The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene or a few of them from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises.
Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it.
And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years.
They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own?
It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods.
The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli —infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in Critics often disparage U.
But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E. The European Commission has funded research projects, carried out by more than independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.
Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. The U. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats.
Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view. Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes.
The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct. Similar stories abound. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture.
Men and women have somewhat different expectations for GM foods. Men are more optimistic, while women are more pessimistic about the likely impact of GM foods on society. These modest differences in expectations by gender are in keeping with other studies.
There are modest generational differences in expected effects from GM foods. Adults ages 65 and older are less pessimistic than their younger counterparts about the likely effects of GM foods for society; more adults ages 65 and older say harm to the environment or to public health from GM foods is not at all or not too likely to occur.
But younger adults, especially those ages 18 to 29, are more likely to think that GMOs will result in more affordably priced foods. Those with high science knowledge are more optimistic in their expectations that GM foods will bring benefits to society.
Education, which is closely linked with levels of science knowledge, shows a similar pattern. Postgraduate degree-holders are more inclined to say GM foods are very likely to increase the global food supply and to lead to more affordably priced food than those with less education. Public views of scientists and their understanding about the health risks and benefits of GM foods are mixed and, often, skeptical.
Most Americans perceive considerable disagreement among scientific experts about whether or not GM foods are safe to eat. While most people trust scientists more than they trust each of several other groups to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods, only a minority of the public says they have a lot of trust in scientists to do this.
At the same time, most Americans say that scientists should have a major role in policy decisions about GM foods, but so, too, should small farm owners and the general public.
Fewer Americans say that food industry leaders should play a major role at the policy-making table. But views of scientists connected with GM foods are often similar among those who with deep personal concern about the issue of GM foods and those with less concern.
Differences are more pronounced between these groups when it comes to views of industry influence on scientific research findings and trust in food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods. In other respects, people with deeper concern about this issue vary only modestly from other Americans in their views of scientists and the scientific research on GM foods. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded there was no persuasive evidence that genetically engineered crops have caused health or environmental problems.
For example, those who view GM foods as worse for health are especially inclined to say that there is little agreement among scientists about the safety of GM foods. Past Pew Research Center studies have found a similar pattern when it comes to perceptions of scientific consensus and beliefs about climate change as well as beliefs about evolution. Across all levels of concern about this issue, few see broad consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe to eat.
Similarly, people who have heard or read a lot about GM foods are far more likely than those who have heard or read nothing about this issue to see consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe.
About one-third of Americans say scientists understand the risks and benefits of eating GM foods not too well or not at all well. Those who perceive broad scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods are more likely to think scientists understand this topic. By comparison, fewer people who do not care at all or not too much about this issue give scientists high marks for their understanding of the health effects of GM foods.
Although, roughly similar shares of each group say that scientists understand the effects of GM foods at least fairly well.
As noted above, those who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods are also a bit more likely than others to see scientists as agreeing that GM foods are generally safe to eat.
Americans are, comparatively speaking, more trusting of information from scientists and small farm owners on the safety of GM foods than they are of information from food industry leaders, the news media or elected officials.
Most of the GM crops grown around the world today address problems caused by insects or weeds although some GMOs are currently being tested for enhanced nutrition. When it comes to insects, there are genetically modified plants that can repel only the very particular type of insect that feeds on it. With some crops, this has significantly lowered the need to apply pesticides.
Other GM plants have been developed to be resistant to certain herbicides thus making weed control more straightforward and less expensive. Today, those who directly see the most benefits from GMOs are farmers and agricultural companies.
GMOs are also used to produce many medicines and vaccines that help treat or prevent diseases. For more information, research the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Yes I think you missed that they did cover them although all of the ANTI-GMO things were conspiracy theories, not facts people did the studies all of them were lies. Good job! This article makes me very happy.
I think this should be covered more thoroughly in the media. Yas I agree I think this will help everyone learn about GMOs are learn they are not as bad as they sound. I think it is premature to make blanket statements about the safety of GMOs based on the research to date.
Some potential holes in the analysis of prior research. Mice studies are not the equivalent of a double-bind long term human study. Given the infinite permutations of genes that can be combined in the lab it will be only a matter of time that a particular combination will have emergent properties that will be devastating consequences that were not foreseen. With anything, as time goes on business and scientists become lax over time. Mishaps in the Nuclear power industry are a prime example of this.
Lack of studies on population outliers. Sure many products may be safe for the general population but can have very severe consequences for certain segments of the population. Have there been studies looking at particular GMO products against all types of test subjects? Some variables would be pregnant, immune comprised, infant, etc. The reason I bring these issues up is that I have two sons.
