Mod+ Discussion - Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? Should they be labeled?

Should GMO foods be labeled?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 78.3%
  • No

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23
I don't see why the opposite should be true.
Because they are inserting a known genetic profile, meaning they can far more readily predict the outcome of the gene splicing. When plants are exposed to radiation or traditionally hybridized, we have no way of knowing what changes are taking place at the genetic level (and these methods are tested far less than GMOs). Other than the introduction of a gene that causes a plant to start producing some sort of toxin that effects humans, or changes in its nutritional profile to be less nutritious or contain toxic levels of something otherwise benign, I'm still not really sure how a plant's DNA would affect humans. Knowing what genes are being inserted means the scientists doing this know what those genes do and the likely effect on both the plant and humans consuming those plants. With more traditional methods, it's kind of a crap shoot.
 
Don't know all the proposed mechanisms of action, but one issue that seems pretty cut and dry to me is the GMOs that are "Round-up ready" or modified to be tolerant of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc so that the crops can be sprayed with these chemicals. So it is the residual "-cides" that are the mechanism of action rather than the food itself.

I seem to recall some studies in Europe where rats fed the round up ready corn (I think) got tumored up. I know lots of countries including Russia are banning GMOs. Is it economic warfare or are they legitimately trying to protect their citizens? I don't know.

Edit: here's that study I was thinking of:
http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463


The pesticide issue is kind a moot point, since even non-GMO and organic plants are grown using fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farms do use pesticides, in fact some of the pesticides they use can be more ecologically harmful. In addition to that, organic farms often use manure as a natural fertilizer, which has been known to cause illness in consumers due to higher levels of pathogens like E.Coli.
There are a number of great sources for myth busting organic farming vs. conventional vs. GMO.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

"there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn't keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness."

"Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, and many have organic foods to blame. That's because organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens. One study, for example, found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones10."
 
Because they are inserting a known genetic profile, meaning they can far more readily predict the outcome of the gene splicing. When plants are exposed to radiation or traditionally hybridized, we have no way of knowing what changes are taking place at the genetic level (and these methods are tested far less than GMOs). Other than the introduction of a gene that causes a plant to start producing some sort of toxin that effects humans, or changes in its nutritional profile to be less nutritious or contain toxic levels of something otherwise benign, I'm still not really sure how a plant's DNA would affect humans. Knowing what genes are being inserted means the scientists doing this know what those genes do and the likely effect on both the plant and humans consuming those plants. With more traditional methods, it's kind of a crap shoot.

Suggesting that you know rDNA modified organisms are safer than than other methods of modifying organisms, before you've tested them, is quite frankly rubbish.

Only after testing are you able to find out what you've got.

rDNA tech is not like adding a few bits of what you like... like a recipe... it is *very* unpredictable. Genome shock produces all sorts of unexpected effects... Completely new unexpected things can get expressed, as the new code unexpectedly switches things on, sometimes inserting code has the effect of switching other groups of code off with more unexpected effects. It's hard enough trying to achieve stability in the organism generation after generation, and even then, hoping during testing that the protien you want is now even present. Most of the organisms produced through rDNA with targeted expressions are very sickly, and it takes many generations of more traditional breeding methods with none rDNA stock to get to something acceptable. Sometimes you lose the expression in this later process, or the organism becomes unexpectedly unstable again.

This is why substantial and independent testing is important for organisms produced using rDNA technology.
 
Suggesting that you know rDNA modified organisms are safer than than other methods of modifying organisms, before you've tested them, is quite frankly rubbish.
I never said I "knew they were safer". And I never said testing shouldn't be done. There has been an enormous number of studies on GMOs. Just recently a study was released that followed livestock fed GMO based feed for 19 years that showed no difference between animals fed GMO based feed and non-GMO feed. Steven Novella also covered this study on his blog:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
"The first regulatory hurdle for safety testing of GMOs is to establish “substantial equivalence.” Researchers must show that the genetically engineered crop is essentially the same as the parent variety in all ways except for the desired introduced genetic change. The authors report:

Over the past 20 yr, the U.S. FDA found all of the 148 GE transformation events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have Japanese regulators for 189 submissions."

