Genetically modified (GM) foods
— are they safe or harmful? While regulatory authorities have approved GM food that is on the market, some people are concerned that there is risk of harm. Most foods we eat may contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). If you live in Europe, avoiding GM foods is easier since laws require labeling. In the US and Canada, however, food manufacturers are not required to label if their food is genetically modified or not.

Become familiar with the most common applications of genetic modification. These are the products (and their derivatives) that are most likely to be genetically modified:


Soybeans - Gene taken from bacteria (Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and inserted into soybeans to make them more resistant to herbicides.

Corn - There are two main varieties of GE corn. One has a Gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted to produce the Bt toxin, which poisons Lepidoteran (moths and butterflies) pests.[2] There are also several events which are resistant to various herbicide. Present in high fructose corn syrup and glucose/fructose which is prevalent in a wide variety of foods in America.

Rapeseed/Canola - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to herbicide.
Sugar beets - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.


Cotton - engineered to produce Bt toxin. The seeds are pressed into cottonseed oil, which is a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.


Dairy - Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.

Sugar. In 2012 the FDA approved GMO Beet Sugars to be allowed to be sold on the market under the name.... "SUGAR" So now, when we go to buy "All Natural" Breyer's Ice Cream, we can't even know for sure that we are actually eating regular natural cane sugar. If you see "CANE SUGAR" there's a good chance it's not GMO. This is one of the biggest frustrations with labelling, as sugar is in so many things, and we might be avoiding food that POSSIBLY has GMO sugar, but really does not.

Papayas.

Zuchini.

Thanks but no thanks. with cancer cases on the rise, its a no no for me. I don't believe these GM foods have the same nutritional value as the norml farm vrown ones.

@ dominique,
actually, That was the issue on my mind that brought about this post,bt had to choose this title as many thoughts running in my head, the issue is that cancer is no new disease from ages, biotech happens to be a new branch of science which future is still so young in both research and application,if many degenerative diseases like - Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's Disease ,HIV, Malaria, leukemia,are diseases that still under research with no permanent or sure cure yet, if everything about genes is fully understood, it should go for cure first and not for profit. i think i will prefer organic foods either to genetic tampered ones , i can now considered it safe, when they have use it successful in knowing what really is killing people in HIV, Alzheimer's disease, Or Malaria, not because a powerful company generating the largest profit annually or FDA is telling me so......as for the nutritional value, i guess that might have been altered to with plasmid this, ecoli that, even heared some of the top official ordered organic foods specially for their fam, so why make it a market........the issue of labeling GM foods in US is whats just driving my concern

There is no evidence that GM food is bad for people or for animals after 16 years of commercial cultivation on a cumulative GM crop acreage of more than 3 billion. On the contrary, GM corn, for example, is better for people and animals because it has lower levels of highly toxic contaminating fungal toxins than do either conventional or organic corn

I disagree. While it's true that there is no real scientific debate about the health safety of current GMO's, because scientifically they're safe, the anti-GMO groups frequently try to warp science into supporting their viewpoints. So scientists are defending themselves in a sociopolitical issue that is trying to twist science against them. In the same breath that GMO-labelers say it's just about "choice", they also say that GMO's are dangerous, and has successfully scared others who are too naive on the topic to understand it into believing the same. I've seen it over and over again, and it's disingenuous for you to pretend that it doesn't happen. It's the same tactic that industry lobbyists use to undermine climate change, by attacking the science behind it even though there is no actual scientific debate whether climate change is real. The common denominator here is that there are special interests attacking scientists (and make no mistake, the multi-billion dollar organic industry is a special interest). Now you say that it's not about science. Excuse me?

dominique: Thanks but no thanks. with cancer cases on the rise, its a no no for me. I don't believe these GM foods have the same nutritional value as the norml farm vrown ones.

A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals.

An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought.

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year.

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company.

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study.

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional cord, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively.

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.”

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively.

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

more

Can I ask you, who are profit-pro, an organisation without scientific background. Perhaps we should consider that the “organic” movement is more concerned about creating publicity for themselves than for the health of the people.

The effects of glyphosate on human health has been investigated in a large number of scientific studies. A human health evaluation conducted by the European authorities in 2002 was based on the results of more than 200 toxicology studies, including studies on acute effects, long term effects including cancer, effects on reproduction and mutagenicity.
In summary:
Glyphosate is of very low acute toxicity
Glyphosate is not carcinogenic
Glyphosat does not have mutagenic effects
Glyphosate has no unwanted effects on reproduction and development
Glyphosate is rapidly eliminated if ingested and it does not accumulate in the body

bambuzz88: A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals.