One with a fructose intolerance issue and another with severe allergic GI issues. This correlation alone of course does not prove causality but where there is smoke, science must take the time to identify the source of the fire. That sounds like: 1. You mentioned something which cannot be done should be done in order to garner proof. Just because bad things can result from something, does not mean that thing is inherently harmful to you.
Nearly everything you do with a positive outcome, has a negative consequence. Sometimes there is no fire. Sometimes there is just more understanding. Sometimes, we get better at catching irregularities as time passes. A long-term human study was done. They stated very similar results, no change, though an increase in profits. The plant is resistant to pesticides because it eats the pesticides. Then you come along and ingest it. Your stomach dissolves it and now your intestine gets ready to absorb the nutrients.
Twenty-seven sources were identified from Thank You!!!! Hi, great article! DNA and the interplay of the various genes is phenomenally complex.
Without even making any alterations in a genome there are many things we do not fully understand about how it all works- what synergies exist, what sequences are key for subsequent sequences to operate successfully, etc. Until I feel confident that we understand more about the complexities of the existing genomes WHEN they are operating within living ecosystems, I do not feel comfortable throwing a wrench into the works.
It has taken millions of years for evolution to fine tune these systems- both ours and the plants we are dependent on for food- and there are millions of variables affecting both our internal and external environments. Hello Jean, Thank you for adding to this discussion. I want to be transparent with you about why I only approved some of your comments. As this discussion has been going on for several years, I have slowly adopted some guidelines about what comments are actually helpful in the debate.
I am more than happy to approve comments that support a different point of view on GMOs such as the video you posted above! However, we are a non-profit graduate student organization. We do not get any money or guidance from Monsanto or any other company. I have explained this in the comments section of our GMO articles many times, and yet people still question our motives. In an effort to keep the discussion on the science, I have decided not to approve any accusatory comments.
Monsanto is a bad company although saying GMOs because of Monsanto is like saying science is bad because of a scientist. Too bad this article is complete bullshit. Saying GMOs are completely safe is ridiculous.
Who paid for your research Monsanto? Did you get any kickbacks? There is so much evidence saying GMOs are toxic. Look what it is doing to the bee population. Just because someone from Harvard has done a study we should take that as fact? We are merely interested in providing science articles that are based in primary sources which is what we are doing here. The first one actually shows that Bt crop fields have more nontarget insects than nontransgenic fields. Also, may I ask if you have gathered any information regarding the disadvantages of GM plants?
You should be asking all these questions if you were a true scientist. The scientific community cannot be fully trusted, and this is the sad fact. Your own publication here just enforces this fact imho. Personally, I trust the scientific community and trust that if someone is working with Monsanto or other large agro corporation, they will disclose it as is journal policy in all peer reviewed publications.
And the majority of studies support that GM crops are not harmful to our health. Maybe Monsanto is secretly funding the majority of these studies in a huge, HUGE cover-up including probably hundreds of labs and tens to hundreds of journals, and all of the anti-GMO activists have just not been able to find any proof of it, but I doubt it.
Conspiracy theory thinking hooks the brain because it feels like critical thinking. The Dunning Kruger effect shows in these comments. I applaud whoever has been contributing to the SITNFlash account over the last five years for having the patience to respond to so many conspiratorial comments.
It is undoubtedly incredibly frustrating. Any science connected to capitalist motivations is suspect. We know pollution is really really bad for us—deadly—and yet it is not banned—it is promoted and facilitated by the same governemtn and institutions applaudinng GMOs. Yet, science shows us that industrial pollution is bad, m-kay, and there is no serious law or movement to ban or regulate pollution—government policy is basically to facilitate industry, like GMOs and Big Pharma—even though it is destructive and environmentalists are labelled terrorists and assaulted by police thugs and para military troops endorsed by the government.
Not human rights. You see—you are bias and uncritical. You cite flawed science and promote unethical policy against our civil an human rights. You might not be bad people, but you serve bad people and bad policy. What would science look like UN-corrupted by capitalist interests? Think about it. How deep do the capitalist tentacles go?
You are a product of capitalist indoctrination and conditioning. Thank you for reading our article. In the spirit of full transparency, I am replying to tell you that I have not approved some of your comments because they are not contributing productively to the conversation due to repeated personal attacks at other commenters, the author of the article, or this site in general. If you would like to re-write your comments without these personal attacks, I would be happy to approve them.