Oh, and what is this? Exactly what I said earlier is indeed a risk, only it isn't GMO in this case, it's conventionally modified foods:

"The authors point out that the same testing is not required for conventional breeding or even mutation farming. It also cannot be assumed that such techniques are without risk.

There have been instances where plants bred using classical techniques have been unsuitable for human consumption. For example, the poison α-solanine, a glycoalkaloid, was unintentionally increased to unacceptable levels in certain varieties of potato through plant breeding resulting in certain cultivars being withdrawn from the U.S. and Swedish markets due to frequently exceeding the upper safe limit for total glycoalkaloid content."

Also of note:
"They further point out that proteins, DNA, and RNA from the food we eat are digested. Whole proteins or genes from GMO have never been detected in the tissue of animals fed GMO feed. There is also no reason to suspect that transgenic genes or proteins present any more of a health risk than the countless other proteins and genes we consume. It is therefore implausible that eating an animal fed GMO poses any health risk to humans."
 
Don't know all the proposed mechanisms of action, but one issue that seems pretty cut and dry to me is the GMOs that are "Round-up ready" or modified to be tolerant of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc so that the crops can be sprayed with these chemicals. So it is the residual "-cides" that are the mechanism of action rather than the food itself.

I seem to recall some studies in Europe where rats fed the round up ready corn (I think) got tumored up. I know lots of countries including Russia are banning GMOs. Is it economic warfare or are they legitimately trying to protect their citizens? I don't know.

Edit: here's that study I was thinking of:
http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463

This study you referred to was originally published in Food and Chemical Toxicity but was retracted due to criticism about its methodology and conclusions. It was republished in an open access journal (aka, no peer review).

Again, Dr. Novella blogged about this as well:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seralini-gmo-study-republished/

Issues of peer review aside, AFAIK the study also has never been repeated with the same results. Kind of a major death knell for any scientific study if it proves unrepeatable.

Also of note in this same blog post:
"Retraction Watch discussed this issue, giving a good quote from a journalist, Oransky:

“The ratio of politics to science when it comes to discussions of GMOs [genetically modified organisms] is so high that I think it often ceases to be useful.

“This is a good example of what happens when people with hardened beliefs manipulate a system for the result they want. Science should be about following the evidence, appropriately changing your mind if the evidence warrants it. But in this case people seem to reject the evidence that doesn’t suit their needs.”"

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. How many times have people here on this forum criticized mainstream science for doing this exact thing? There is a wealth of information available about the safety of GMOs. There has been little credible evidence given to show that they are harmful. But idealogues ignore nearly 50 years of scientific study because it doesn't fit their a priori notion that GMO= BAD. This is no different than certain other idealogues digging in their heels and refusing to acknowledge the volumes of evidence for psi over the last 100 years. Ideology stifles science and the issue of GMO safety is probably one of the most politicized issues of our time.
 
Last edited:
I never said I "knew they were safer". And I never said testing shouldn't be done. There has been an enormous number of studies on GMOs. Just recently a study was released that followed livestock fed GMO based feed for 19 years that showed no difference between animals fed GMO based feed and non-GMO feed. Steven Novella also covered this study on his blog:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/
"The first regulatory hurdle for safety testing of GMOs is to establish “substantial equivalence.” Researchers must show that the genetically engineered crop is essentially the same as the parent variety in all ways except for the desired introduced genetic change. The authors report:

Over the past 20 yr, the U.S. FDA found all of the 148 GE transformation events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have Japanese regulators for 189 submissions."

Oh, and what is this? Exactly what I said earlier is indeed a risk, only it isn't GMO in this case, it's conventionally modified foods:

"The authors point out that the same testing is not required for conventional breeding or even mutation farming. It also cannot be assumed that such techniques are without risk.

There have been instances where plants bred using classical techniques have been unsuitable for human consumption. For example, the poison α-solanine, a glycoalkaloid, was unintentionally increased to unacceptable levels in certain varieties of potato through plant breeding resulting in certain cultivars being withdrawn from the U.S. and Swedish markets due to frequently exceeding the upper safe limit for total glycoalkaloid content."

