Genetically Modified Food - Safe? What the Research Says
Options
Sarauk2sf
Posts: 28,072 Member
Genetically modified food is food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. The most commonly discussed genetically modified foods, at least here, are soy and corn.
There is a lot of discussion on the forums with regard to genetically modified food. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of additional risk posed from these foods over non-genetically modified food. Below is a statement from The American Association for the Advancement of Science (“AAAS”), that is consistent with my, albeit limited, research:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
“In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. “As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions,” AAAS reported, “GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”
Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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.”
The European Commission (EU) recently concluded, based on more than 130 studies covering 25 years of research involving at least 500 independent research groups, that genetic modification technologies “are not per se more risky than…conventional plant breeding technologies.” Occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals can cause health problems have not stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny”
This discussion is not intended to get into the environmental issues, which are a completely separate topic.
With that being said, I would love to see if anyone has seen any peer-reviewed studies (or as a certain person mentioned "not bullsh!t sh!tty *kitten* sh!ts" quotes) that show that genetically modified foods, in a conceivably reasonable dosage, are detrimental to one’s health.
Just to be clear - this is not a 'stance' on anything, and what people are comfortable with is a completely individual thing...I posted purely to see what, if anything, is out there.
There is a lot of discussion on the forums with regard to genetically modified food. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of additional risk posed from these foods over non-genetically modified food. Below is a statement from The American Association for the Advancement of Science (“AAAS”), that is consistent with my, albeit limited, research:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
“In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. “As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions,” AAAS reported, “GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”
Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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.”
The European Commission (EU) recently concluded, based on more than 130 studies covering 25 years of research involving at least 500 independent research groups, that genetic modification technologies “are not per se more risky than…conventional plant breeding technologies.” Occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals can cause health problems have not stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny”
This discussion is not intended to get into the environmental issues, which are a completely separate topic.
With that being said, I would love to see if anyone has seen any peer-reviewed studies (or as a certain person mentioned "not bullsh!t sh!tty *kitten* sh!ts" quotes) that show that genetically modified foods, in a conceivably reasonable dosage, are detrimental to one’s health.
Just to be clear - this is not a 'stance' on anything, and what people are comfortable with is a completely individual thing...I posted purely to see what, if anything, is out there.
0
Replies
-
Thank you Sara for sharing some facts!!! Great reads and definately helpful for me to read.0
-
Apparently bad if you're a monarch. Someone tell Wills, quick!
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6733/abs/399214a0.html
That strain of corn wasn't really popular though, so he should be safe.
Random article: http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010912/full/news010913-12.html
Other random article: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/19457/title/Bt-or-not-Bt
Transgenic-Corn-vs--Monarch-Butterflies/0 -
Apparently bad if you're a monarch. Someone tell Wills, quick!
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6733/abs/399214a0.html
That strain of corn wasn't really popular though, so he should be safe.
Random article: http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010912/full/news010913-12.html
Other random article: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/19457/title/Bt-or-not-Bt
Transgenic-Corn-vs--Monarch-Butterflies/
To be clear to anyone reading...that is a monarch butterfly and not Queen Elizabeth or any other monarch in that sense
0 -
tagging to read later0
-
Everything I was taught in my graduate food safety classes (PHD toxicology, Texas A&M 2010) and my profs tended to side on the side of GMO food being VERY stringently tested and "safe".
One thing to consider is that most modifications are to make the crops more disease resistant or resistant to effective herbicides (both decrease stress on the crop and increase yield)
Threw out my credentials as A&M is an ag school and my lab's main focus was aflatoxin, which comes from fungal contamination of corn and peanuts.0 -
I am not super-familiar with the area, but a friend just asked me to look into it, so if I come across anything interesting, I'll post more later. As a bit of background on recent news, there has been some back and forth on a study published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology (see bottom for link) about rats and tumours, so in case anyone on the forums links that study and claims "GM foods give you cancer", here is some background about that particular controversy.
Most of this info comes from Science (the journal), which I read semi-regularly and they had a few stories (in the news summary section, not peer-reviewed studies) over the last year. I have not yet read the original study myself, aside from the abstract. Here is one story from Science, although it's behind their usual paywall (sorry): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1146.summary?sid=3ba3f795-0c3d-4655-828d-f803c370a762
For those that can't get to the story, there was a study that came out that the authors claimed showed a decrease in lifespan, a change in hormone levels and an increase in the number of tumours acquired in rats that were fed low levels of herbicide and a strain of corn that was genetically modified to be herbicide-resistant. The conclusions were widely criticized by other scientists because the rats used are a strain that develop frequent tumours spontaneously and the number of rats used was not sufficient for the statistical level needed. Apparently the paper also leaves out "important information", although the story doesn't specify what. The authors also appear to have courted controversy, releasing an advance copy of the paper to press organizations, but barred them from showing it to other scientists, meaning that the press reported the "conclusions" before anyone (aside from the original peer reviewers, one assumes) had a chance to critique them. The European Food Safety Authority looked at the study and concluded it was of insufficient quality to draw conclusions.
More generally, as of the writing of the article (Nov 2012), the EFSA had approved every GM crop it had been asked to look into (although their recommendation did not always translate into actual political approval for a crop). The article goes on to discuss whether the EFSA is an objective and reliable organization. Some criticized their standards for being too stringent. Others noted that many members of the organization have conflicts of interest (ties to biotech, food and pesticide companies). They are working on addressing some of these issues and Science seems to fall on the side of the organization being strongly evidence-based, quoting several scientists who laud the EFSA for always sticking to the data first and foremost, regardless of political pressure or public opinion.
Here's the original study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637. Note the huge list of letters to the editor underneath the main header.0
