Is GMO food safe?Perspectives from the Web
- 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable. A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true.
- Why GMO (GE) Foods Are Dangerous The safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects. these foods with health concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.
People also ask
What are the dangers of GMO foods?
Are GMO foods dangerous to your health?
Are GMO foods helpful or harmful?
How are GMO's harmful to people?
A GMO food isn't allowed in stores in the U.S. until the FDA team is satisfied it's safe. Ultimately, the developer is legally responsible for the food's safety, like any other product we eat ...
- Suzanne Verity
Apr 23, 2018 · In the decades since the first genetically modified foods reached the market, no adverse health effects among consumers have been found. ... It is not possible to prove a food is safe, only to say ...
Consumers continue to be concerned about both the food safety and the nutritional equivalence of GMO foods. In a 2015 Pew Research Center survey of consumers, 57% of adults believe that eating GMO foods is unsafe, while 37% say they believe it is generally safe.
- Stacey Stearns
Jul 02, 2020 · Although GMO foods appear safe for consumption, some people wish to avoid them. Still, this is difficult since most foods in your supermarket are made with ingredients from GMO crops.
Mar 18, 2020 · The first GMO food on the market was a tomato engineered to resist softening. It was called the Flavr Savr tomato. Getty Images GMO foods have been genetically engineered to alter the DNA of the ...
- Amanda Capritto
There have been some studies, widely reviewed and rejected by international regulatory and science organizations, suggesting that GMOs are responsible for, or could lead to, a variety of illnesses. The most oft cited is the 2012 study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology by French biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini, who claimed that rats fed genetically engineered corn and/or the herbicide glyphosate, which is often paired with the GMO crop, developed grotesque cancerous tumors.
There also have been questions about whether GMOs represent a threat to people with allergies. Its a relevant question when you consider that much of GMO technology to date has involved the mixing of genetic material from unrelated organisms, creating the potential for a new food item to produce allergens. Every unique GMO food is tested at the the Allergen Online database at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, which is used by GM developers, the food industry and regulatory agencies for evaluating the potential allergenicity of novel proteins and GMOs. The database is independently managed by internationally recognized allergy experts who review and vote on allergen inclusion in a yearly process. Such testing proved essential in the mid 1990s when a soybean that contained genetic material from the Brazil nut was developed. The transgenic soybean produced proteins that could be dangerous to people with sensitivity to Brazil nuts. Pioneer Hi-Bred International had planned to market the soybeans as animal feed, but terminated the project over concerns that those soybeans might accidentally find their way into the human food supply. Critics cite this as a warning flag; GMO supporters cite it as support for its belief that the system works.
Despite extensive testing, critics complain theres still a chance that unknown allergens could be produced during the genetic engineering process. Its true. But experts say the risk is lowsignificantly lower than the risk accompanying the introduction of a new conventional food from one country to another. Context is important: the allergic threat posed by Pioneers Brazil nuts was far less than the known allergic problems linked to many conventional foods, such as peanuts and kiwi fruit, said professor Richard Goodman, who runs the Nebraska database:
May 23, 2016 · The GMO debate is over — again. Last week, the prestigious National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine issued what is probably the most far-reaching report ever produced by the scientific community on genetically engineered food and crops.
The use of GMO foods remains controversial. In this article, we discuss the pros and cons of growing and eating genetically modified organisms, including the effects on human health and the ...
- Amanda Barrell
- Mechanism of action
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as 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. The technology is often called modern biotechnology or gene technology, sometimes also recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
GM foods are developed and marketed because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry generally).
One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.
Resistance against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.
Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.