Also of note:
"They further point out that proteins, DNA, and RNA from the food we eat are digested. Whole proteins or genes from GMO have never been detected in the tissue of animals fed GMO feed. There is also no reason to suspect that transgenic genes or proteins present any more of a health risk than the countless other proteins and genes we consume. It is therefore implausible that eating an animal fed GMO poses any health risk to humans."

What's the point of trotting all that out... every rDNA modified organism needs discussing on its own merits...

...there is nothing inherently safe about rDNA technology. There is no point in trying to generalise about the safety of rDNA modified organisms.

If you want to make claims about the safety of a specific rDNA modified organism - that makes sense - generalising doesn't.
 
What's the point of trotting all that out... every rDNA modified organism needs discussing on its own merits...

...there is nothing inherently safe about rDNA technology. There is no point in trying to generalise about the safety of rDNA modified organisms.

If you want to make claims about the safety of a specific rDNA modified organism - that makes sense - generalising doesn't.

**sigh** Ok.
 
Safety issues aside, there is no reason why these can't be labelled so that the public can choose. There appears to be an underlying perception that labeling could cause people to boycott a product out of fear... But the idea that businesses should be protected by the government by being allowed to omit what is in their products is ridiculous. Convincing the public that GMOs are safe is the corporation's job, and if people boycott them that should not be of concern to the government.

It is also a stupid idea from a business POV. By omitting the presence of GMOs in labels, they are actually raising suspicions about their motives and inadvertently herding more clients towards the "100% organic" bussiness.
 
Safety issues aside, there is no reason why these can't be labelled so that the public can choose. There appears to be an underlying perception that labeling could cause people to boycott a product out of fear... But the idea that businesses should be protected by the government by being allowed to omit what is in their products is ridiculous. Convincing the public that GMOs are safe is the corporation's job, and if people boycott them that should not be of concern to the government.

It is also a stupid idea from a business POV. By omitting the presence of GMOs in labels, they are actually raising suspicions about their motives and inadvertently herding more clients towards the "100% organic" bussiness.
I agree. We have a right to know what is in the food we consume or the products we use.
 
I think when discussing this Genetic Engineering (GE) technology/issue it is really important to define what exactly you're talking about. So, when someone asks me, "Is genetically modified food safe?" or "Should they be labeled?", there is no way I could ever answer simply "yes" or "no" to those questions without some clarification. The reason is because the issue is so much more complex than one may think without doing a bunch of research and, as stated above by others, without looking into each case of how the technology was applied, tested and marketed. And this technology is older than many think and goes way beyond food products so you have to go back 40+ years and look into stuff beyond food like GE human insulin (first GE product approved in US) production for example. Since I teach about this stuff, I've invested a considerable amount of time researching and talking to academics/scientists that are involved in the process. Just as one example of the complexity of the issue - take cheese making in the US. The overwhelming majority of hard cheese in the USA (90%+) is made using a product/enzyme (chymosin) that is created by a genetically engineered microbe (bovine genetic material engineered into microbe). Cheese is rarely a target of anti-GMO crusaders and in Vermont, where GMO food labeling has occurred, the cheese isn't labeled "GMO" (Hmmmmmmmm I wonder why?). Here's a good article to get folks started thinking about this issue in relation to just one of the products of GE technology - cheese making (be aware that the source is very much in favor of GE tech): https://www.geneticliteracyproject....rd-gmo-opponents-love-and-oppose-a-label-for/
 
Genetically Modify Food – IQ2 Debates - Intelligence Squared U.S.

Genetically modified (GM) foods have been around for decades. Created by modifying the DNA of one organism through the introduction of genes from another, they are developed for a number of different reasons—to fight disease, enhance flavor, resist pests, improve nutrition, survive drought—and are mainly found in our food supply in processed foods using corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, and as feed for farm animals. Across the country and around the world, communities are fighting the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Are they safe? How do they impact the environment? Can they improve food security? Is the world better off with or without GM food?
 
