Is Modified Food Modifying Us As Well?

How much do you really know about genetically modified (GM) food? If you’re like most people, your answer to that question is probably “not very much”, yet it seems that many people have strong opinion about the gene modification of the food that they eat, even if they don’t really know much about why they don’t like it or why whether it is safe and healthy or otherwise. In fact, in a recent study it was revealed that more than half of people in the US do not want to eat GM foods despite their lack of knowledge as to what it is and the benefits of it.

 

Nevertheless, people still appear to eat GM foods in large numbers and this apparent distrust of GM foods has not led to a significant rejection of them at store level. Still, there is a big push going on, organised by those people who disapprove of genetically modified organisms, to get them to be removed from foods and food production in the US.

 

But what do we mean when we talk about GM foods? Well, here is a breakdown of what typically is going on within the production of GM food. In the traditional cross-breeding process, you take two varieties of, for example, tomatoes and then cross them together to create a more robust fruit. However, there has been a recent trend using the modern technology to insert out-of-species genes, that are often from bacteria and viruses, into the gene structure of plants like corn, soybean and cotton, introducing genetic matter into the food that we eat that has never been there before. In effect, then, we are eating things that are bodies have never ingested before.

 

This process is quite controversial as it can even allow conventional growers to do use even larger amounts of poisonous herbicides onto the modified plants without killing the crop – the plants have been created to be more able to stand up to strong chemicals so they doused in pesticides to help stop them be eaten. Unfortunately this has a number of problems in the fact that it introduces more chemicals into the groundwater and waterways near the farms that grow these crops and, perhaps worse, it also increases the amount of chemical residue on the foods – those same foods that you eat every day. It is even true that some crops have been specifically modified so the plant produces its own pesticide.

 

In another twist it seems that GM foods are being blamed for an increased level of allergies, new toxins and other immune problems. For instance, it has been noted that soy allergies increased by 50 per cent in the United Kingdom after GM soy was introduced here. And in studies on animal, feeding mice GM foods has been shown to cause issues with digestion, smaller livers, reproductive problems and even an increased rate of infant mortality. We also know that livestock that have grazed on GM cotton fields have died abruptly, too. If pesticide genes are able to transfer into the bacteria in our gut—as the only human study on the subject suggests they can—we’re in for some serious changes in our stomachs.

 

All in all, its clear that far more research needs to be done into the effects of GM foods and whether it is only certain types of gene modification that causes problems or if it is a concept that needs to be abandoned altogether. After all there are so many potential benefits of gene modification, it seems a shame to throw it away on flimsy evidence that might prove to be irrelevant in the long term.

Categories: eat gm, Food, foods, gene modification, genetically modified, GM, gm food, gm foods, modified, people, Tomatoes

Why is the UK Dragging its Heels on Producing GM Foods?

You may be concerned about the impact that GM crops will have on environmental wellness, or your personal wellbeing, but GM crops may be safer than conventional plants. This is according to Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, who noted that GM has significant wellness benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment.

 

According to Paterson, the next generation of GM crops offers the ‘most wonderful opportunities to improve human health,’ but reluctance in the UK and Europe to adopt GM foods means that we are being left behind while the rest of the world moves forward. ‘The use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make GMOs even safer than conventional plants and food,’ he said. ‘The EU chief scientist Anne Glover has said it pretty bluntly – there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health on animal health or on environmental health.’

 

In a bid to persuade the public, Paterson explained that GM holds a great deal of promise especially in the developing world. Golden Rice, for example, has modified levels of vitamin A which can help prevent blindness in young children in deprived environments. Paterson lamented that this rice has been ready to go since 1999, but we’re still dragging our heels on growing it commercially. He commented, ‘Every attempt to deploy has been thwarted and in that time seven million children have gone blind or died.’

 

At Rothamsted Research in Harpenden last week, Paterson argued that the government, industry and the scientific community ‘owe a duty to the British public to reassure them GM is a safe, proven and beneficial innovation.’ He added, ‘We need evidence-based regulation and decision-making in the EU. Consumers need accurate information in order to make informed choices. The market should then decide if a GM product is viable. Farmers are also consumers but right now that market is not functioning and they are being denied choice. That’s why I want to explore ways of getting the EU system working, as this will encourage further investment and innovation.’

 

However, critic Peter Melchett, policy director for Soil Association responded, ‘The British Government constantly claim that GM crops are just one tool in the toolbox for the future of farming. In fact GM is the cuckoo in the nest. It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world. We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits.’

Categories: gm foods, Golden Rice, Safe

Population Boom: If GM Foods Aren’t the Answer, What Is?

Last week, environment secretary Owen Paterson made a bold speech in defence of GM foods. He noted that GM foods could bring benefits to the wellbeing of millions of people, as GM foods mean less pesticide, more nature reserves and, most importantly of all, life-changing benefits for generations of children with vitamin A deficiency. So why do we remain so skeptical about the science and big business involvement behind GM foods, and how they impact our environmental wellness?

 

Last year, the stranglehold of regulation caused Monsanto and the German firm BASF to retreat from Europe. While draft legislation has been on the table for the past three years that would allow individual countries to make their own decisions on GM crops, few governments want to challenge citizens’ skepticism, as Paterson has so boldly done. Last week, he commented that GM is on a par with better animal husbandry and selective plant breeding, in that it’s only a step in the long march of agricultural improvement – but is he right?

 

There is a monumental difference between exploiting a natural resistance to a disease, and introducing an alien gene to provide that protection. This is probably what makes you suspicious of the science of GM foods and the people promoting it. It took ten years for modified “golden rice” (which has added beta-carotene to tackle vitamin A deficiency) to be given authorisation – we just don’t trust GM foods. However, this caution means we need to be serious about the consequences of the population explosion. Over the next 40 years, it is estimated that we will need to increase our food production by 60%. If GM foods aren’t the answer, then what is?

 

While GM may have a role to play in increasing our food production over the coming years, it’s more likely that more traditional science, using genetics, will be part of the answer. However, campaigners at the G8 argued last week that the bigger answers lie in asking bigger questions about the politics. Agricultural production doubled in Europe in the 40 years after 1965, which proves that it’s not all down to science. Genetic engineering is no substitute for a global, sustainable agriculture based on education, investment in roads, storage and markets, access to improved seed and a political economy that prioritised food production.

Categories: gm foods, Population Explosion, Sustainable Agriculture