Are Gmos Won 't Harm Anyone?

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

GMO products are made just like Frankenstein. Frankenstein was created in a laboratory from different DNA unnatural from its own. But unlike Frankenstein who was ugly on the outside and initially beautiful on the inside, a GMO tomato for example, is a big plump, juicy, red, beautiful tomato on the outside but has harmful effects on the inside. In today’s society, our local grocery stores are filled with GMO products. Most consumers are uneducated about GMO and unaware of what is being purchased because there are no laws of mandatory GMO labeling. According to The Non-GMO Project, “In North America, over 80% of our food contains GMOs.” GMO foods

While these are valid concerns, they are entirely wrong. According to the World Health Organization in 2005, “GM foods currently traded on the international market have passed risk assessments in several countries and are not likely to present risks for human health” (Novella). Many of those who are anti-GMO claim that GMOs are not safe because they do not know enough about them or they have heard far too many conflicting reports. While there are many reports that claim that GMOs are detrimental to the environment, the three agencies that oversee GM crops, the FDA, USDA, and EDA, have ruled that these crops do not pose any real threat. Since the beginning of the GM crop in 1996, there have been 2,497 approvals of the safety of GMOs in the environment and 1,129 of these approvals have been for the food safety of the products (Monsanto). This further disproves the claim that GMOs are unsafe for humans and the environment and reassures that there is no risk involved in either the consumption or the planting of GM

“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

Today, people are wanting to become more aware of what they’re eating. Studies show that nine out of ten American consumers want to know if their food is a GMO. This supports a law in North Carolina that bans all unlabeled GMOs. This law was not favored in the Congress as this new law “compromises the economy”. Even then, companies are determined to hide the facts.

GMO technology has made it easier for the farmers to spray their crop and watch it grow without having to go through any trouble. They say they use GMOs to produce more to feed the world, yet studies have shown that we have enough food to feed the world twice! So why go through all the trouble? Filmmaker Jeremy went to GMO companies asking one question: are there products safe? His main target was Monsanto, yet they avoided any questions and asked him to leave the premises, leaving Jeremy with high suspicions. The “Who can label Frankenfood?” article states that “For now, the FDA has determined that genetically modified ingredients don't require special labeling, but it has reserved the right to reverse course on that,” (Los Angeles Times). The items we eat daily could have been made by genetic engineering, but there is no

Some consumers do not agree with GMOs. In fact, about seven out of ten people say they do not want consume GMOs. But there are others that just do not care. GMOs make up 80% of all packaged foods. (Doering, 2014). Tests have been done to mice to see the effects of genetically modified corn. The results were that the mice grew tumors. (Adams, 2012). Imagine what they could be doing in human bodies. Why do we use GMOs when tests have been done that show they are harmful? “Safety assessments are mandatory for GMOs in other major developing countries including China, Japan, and the countries of the European Union.” (Rock 2014). The bad things are GM products are creating problems every day. Scientists have proven they cause harmful effects. And people are trying to outlaw GM products. Hundreds of millions of people consume GMOs. (Adams 2012). Many products labeled “natural” still may contain them. (Rock 2014). What is good is that “more farmers are rejecting GMOs, and more consumers are demanding non-GMO foods.” (Cummins 2014). And money has been spent on ballot initiatives to force companies to have to put labels on products to inform the people what they are eating. (Doering

"The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques," according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Lallanilla). If all of these organizations feel that these products are just as safe as “organic” products, then that mean something. The fear of genetically modified organisms seems to be more emotional than factual. More of our natural resources are being saved due to the use of GM technology. More recently, the FDA has approved potatoes that are genetically modified to not bruise and apples that do not brown. These apples were created by decreasing the amount of the enzyme in them that causes them to brown or bruise. Tomatoes have been created antifreeze genes from coldwater fish that cause the tomatoes to resist frost and freezing temperatures (Lallanilla). Tomato prices can skyrocket in the winter months when the production of tomatoes is limited to only certain areas of the world. If these tomatoes were approved, these prices would go down and we would not have to worry about the lack of

