Is Genetically Modified Food Safe?

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.

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

In consideration of all the evidence presented, it is certain that genetic engineering technology presents certain dangers and health hazards that need to be thoroughly assessed before GM foods are absorbed into the global market. The assessment criteria for these products should also be revised with reference to case studies and reports highlighting potential harms of genetic modification (The Economist 19). Consumers should also be fully aware of the type of products displayed in the market in order to make informed choices.

Genetically modified foods have contributed to better foods in terms of food quality and human health.

“Eat your vegetables, they're good for you”, The words a kid never wants to hear. People scan food packages for whole grains and fibers, avoid sugar, and don’t even think about buying something with trans fats. Just when people thought they knew how to eat healthy, there's another problem: Genetically Modified Organisms. Some opponents would have you believe these ingredients are the dietary curse of the decade. How concerned should people really be though? This is one of the most debated questions around the world. Many environmental organizations protest against genetic engineering, but numerous companies continue to use it in food production. The issue of Genetically Modified foods has been investigated by many different scientists for many

In this article, Tamara Thompson asks common questions regarding genetically modified organisms otherwise known as GMOs. She gives a decent definition of GMOs as plant seeds that are modified to resist certain insects as well as harsh weather conditions. It is a very biased article, drawing attention to the company, Monsanto, in particular. She repeatedly assures her readers that GMOs are safe and that Monsanto currently works to the standards of organizations, such as the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA), Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She concludes with the benefits of GMOs nutritional value and how they contribute to reducing draws on natural resources such as fossil fuels. This article was beneficial, although biased it gave insight to what companies such as Monsanto want the public to believe. I found this article in Opposing Viewpoints with the search entry being genetically modified foods.

“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

Genetically modified foods, known as GMFs, are an extremely controversial subject. By definition, GMO’s are, “organisms whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there.” Scientists genetically engineer these foods to, for example, contain an additional vitamin or weather withstanding qualities. Relatively recently, Kevin O’Leary, who was in favor of GMFs, and Rachel Parent, who was against them, had a televised debate on O’Leary’s talk show. While both sides proved valid points, O’Leary’s argument seemed the most convincing, with multiple data points and references. While genetically modified foods have many obvious benefits and drawbacks, the good seem to outweigh the bad on a global scale. GMFs can increase nutrition in third world countries, stop the world wide issue of waste, and even slow global warming and deforestation in our environment.

The human population is growing rapidly. With the growth in the human population, the demand for food is also growing at an unprecedented rate. Arguably, farms are unable to naturally provide the world’s population the food needed by natural means. This may seem like a big issue, but humans came up with an ingenious solution: genetically modified organisms, commonly known as GMO’s. Genetically modified food has been able to offset the worlds growing demand for food, and all our food problems seem to be solved. Or have they? I will use information from: Wendell Berry’s, The Pleasures of Eating, Jon Entine and JoAnna Wendel’s, 2000+ reasons Why GMO’s Are Safe to Eat, Robin Mather’s, The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods, along with references from Food Inc., to explain how genetically modified food is being used in a way that negatively affects the livestock, our health, the ecosystem, and the potential threats genetically modified crops have on our future.

Cummins article “Genetically Engineered Foods Are Hazardous” views GMO’s/GE’s as dangerous creations that undermine our health, environment, and farming. Firstly, they mention that GMO’s/GE’s are a revolution form of technology that allows individuals to create new organisms by changing its genetic code with genes from other organisms. However, scientist view these methods as crude and dangerous. Secondly, with these new organisms comes new dangers, unpredictable results, and hazards. They believe GMO’s/GE’s should become prohibit, with just a look at the hazards they already caused. If products are created in a lab, their seen as toxic and poison for both humans and animals. Two examples of this, includes a supplement called L-tryptophan that

"The Safeness of Genetically Modified Foods Is Unproven." Genetic Engineering, edited by David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&currPage=&scanId=&query=&prodId=OVIC&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&mode=view&catId=&limiter=&display-query=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010138276&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=&source=Bookmark&u=nysl_ca_dmvacces&jsid=cc20faab1827f8c153f5086207a929b7. Accessed 18 Nov. 2016. Originally published as "Risks of Genetic Engineering,"

"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

It is surprising to me exactly how much food is processed using genetically modified crops. In this same article the FDA claims GE plants are safe to eat, and that they are just as safe as non-GE foods are. The testing of these crops to see if they are safe for human and animal consumption

on Earth consume one bowl of white rice every day, but white rice cannot provide enough amount of Vitamin A. The scientists at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have produced “golden” rice which comprises a high amount of beta-carotene (the orange-color pigment and precursor of Vitamin A). The scientists worked more than 10 years on creating “golden” rice (Verna 6). Unfortunately, as Deborah B. Whitman points out in her article “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful, or Helpful?”: “. . . , the grant that funded the creation of this rice strain was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GMO food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all” (3).

Genetically Modified Products haven’t received a great reputation because many times they are perceived as chemical foods with a large amount of antibiotics and hormones. Although some of it is untrue, in certain populations including Europe, they are not seen as real food. The European culture prides themselves on fresh and natural ingredients used in their cooking. Many also feel that genetically modified foods are void of any nutritional value and are seen as a disregard for the human organism. European culture stems from thousands of generations of growing and preparing foods by hand, without the use of industrial techniques. Science isn’t always seen as a good thing for a society. People in Europe aren’t as obedient as in other countries and aren’t as reliable on the government to tell them what to do. They ask questions and although companies may show proof that a certain food, even slightly genetically modified doesn’t affect then, they may still oppose to its use. They ultimately don’t want to ruin natural crops/products for future generations. The subject of concern in the notice presented to the U.S FDA is the genetically modified (recombinant) yeast that was used to produce ISP (ice-structuring protein) for commercial use. The ISP is produced by a fermentation process and the protein is secreted into the media it is cultured in. It is harvested through a microfiltration technique. The process uses multiple micro filters that separate the protein from the debris of