized a conference with 400 expert

Theresa Phillips said “potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified food, as well as

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

This article shows why Thierry Vrain, a former pro GMO scientist, switched his position on GMO’s. He stated that all the studies on GMO safety that were done in the U.S. and Canada were done on environmental safety and productivity, and were paid for by pro GMO companies such as Monsanto. Because GMOs are good for productivity and safe for the environment, they were deemed safe for humans as well. Nowadays, there are biotechnical, insecticidal crops everywhere, and not one study in the U.S. or Canada done to prove their safety. However, studies were done on rats in Europe and Russia, which proved that GMOs create new, toxic proteins in their consumers resulting in premature death. These studies show that proteins produced by GMO insertions

Sustenance Allergy affects around 5% of youngsters and 2% of grown-ups in the U.S. in addition is a central general wellbeing danger(Walker). Amazingly delicate responses in people happen when an often safe protein enters the body and enables an immune reaction. In the event that the novel protein in a GM sustenance starts from a source that is known to cause hypersensitivities in people or a source that has never been consumed up as human nourishment, the anxiety that the protein could draw out a resistant reaction in people increments. Yet no amazingly unstable responses to GM sustenance by buyers have been authenticated, in vitro confirmation recommending that some GM things could achieve an unfavorably powerless response has prompted biotechnology relationship to stop their movement and ought to keep doing that because of the current attestation.

While the allergenicity of known allergenic sources can be easily predicted, genetic engineering involves inserting genes from other unknown sources, whose allergenicity is unknown. In the process, genes from allergenic sources may get transferred into non-allergenic foods. Consumers consuming these allergenic genes without having any prior knowledge of their presence in the foods, put themselves in great danger of chronic allergic reaction. Two cases demonstrate that such concerns have already been proved. In the 1990s, a line of GE soybeans was engineered using certain proteins from Brazil nuts, which resulted the soybeans to have enhanced nutritional content.() But a study in 1996 found that people with common nut allergies were significantly affected when they consumed the GE soybeans.() Likewise, a group of Australian scientists developed GE peas with a protein found in green bean which protects the plants from beetles.() Prior to market release, the peas were tested on mice. The research found out that the altered protein produced allergic reactions in those mice, and alarmingly caused the mice to become susceptible to other allergens as well.() While the Brazil nut protein expressed in the GE soybeans was a known allergen, the green bean protein expressed in the GE peas had no history of allergenicity. These two cases show exactly how uncertain allergenicity GM foods might have on humans. As more and more varieties of proteins are being

Much of the public concern surrounding the safety of GMOs stems from the process of actually creating them. This is admittedly not a natural process, which is a surefire way to raise critic’s eyebrows in doubting their safety. However, there is no evidence that supports these myths. The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academy of Science, and the Board on Agriculture and Natural Recourses all agree after extensive testing and observation that there is no additional harm in the consumption of GMO food. The research conducted in animal studies, as well as chemical analysis of the crops, show no indication that GMOs are negatively affecting human health. The next allegation hurled at GMOs is that they may have