Are genetically modified organisms safe to consume? Do they offer a better solution to feeding the world’s poorest countries? Do they have a higher yield rate than traditional methods of agriculture? There’s a gamut of opposing views when it comes to GMO’s and their benefits/risks. In all honesty the average civilian wouldn’t know the difference between a genetically modified tomato and a traditionally grown tomato. So why the big fuss? The issue is: are the consumers really in the know on how GMO corporations run? The GMO industry is like the tobacco industry (in the past). Everyone would be smoking and these tycoons could cared less about the consumer. Now we see ads on how smoking can lead to several different types of cancers and dysfunctions within the body. But once upon a time there were ads and campaigns on how smoking was harmless fun! When reading a pro-GMO article I always question whether the author was being genuine or whether they were paid to manipulate the truth. When it comes to the classic debate over GMOs vs non GMOs, we need to keep in mind that every person has the right to be aware of what they eat and how it was made, we also need to understand how the GMO industry is a large influencer in politics, and how heavy pesticides/herbicides are used more than should.

Lately, regardless of where anyone looks whether at their local market or in their local grocery store, there is someone selling GMO/GE foods. Numerous individuals do not think twice about what they buy, but as the trend of GMO’s/GE’s continue, these individuals might have to think twice about the effects. However, depending on how they use the GMO’s/GE’s, they have been shown to have both beneficial and damaging effects. Scientists though, continue to look towards the future of food where one day they believe the benefits will out way the dangers and these individuals will not have to fear GMO/GE crops. Nevertheless, the opinion on whether GMO’s/GE’s hold the keys to a truly beneficial or truly dangerous future, remains split.

In her online video, "Talking about food safety," Monsanto 's lead toxicologist, Shawna Lemke says that, "In recent years people have become increasingly interested in where their food comes from, and how it is produced....there is still conflicting and confusing information about Genetically Modified Foods, but because of the intense work the scientists that work here do, we all feel confident in feeding them to our kids." Monsanto is a Fortune 500 "sustainable agricultural" company that started in 1901, introducing their first product, saccharin. They move on to produce agricultural chemicals in 1945, and by 1982 they were genetically modifying plant cells (DNA). They now have 404 facilities in sixty-six countries, and supply 76% of the world 's seeds. It seems Monsanto has a stronghold on the world 's genetically modified seeds. Although Monsanto claims that genetically modified food is safe, there are conflicting studies claiming they are unsafe and cause harm to humans, plants and animals. However, there have not been any scientific research done concerning this in the United States. How would these studies affect our supply of genetically modified food here in The United States? What about the farmers? How does this stronghold affect the farmers here in the United States? The United States Government needs to perform their own scientific research studies to assess the health risks of Genetically Modified Food, and

Lately, regardless of where anyone looks whether at their local market or in their local grocery store, there is someone selling Genetically Modified Organisms/Genetically Engineered (GMO/GE) foods. GMO’s/GE’s can come in a range of different varieties from fresh vegetables and fruits to various medications or even flowers. Numerous individuals do not think twice about what they buy, but as the trend of GMO’s/GE’s continue, these individuals might have to think twice about the effects. However, depending on how they utilize GMO’s/GE’s, they can and have already contributed to both beneficial and damaging effects. Scientists though, continue to look towards the future of food where one day they believe the benefits will out way the dangers

There is much controversy surrounding not only the safety of GMOs but also that they are ruining our natural environment. Chassy states that critics and the public cite concerns with the “effect on human health and environment, biosafety, world trade monopolies, trustworthiness of public institutions, integrity of regulatory agencies, loss of individual

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

GMOs have already been proven safe despite the hysteria caused by anti-GMO advocates. In her opinionated journal, Chien Shanley states that in regards to GM foods, most scientists “Vouch for their safety”(1) in spite of their negative status . She believes organizations like the Non-GMO project are simply profit driven with their “$11 billion in annual sales”(2) and could actually care less about your health. This company is even known for their famous “Non GMO” stamp on foods which doesn’t “necessarily mean your food is GMO free”(2). This company's hypocrisy overshadows the true accomplishments of GMOs like the creation of a grain that could “combat vitamin A deficiency”(4) as well as GMO’s ability to “add to the nutritional value of food”(1). Shanley then says one of the world’s major genetic engineering companies stated in a press release that “they conduct extensive tests to determine the safety of their