Generally consumers consider that conventional foods (that have an established record of safe consumption over the history) are safe. Whenever novel varieties of organisms for food use are developed using the traditional breeding methods that had existed before the introduction of gene technology, some of the characteristics of organisms may be altered, either in a positive or a negative way. National food authorities may be called upon to examine the safety of such conventional foods obtained from novel varieties of organisms, but this is not always the case. The WHO Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses aims at assisting national authorities in the identification of foods that should be subject to risk assessment and to recommend appropriate approaches to safety assessment. Should national authorities decide to conduct safety assessment of GM organisms, WHO recommends the use of Codex Alimentarius guidelines (See the answer to Question 11 below). The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market. The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as outcrossing), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
In contrast, most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary for GM foods. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food. Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and the potential receiving environment. The assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the insertion of the new gene. The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. The food safety assessment is usually based on Codex documents.
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing. Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.
The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries GM foods are not yet regulated. Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries which have regulatory provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account health and environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and labelling regimes). In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to evolve.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO intergovernmental body responsible for developing the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius, meaning the international food code. Codex developed principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods in 2003.
Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and WTO Members are encouraged to harmonize national standards with Codex standards. If trading partners have the same or similar mechanisms for the safety assessment of GM foods, the possibility that one product is approved in one country but rejected in another becomes smaller.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties which took effect in 2003, regulates transboundary movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. The cornerstone of the Protocol is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment.
The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues under debate are usually very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from country to country. On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer preferences, there is no worldwide consensus to date. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has made significant progress and developed Codex texts relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology in 2011 to ensure consistency on any approach on labelling implemented by Codex members with already adopted Codex provisions.
Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. In the FAO/WHO expert consultation in 2003 (http://www.who.int/entity/foodsafety/biotech/meetings/en/gmanimal_reportnov03_en .pdf), WHO and FAO have considered potential problems of the technological divide and the unbalanced distribution of benefits and risks between developed and developing countries and the problem often becomes even more acute through the existence of intellectual property rights and patenting that places an advantage on the strongholds of scientific and technological expertise. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.
WHO, together with FAO, has convened several expert consultations on the evaluation of GM foods and provided technical advice for the Codex Alimentarius Commission which was fed into the Codex Guidelines on safety assessment of GM foods. WHO will keep paying due attention to the safety of GM foods from the view of public health protection, in close collaboration with FAO and other international bodies.
- What Makes It A GMO?
- Is It called GMO Or Something else?
- Why Do We Have GMOs?
- Do GMO Plants Reduce Pesticide use?
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering.
"GMO” has become the common term consumers and popular media use to describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering. This term is not generally used to refer to plants or animals developed with selective breeding, like the common garden strawberries available today that were created from a cross between a species native to North America and a species native to South America. While “genetic engineering” is the term typically used by scientists, you will start seeing the “bioengineered” label on some of the foods we eat in the United States because of the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.
Humans have used traditional ways to modify crops and animals to suit their needs and tastes for more than 10,000 years. Cross-breeding, selective breeding, and mutation breeding are examples of traditional ways to make these changes. These breeding methods often involve mixing all of the genes from two different sources. They are used to create common crops like modern corn varietiesand seedless watermelon. Modern technology now allows scientists to use genetic engineering to take just a beneficial gene, like insect resistance or drought tolerance, and transfer it into a plant. The reasons for genetic modification today are similar to what they were thousands of years ago: higher crop yields, less crop loss, longer storage life, better appearance, better nutrition, or some combination of these traits.
Some GMO plants contain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) to make them resistant to insects, reducing the need for and use of many spray pesticides. As another safety measure, EPA works with developers and scientists to help develop GMOs that will resist insects for as long as possible through their Insect Resistance Management program. Other GMO plants are developed to tolerate certain weed killers, which allows farmers a wide variety of options for weed control. Some people are concerned that farmers who grow these GMOs will use more weed killer. While this is sometimes the case, EPA regulates the safety of all weed killers that farmers use on GMO crops and non-GMO crops alike. EPA also shares informationto help farmers who are concerned about weeds developing resistance to weed killers. How GMOs Are Regulated for Food and Plant Safety in the United States Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond How GMO Crops Impact...