Why are Genetically Modified (GM) foods produced?
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 so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.
The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was 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.
Insect resistance 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 permanently 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.
How are the potential risks to human health determined?
The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies 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. While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.
Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for 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.
Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.
Outcrossing. The movement 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 those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.
Two questions – two answers – shall give the source if there are any comments on the subject material.
The World According to Monsanto is a perfect example of pseudo-science. To ask my to debate anything in it would be a huge effort as virtually everrything in it is misinformation. Please feel free to bring forward any “fact” from it and I would be happy to discuss it.
cheers
You can scour the internet to your hearts content reading thousands and thousands of posts on this topic, the pros and the cons, some very zealously in favour and others exactly the opposite. For those of us who like to be informed, it is very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. The science of GMF is not for the feint of heart and it is very confusing to say the least. The subject is deep and far reaching – it isn’t just what we cram into our bodies. It’s also what happens to the soil, the over all effects on the environment………or not, depending on what you read. It’s almost impossible for the ordinary person to make sense of it all. As careful as I might be in trying to educate myself on what foods I eat, I have little confidence in what I read on the label since there are no strict laws on what has to be revealed on those labels. I’m not so fearful as I am skeptical because both sides of this highly emotional topic have very strong opinions and I’m not sure either of them is really telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Publisher: Wiser words have not been spoken. I too think the jury is out and if both sides could agree on a forum somewhere – a UN conference with five speakers from each side – might make an interesting book. Most of us on here have no worry for ourselves but we are leaving an unresolved issue for our grandchildren to deal with.
A quick note on the Publisher Comment “Personally I like my vegetables, fruit, corn and sugar beets as natural as possible and I will pay the price for top quality”
But paying for top quality, does not mean that you are buying non-GMO. Labeling of these products is another issue all together. It is assumed that if you are buying Organic – you are buying non-GMO, but unfortunately the FrankenFood lobbyists have made sure that reliable information is not entirely what you are receiving as a consumer. A good place to support this consumer info movement is at: http://www.facebook.com/nongmoproject
I applaud California for their upcoming November 2012 vote on this very basic right-to-know issue. Fortunately it is this “GMO labeling” that will then allow consumers to vote very effectively with their dollars.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25572.cfm
Robert,
Have you seen the movie “The World According to Monsanto?”
Here is a link to the entire full length movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rml_k005tsU
I’d like to hear your comments about it. But please, watch the ENTIRE movie first.
Publisher: Good debate. Couple of rules. Please if you refer to Monsanto please include a link to your source. The issue to me is that GM is the work of scientists/corporations BUT scientists do not make the policy decisions – ordinary (non scientific) people do. If there is fear it is because the move towards GM products has been made too fast without bringing the world’s people along with the idea. Personally I like my vegetables, fruit, corn and sugar beets as natural as possible and I will pay the price for top quality.
Those who support GM seemed to be linked to that industry. Critics seem to be ordinary people who cannot do scientific research but relay on certain people to inform them. If you google for information there is very little objective information and those who suggest they know more that the WHO should display their credentials so all of can compare them.
Please respond to the scientific research referred to in the above mentioned article
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/opinion/kristof-how-chemicals-change-us.html?_r=4
Are you contending that all of these scientists don’t know their business?
That these scientists are writing out of fear and ignorance? The fear being expressed where I am concerned is not just about GMOs, it is about the poisoning of the environment by the application of herbicides and pesticides that are part of the package, not to mention the clear intention of multinational corporations like Monsanto to modify food crops so that they can patent them, claim ownership and charge in perpetuity for their use.
Hi Celia
All testing for GM crops are regulated at the national and international level. The type, design, controls, replicates, etc are all determined by internationally agreed protocols. The producer of the GM crop has no say is which tests are done or how many tests must be done or how the controls are done. All of the data is then evaluated by people very familiar with the international standards for the testing. A good example can be found on my website look for the European Food Safety Authority 2008 “Animal feeding Trials of GM crops. In it you can see seventy pages of peer reviewed research into the safety testing of GM crops and food. There is also a link to multi-generational studies of feeding GM crops. Both come to the same safe conclusion.
I hope I answered you question
Val if you e-mail me I will send you the European Food Safety Authority analysis of that research and you can read how it was completely rejected by global food safety experts.
I have said it and will repeat it. World food safety authorities including the very sceptical Europeans all agree there is no evidence of harm from GM crops for humans, animals or the environment. The latest such statement is a mere two weeks old. The average person is unable to differentiate between the real science of GMO’s and the poor or pseudo-science that is continually rejected by world experts. I work to bring these facts to the public. Have a look at my website for some of the real science of GMO’s.
cheers
I feel sorry for those of you who choose to blindly trust the WHO and consider them “an unbiased and uncompromised source”… You should to a little more (actual) research on the subject.
You may also choose to read at least SOME of the arguments against the use of GM Foods AND the related Chemicals that come along with their use. Start with watching one or Two of hundreds of movies on these subjects at http://articles.mercola.com/videos.aspx , or just Twitter #GMO #Monsanto etc.
Or how about researching how the approval process has been severely compromised and corrupted by Thousands of shills and industry lobbyists (just like so many other things in Ottawa and Washington).
Or maybe start with this New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/opinion/kristof-how-chemicals-change-us.html?_r=4 – It’s on how chemicals affect us… Big Chem says all this is sensationalist science and unrelated to GMOs . . . but is it really?
Would Mr. Wagner please explain who is doing the testing on GM crops to determine health risks to humans and contamination issues in the environment, independent researchers or the same “in-house” scientists who created the GM crops?
From my reading on the subject, it appears that GM crops over time require more herbicides and pesticides to control the same pests and this has lead to the production of “super weeds” and “super bugs” increasingly resistant to both.
Additionally, reports I read state that GM crops locked into a cycle of applications of such poisons result in soil sterility and lower crop yields than more traditional farming methods. Third World farmers who get locked into this cycle cannot afford to pay for the products and cannot return to traditional farming because their soil has been destroyed.
Please comment on these concerns.
A significant part of the problem with GMO foods is that we are presented with studies that make us skeptical of any claim that the process is safe. Here, for example, is a study by the International Journal of Biological Sciences–whoever they are–claiming Monsanto’s GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats. Who are we non-experts to believe? You can find the report published by Huffington Press from which the following is excerpted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto’s GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.
According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, “Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities.”
Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.
In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:
“Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity….These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.”
Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is “based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products.”
Sure don’t see any support for the GMO foods other than the two writers:-)
If you like. Further the nptII gene in older GM contructs is also found in soil bacteria found everywhere in the world. It is a very old gene and has been on earth a lot longer than man has. It most definitely does not represent a new antibiotic gene exposure risk. That is a little context you won’t find in the WHO document.
Oh and the most modern GM products in the pipeline use a sugar selection system not an antibiotic selection system so that issue is being addressed.
Publisher: Should I pass on your comments to the WHO?
The mixing issue was removed as a problem when the rules changed so that if a given GM crop did not get approval for human food it would not be given animal feed clearance. The previous split approval system is no more. Only those GM crops that can pass the regulatory challenges for human food and animal feed are allowed to be commercialized in North America.