I understand that your point of view is that all studies are indirectly funded by Monsanto and are therefore unable to be trusted. I would be very interested to ready why you think this is flawed science that is cited here or any reliable sources about funding of the studies cited. Hey, I wish that were true Randall. I am actually doing an academic research paper on the positives and negatives of GMOs and let me assure you that there is not many studies proving GMOs are toxic, or harmful for that matter.
Actually I believe that most of the negatives are just fears that people have concerning the potential risks of GMOs, however, those are just potential risks and have not been proved or agreed upon by a scientific body.
Only big capitalist institutions have the funds to research. So I am not surprised it is hard to find independent studies. But many exist—especially outside America—which are conveniently dismissed by Americans.
And were immediately set upon by Monsanto and the capitalist infrastructure to smear them as not good science or conspiracy theorists—hmmm. It was passed without question —why? Knowing what we know about all the other harms they produce in society and the ecosystem and civil rights, politics—they must be banned until more research—maybe years of extensive independent research is done—and we can see how GMOs impact health over time, but since it would be unethical to use human studies—as they are doing with us in the market place—our studies must be limited and maybe only then after years can we know for sure—bottom line is its not practical and not safe and not doable and not ethical and very very bad for the environment and human rights.
It is about profit and control of food—patented terminator seeds. BAN IT! The irony of you spreading this nonsensical set of opinions on the Internet is delicious. I suggest you get away from your devilish computer, stomp on your soul-sucking smartphone , throw your TV out a window , and trash your radio and any other electronic device you use.
Each of those devices has easily provable disadvantages to your health and psychic well-being. I feel so righteous now. Good luck ur going need a ton a luck to find a even somewhat anti GMO study that is not based on Monanto. Good question! You just can not know that—it is too early. You are not credible. You are not all-knowing. I have seen research that suggest it would be less healthy. I can tell you organic food grown in rich healthy soil is far superior in taste and substance.
It is extremely arrogant to believe that a few capitalist studies and no-so-much-studies can improve billions of years of nature science and tens of thousand of years of natural breeding—human selection by natural means.
We have become the destroyer of worlds. You have no right to contaminate our world without our approval—and funny thing the world does not approve and yet we are ignored. Profit maybe? I am in utter awe of these comments you are making. Completely slandering logical, science-based conclusions with consistently debunked science; fear-mongering tactics with absolutely nothing credible to back it up. If anything, it is people like YOU that are fear-mongering. You constantly say that the GMOs cause cancer and are bad for your health, when in reality that is simply untrue.
You are spreading ill-informed fear, and this article does not try to instill any fear in anyone. Please do more research and not only on the things that fuel your narrative. Its a Radical Wacky Coolkid thing to do. Be like a Radical Wacky Coolkid. Ummmm Proof please they gave proof you give a statement without facts also from all examples we have seen GMOs are good and not bad. It must be good, right?
I wonder why USA sponsors warfare around the world for decades. It must be fair, right? Using your own method here to show you how stupid such statements are. Neither yours nor previous commenters argument is valid. You just reversed their argument and present it as a valid contra-argument which uses the same logic, just biased in an opposite way. Btw, Islam be it right or wrong is still their choice, same as GMO.
Moreover, Why would you choose to cite Islam? Why not Christianity? Why not just say religion? Your very soul is bias. Does anyone know a good, objective source for vetting them a little more thoroughly? Does anyone know if this is true? Thanks for reading and participating in the discussion! Would you feed your kids GMOs? Your research is bulshit compared to all the real parents who are witnessing the harmful effects of GMOs on a daily basis.
I agree with the intelligent points in your response. I heard that if you eat lettuce, which contains encoding for green and leafy, your kids can end up green and leafy.
Makes sense. I would perhaps look up the effects of certain food colourings, preservatives and other additives in your diet. So if I could get some unbiased point of view on this, it would be appreciated.
For example, newer GMO technologies that are focusing on eliminating expression of certain genes rather than adding foreign genes have very little potential to create food that will be harmful our health.
At the other extreme, if you genetically engineered corn to express a gene that make the protein that people are allergic to in peanuts, and then you gave someone with a peanut allergy that corn, they would likely also be allergic to the GE-peanut-corn.
The Seralini study is somewhere in between these two extremes—they are testing GMOs that have a foreign protein with no known allergenic or negative properties. Usually to show that a substance is harmful, you would show that if you give an animal more of that substance, the effect is greater. Right, I never thought of limiting the expression of genes. I am 14 and got intimidated by a few GMO documentaries a few years ago.
That would be bad for the environment. And since all the Native ones would eventually create their own pesticide, environmental pressures would mean that they would overpopulate and native bugs would die.
This would mess up the food chain and lead to a loss of biodiversity. Evolution will lead to resistance and that means more pesticides and more environmental harm. Their environmental impacts are too risky. Especially, if they crossbreed with Native Plants. Why do through all this hassle?