An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought.

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year.

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company.

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study.

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional cord, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively.

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.”

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively.

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

more

1965: 3.2 billion people, 4300 sq meters arable land/head
2012: 7 bilion people, 2200 sq meters arable land/head
2030: 8.3 billion people, 1800 sq meters arable land/head
Also note that many percentage of these crops are into energy demand(biomass) to reduce the demand for oil. Agriculture needs breakthrough innovation.You're going to have GM food, or you're going to have world-wide famines. Without the green revolution, who is going to feed two billion new people. It's appropriate to proceed carefully, but even though it's in slow motion,this is a life or death decision for a lot of people

jejet: 1965: 3.2 billion people, 4300 sq meters arable land/head
2012: 7 bilion people, 2200 sq meters arable land/head
2030: 8.3 billion people, 1800 sq meters arable land/head
Also note that many percentage of these crops are into energy demand(biomass) to reduce the demand for oil. Agriculture needs breakthrough innovation.You're going to have GM food, or you're going to have world-wide famines. Without the green revolution, who is going to feed two billion new people. It's appropriate to proceed carefully, but even though it's in slow motion,this is a life or death decision for a lot of people

somehow i respect ur point of view but you are talking of life and death decision,rembr organic(natural) foods are still being grown, bt pls Can i ask u a question, what future do u think cancer therapy holds, am not talking in terms of radiotherapy or chemotherapy or surgery......i want to know because thats a sure indicator for me that genetics is really understood before genetic application can be considered safe for me, mind u, am not saying GM foods is not safe for consumption, am only saying we dont know everything yet to declare it safe

Read up on biotechnology, genetic and epigenetics

bambuzz88:

somehow i respect ur point of view but you are talking of life and death decision,rembr organic(natural) foods are still being grown, bt pls Can i ask u a question, what future do u think cancer therapy holds, am not talking in terms of radiotherapy or chemotherapy or surgery......i want to know because thats a sure indicator for me that genetics is really understood before genetic application can be considered safe for me, mind u, am not saying GM foods is not safe for consumption, am only saying we dont know everything yet to declare it safe

jejet: Read up on biotechnology, genetic and epigenetics

just don't want to remove that fact this issue is been politicize , am not against ny scientific ethics bt like dominique stated that cancer cases are on the rise, we should be more concern about humanity and not profit........guess i rest my case then..............

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of
living things and GMO corn is covered with it,”
adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional
benefits rampant in natural corn are almost
entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the
samples used during the study, non-GMO corn
is alleged to have 437-times the amount of
calcium in genetically modified versions, and
56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and
manganese, respectively.

And that's my major issue with this GM foods, do they contain the same nutritional contents with organic foods. The part I quoted off Bambuzz post shows it doesn't. Even if this glyphosphate is not carcinogenic or doesn't accumulate in the body, that fact that it reduces the nutritional value of the foods makes it a no no for me.

Some foods and fibre crops have been modified to make them resistant to insects and viruses and more able to tolerate herbicides. GM golden rice is a white rice crop modified by the insertion of the vitamin A gene from a daffodil plant. This changes the colour and the vitamin level of the rice and is of benefit in countries where vitamin A deficiency is prevalent. GM researchers are focusing on major health problems like iron deficiency. The removal of the proteins that cause allergies from nuts (such as peanuts) is also being studied.
Tell me how far you can go using organic farming.

Hi everybody, I am really happy to see people in Nigeria marching against Monsanto.
Lets keep saying NO to GMO and living healthy cancerfree lives!!
https://www.facebook.com/events/354759494626317/
Thank You

bambuzz88:


@ dominique,
actually, That was the issue on my mind that brought about this post,bt had to choose this title as many thoughts running in my head, the issue is that cancer is no new disease from ages, biotech happens to be a new branch of science which future is still so young in both research and application,if many degenerative diseases like - Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's Disease ,HIV, Malaria, leukemia,are diseases that still under research with no permanent or sure cure yet, if everything about genes is fully understood, it should go for cure first and not for profit. i think i will prefer organic foods either to genetic tampered ones , i can now considered it safe, when they have use it successful in knowing what really is killing people in HIV, Alzheimer's disease, Or Malaria, not because a powerful company generating the largest profit annually or FDA is telling me so......as for the nutritional value, i guess that might have been altered to with plasmid this, ecoli that, even heared some of the top official ordered organic foods specially for their fam, so why make it a market........the issue of labeling GM foods in US is whats just driving my concern

The US is corrupt, those labeled organic are not totally organic they still have traces of GMO in it.