Googled for potential conflict of interest among pro-GMO scientists, this came up ->

Scientists, Groups Urge National Academy to Reverse Decades of One-Sided GMO Science

Today’s letter to the Academy cites a lack of balance, perspective and independence among the committee of experts chosen to carry out a new taxpayer-funded study, which will advise the federal government on how to update regulations of GMOs—including new biotechnology products developed using synthetic biology.

The Academy’s findings will help shape how food is produced and regulated in the future, and the letter calls it “troubling” that at least six of the 13 invited committee members have financial conflicts of interests with the biotech industry—four of which are not publicly disclosed. Several other committee members have backgrounds advocating for biotechnology development.

By contrast, no strong advocates of the precautionary principle or critics of industry practices were invited to participate as committee members, though many were nominated. Likewise, no farmers or farmer groups were invited even though a focus of the Academy’s work is on agricultural biotechnology. “The current committee does not include the diversity of expert perspectives that exist in the mainstream scientific discourse, where there is great disagreement about how to regulate and deploy the products of biotechnology,” says the letter.

The complaint letter comes on the heels of a Food & Water Watch report showing structural conflicts of interests at every level of the National Academy’s agricultural research program. The Academy receives millions of dollars in donations from biotech companies and allows industry representatives to sit on high-level boards overseeing the organization’s operations.

For decades, scientists and public-interest groups have raised questions about conflicts of interest and potential bias in the Academy’s work on GMOs.
 
Another critique of GMOs [Or at least a particular GMO] - I'm sure there are counter arguments/claims but this one did seem worth a read:

Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice: the Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice

...Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote “Golden Rice” as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries. They did so well before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world.

So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades?

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. It’s purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand.

I worked with a conventional fortified rice technology (Ultra Rice) for years for the NGO PATH in several countries. It became clear to us that rice-consuming populations were extremely picky about their rice and unwilling to accept even the tiniest changes in its appearance, smell or taste.

They are now to be convinced to eat rice that’s bright yellow in color? That will never happen on any large scale. If it does, it will be because a huge investment was made to overcome consumer resistance. Money that COULD have been spent to convince people simply to eat the low-cost plant foods easily available in all countries that can prevent vitamin A deficiency.

Consumer resistance has special importance among the really poor people for whom Golden Rice actually might otherwise prove useful. That’s because when rice is poorly stored it can be infected with a yellow mould causing the deadly “yellow rice disease” (beriberi) if consumed. Only a decade ago this was thought to have killed dozens of male sugar workers in the Maranhao region of Brazil (Rosa et al., 2010). Is that really a type of consumer resistance we want to debunk?

The Rosa paper does not prove that the epidemic and accompanying deaths in Brazil were due to the mould, just that the mould was present in rice in the area of the outbreak. However, Brazilian authorities we talked with in 2007 believed that the mould was almost certainly involved and probably the main cause. But one does see beriberi in the East (this is the first large-scale outbreak in the West) among hard working men who drink a lot of alcohol and eat mainly white rice.

Penicillium citreonigrum Dierckx is the name of the mould that turns rice yellowish. Another can turn it brownish. Infected rice does not really look like Golden Rice. My point is rather that people in places where rice often gets wet during storage generally know that yellow rice is dangerous. Telling them that yellow rice is safe—a message Golden Rice will have to trumpet–sounds like a typical self-serving message that has the additional disadvantage of putting people in danger. Teaching them WHICH appearance safe vs unsafe rice has is again getting into pretty great detail and expense.

In Bangladesh I was involved with a communication NGO, the Worldview International Foundation, that worked with 10 million people to convince them to grow and consume high-carotene foods. We conducted a large-scale evaluation to see if it worked. It did. It cost only $0.15 per capita—though this was over two decades ago. But it also had many side benefits, such as the other nutrients contained in fresh vegetables (Greiner and Mitra, 1995)...
 
Who funds studies for the testing of GMOs?

Are there any independent studies? I don't know much about GMOs, I'm on the fence, anyway have a good beginners reference?
 
Back
Top