Just eat Organic. If it takes up too much land, use hydroponics. If it raises prices, then work harder and get a pay raise. If Organic means people in 3rd world countries are starving because food is expensive, then tell them to have a 1 child policy and then until they afford it, they can have a 2 child policy. Hi, I am going to include this research in my argument paper.
Thank you for providing a good clarification details regarding the toxicity, genes and mutagenesis. I will cite your research properly and hopefully will have a good feedback to my professor.
Hi again, another thing is that your references and sources are not up to date. It will actually affect your credibility. Although I took some information that were published after the year of to make my paper more concise. I still acknowledge and applaud you for your work it is very well written! Liked the article and the comments. Glyphosate resistant weeds look just like their non glyphosate counterparts.
The resistant plants have just developed ways to stop glyphosate from harming them — through natural selection. Many other herbicides have had target weeds develop resistance as well. Glyphosate has been a very effective tool in our area for reducing soil erosion and preserving moisture in our semi arid climate.
Thanks for your perspective as a farmer! I am not a scientist, just a mom who wants healthy kids. I talk to other moms, many spending huge amounts of their limited income trying to avoid foods that may be unhealthy for their kids, including GMOs.
I did study agriculture, but I am outdated. But, I do remember finding that organic crops often required elevated total toxicity in order to achieve pest control when compared with non-organic crops since the chemicals at the disposal of an organic farmer are, by nature, limited.
So, they sometimes must choose something more toxic than traditional pesticides or use much more of their pesticides to achieve control. I do not remember any sources at this point so everyone can and probably should have a heyday with that. My question is about Bt crops. You said there is evidence that Bt crops actually contain less total pesticide than those sprayed with Bt.
However, those sprayed can be washed. I assume you cannot wash the pesticide from Bt crops. But Bt is complex. There may be more to it than I understand. Have any studies been done that take washing or rinsing into account, or is that irrelevant for some reason that I do not currently know about?
Actually, though, not all organic Bt treatment can be washed off, since it is sometimes injected e. Also, Bt toxin in GM crops is at very low doses in the parts of the plant that we usually eat e.
I think all of you should look in to foreign studies on this I went through american after america study on this and its left me just unsure, but second I typed in Russian study holy shit I need to look more in to this and other countries that have and have not Banned GMOs. I have found a difficult time finding studies from any country that convincingly show health effects of eating GMO crops. In this article we cite studies from Korea and China, among other countries. Chinese studies will most likely be in favour of GMO simply because its negative effects on reproduction can partially solve their over-reproduction problem.
Besides, everything in China is seriously controlled by the state and can easily be altered in favour of the state. Your information and attitude is among the most responsible I have seen.
A sign of an objective person. I am a research scientist in Agriculture and pesticides- worked on it over 40 years. Do we know all? Certainly not, but there is a huge amount of data showing safety for both. The negatives are mostly circumstantial or feelings. Your comment about human-caused global warming is not true, however. IPCC is a group of proponents of man-caused global warming but over 31, American Scientists have signed a petition for our government to get out of the Japanese global warming agreement because there is not good data to show that carbon dioxide increases warming.
There may be a correlation but not causation. Second, I wanted to know if you found a single credible link that gives negatives about GMOs. I really enjoyed reading it and even the comments on it were interesting to read. This essay really helped to clear the waters up. Thanks Megan!
These mega-crops consume significantly more water resources while compared to traditional crops like Sorghum and Millets. We hear news about drought and food insecurity in African and South Asian countries which, in fact, receive adequate sunlight throughout the year.
Is it because these countries move towards the 3 mega crops eventually phasing out the drought resistant traditional crops like millets, sorghum, etc? The economy of India is heavily dependent on food exports which majorly includes rice, wheat and corn. And not just export, the consumption of millets and other traditional crops by the people of South Asian and African countries has gone down significantly and the mega crops consumption has increased on the other hand.
There is heavy pressure on such countries to go GMO in order to increase their rice or wheat production despite their water scarcity. Is GMO the optimal solution or do we need to pay more attention to food and biodiversity?
What if, change in mindset and investing on native crops has got a better and sustainable solution? I am sorry to have brought out the political aspect of this in this thread which is meant only for scientific discussion.
For more information on food and biodiversity, please refer to the below link. However, it will always be important to consider and test the environmental impact of any newly engineered crops.
Great article! So much people need to read this! My father is an avid farmer at home and a chemical engineer. I recently watched an episode of Bill Nye Save the world and he even spoke with experts on how they are not harmful to humans.
0コメント