Genetically modified food has become a prominent part of our diets over the past 30 years. Estimates suggest that, at present, around 75% of conventionally processed North American food has in some way been altered genetically. There are several benefits that modifying the DNA of food can bring. Farmers use crops that have been genetically altered to resist specific kinds of diseases or insect pests. Genetically modified food can even provide health benefits, and has been used to add vitamins to a rice that helps combat malnutrition in third world countries. Despite these benefits, GM foods have become stigmatized over the past decade, and there has been a significant public outcry to ban its distribution.
The controversy is primarily based in the widespread public perception that GM food is somehow harmful to consume and imposes a risk on human health. These beliefs have been perpetuated by manipulative, fear-based campaigns (see image below) and studies rooted in poor science. For example, one often-cited paper reports findings that rats on a genetically modified diet developed tumors and died prematurely. This study has become the subject of vast scientific scorn, however, being criticized for its questionable methodology and its usage of a strain of rats already susceptible to spontaneously growing tumors. |
| This “NO Frankenfish!” campaign encourages people to pressure the FDA into rejecting genetically engineered salmon distribution. Here, advertisers are clearly trying to frighten consumers by correlating genetically altered food with a kind of physical mutation. |
The fact of the matter is this: there is a widespread scientific consensus that GM food provides no greater risk to human health than non-genetically engineered food. This has been concluded by more than 130 studies conducted over 25 years. This is much more credible evidence than the occasional opposing claims that don't hold up under scientific scrutiny.
It's been shown that there's a significant dichotomy in opinion on the matter of GM food between the scientific community and the general public. Since the public's disdain for genetically altered food has been induced by manipulative tactics and questionable studies, I think it is much more rational to side with the scientific community on this matter. As long as the procedure for approving new GM food remains rigorous, I see no reason to ban its distribution.
It's been shown that there's a significant dichotomy in opinion on the matter of GM food between the scientific community and the general public. Since the public's disdain for genetically altered food has been induced by manipulative tactics and questionable studies, I think it is much more rational to side with the scientific community on this matter. As long as the procedure for approving new GM food remains rigorous, I see no reason to ban its distribution.
Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/AquAdvantage-GMO-salmon.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?_r=0
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/studies-show-gmos-in-majority-of-us-processed-foods-58-percent-of-americans-unaware-of-issue-104510549.html
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm
This is a very interesting topic. Personally, i think GM food could be a good thing. Not only can it be healthier and grow better, but it can also help people who don't normally get the required nutrients. I have heard of cases that combined two different fruit (like an apple and an orange) and gave them to people who need the nutrients. By doing this, you get the nutrients from and orange plus the nutrients from the apple. In the kroger near my house, they sell grapples (grape + apple), it looks like an apple and (should) taste like a grape. One last example is square watermelon. Having square watermelon makes it easier and more efficient to ship. GM food can do good things for the world!
ReplyDeleteI also think that by in large GM food is and will continue to be a good thing. I do think that could change however, and as a result we just need to continue to monitor the ways in which our foods are modified. Also there will always be an inherent danger in consuming something that has been genetically modified since we just probably will not have had the time to see what a lifetime of consumption can do to someone before the modified food hit the market. Maybe we now know some of the current modifications are harmless but maybe new ones just won't get tested enough by the time we eat them. That being said I think that the benefits outweigh the risks.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there will always be a debate over whether or not genetically modified food is healthy or not. For instance whenever I go buy milk, in big bold letters I see the words no cows have been fed genetically modified food or steroids which I guess is a good advertising technique that increases the sale of milk. In my opinion I personally wouldn't eat foods that are genetically modified. I tend to eat only organically grown produce, lean meats, beans, etc. However the temptation to eat these foods is always there and I believe that you cannot discredit the studies that show some harmful benefits of eating genetically modified food. In the end I would tend to stay away from these foods until it has been definitively proven that they pose no harm to our health.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be a debate on this topic because it affects everyone and everyone will not be able to agree on one thing. Although I agree that genetically modified food may increase certain nutrients, I will always believe that the most natural form of anything is the best. The more you change something, the more controversial topics arise, and there will never be an absolute answer. I definitely will agree that the scientific studies speak for themselves, but I personally would not choose to eat genetically modified foods.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe GM foods are serving their purpose. It is getting people fed in smaller amounts. I took an environmental science class semester and we discussed this topc. GM foods are not only good for the environment but serve as a benefit to the human population as well. In a study I read about it took a GM salmon, if I can remember correctly, 18 months for the fish to reach market selling size rather than the normal 3 years I believe. So people can get fed faster. GM food will continue to expand and we most likely eat GM food everyday without our knowledge. When you think about it, how many of us really look at the labeling of our food products, more specifically produce?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to pick out one sentence from the post and expand on it: "This has been concluded by more than 130 studies conducted over 25 years." Is 25 years enough time for scientists to undoubtedly prove that genetically modified foods poses no threats to health? I do not think so. Although I am not convinced either way that genetically modified food is hazardous to our health, I believe that studies will have to be conducted over lifetimes, and even generations, in order to accurately and conclusively determine that there are no side effects to consuming genetically modified food.
ReplyDeleteHaving taken an epidemiology course last year, I believe this issue will not be solved into global health trends are examined over a long period of time. While I do agree, along with other commenters, that consuming genetically modified foods is sometimes unavoidable, it would be wise to examine global health trends before, during, and (perhaps) after the consumption of genetically modified foods became widespread in various societies. Only then will scientists know its true effects.
I think this is a really interesting subject that has two very strong sides. Personally my father used to work for Monsanto which is one of the companies most associated with GM foods. Though he worked in a different part of the company he is knowledgeable about the subject. To this day he stands by the GM foods and seeds as being good as it helps protect the foods and seeds from bacterial or disease problems they would historically have had. Also I agree with the earlier comment stating that there is a benefit to being able to have food produced quicker. This is because of the constantly increasing population that has a high demand for food at a rapid pace. Assuming that no further scientific research is published that shows that these are bad for our health I think that GM foods are necessary for out long term future.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading about this topic because I can relate to the issue myself. My mom is 100% against genetically modified food and my dad is not because he claims that "science has proven it otherwise." I think it is also interesting to note that the public disdain for genetically altered foods has come hand-in-hand with the rise and popularity of organic foods and restaurants. Every "hip" and modern restaurant and/or grocery market advertises its freshness and organic products. Do you think this popularity is a result of the public's misguided perception of genetically modified foods?
ReplyDeleteI love this debate. Personally, I am for genetically modified food. Although a lot of people argue that this is a very recent development, I think we've been doing things like this for a very long time. For example, if I'm on a farm and have two cows available to use to mate with a female cow, and I choose the one that's bigger and stronger so I can hopefully get better baby cows, I am doing pretty close to the same thing, just with less technological methods.
ReplyDelete