There is a general loathing for GMO that may be going beyond the rational. This problem arises when most of the more popular critics of the very complex science of genetics are mere novices in the field of genetics. Some of them are apparently using the fear they generate to promote their own agendas and nothing else. The general public knows so little about genetics it cannot properly evaluate the critics. So herein lies a problem.
When one follows The Real Diet of Man, the prospects for eating traces of whatever GMO one fears in the grass-fed meats and green leafy vegetables is next to zero if not zero. There is no other combination of foods that can make that claim. In addition, to date, even though billions of people and trillions of animals have eaten GMO foods, the Center for Disease Control has not yet recorded one case where there was a problem. But the CDC has recorded billions of cases of chronic disease that we know are caused by eating foods that are not in The Real Diet of Man. Therefore one can assume that the very fundamental chemical properties of corn, for instance, is far and away more significant to impairing the health of humans than any strain of GMO plants.
The focus on any particular food being simply organic and/or nonGMO takes consumers' eyes off the ball. It leads them to believe those factors, which are not measurable in terms of human health statistics, are far more important than the actual foods consumed. Even if they are important, the negatives are so insignificant relative to the known damage caused by improper foods, that until people change to The Real Diet of Man no one will be able to detect their impact.
This approach is what is called going beyond organic. Our food products are not an issue in this debate. But just the same, it is best if people focus on the overall chemistry of foods rather than small individual aspects. In other words, every food (even sugar) can be embellished with certain positive attributes. But the overall impact is what's important. Many fruits are extolled as being super foods, yet they are dangerously high glycemic. Many nuts are recommended as substitutes for grain or quick energy, yet they are sources for heavy doses of inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids. Some popular vegetables are not nutrient dense, are high glycemic, and have skewed fatty acid profiles. This is why we provide a Food Analysis section in our website.
So, rather than being stampeded into running down a science where the verdict may not yet be in and one in which our foods are not involved in the first place, we want to underscore the importance of evaluating the chemistry of foods themselves. The fundamental weight of elements and compounds in the food one eats has a HUGE impact on their health whereby the many possible contaminants are mostly benign in comparison. In this section are very reputable reports and articles that provide balance in the GMO debate. If GMO is still a major concern for you, then limit your foods to our grass-fed meats and selected vegetables as suggested in The Real Diet of Man.
Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result. . .
To read this Harvard.edu special edition blog post on GMO click HERE.
Scientists have studied gene drives for more than 50 years. The development of a powerful genome editing tool in 2012, CRISPR/Cas9 led to recent breakthroughs in gene drive research that built on that half century’s worth of knowledge, and stimulated new discussion of the potential applications and implications of gene drive technologies. Just prior to the beginning of this study and since the committee was first convened, scientists published four proofs of concept—one in yeast, one in fruit flies, and two in different species of mosquitoes—that demonstrate the successful development gene drives in the laboratory, at least in these organisms.
Proposed applications for gene-drive modified organisms for basic research, conservation, agriculture, public health and other purposes will likely continue to expand as gene editing tools become more refined. Gene-drive modified organisms are on the horizon. The fast moving nature of this field is both encouraging and a concerning.
While gene-drive modified organisms hold promise for addressing difficult to solve, persistent challenges, such as the eradication of vector-borne diseases and the conservation of threatened and endangered species, these proposed applications are based on limited proof-of-concept studies. The presumed efficiency of gene-drive modified organisms may lead to calls for their release in perceived crisis situations, before there is adequate knowledge of their ecological effects, and before mitigation plans for unintended harmful consequences are in place.
Genetically modified organisms — GMOs — are a major topic of discussion today. Across our society, media and the Internet, a growing number of people have shared a wide range of questions and emotions on the topic – ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear.
GMO Answers was created to do a better job answering your questions — no matter what they are — about GMOs. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says.
This website is the beginning of a new conversation among everyone who cares about how our food is grown.
I, too, was once in that activist camp. A lifelong environmentalist, I opposed genetically modified foods in the past. Fifteen years ago, I even participated in vandalizing field trials in Britain. Then I changed my mind.
After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.
This is the home of the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas, or GENERA, which is a searchable database of peer-reviewed research on the relative risks of genetically engineered crops that includes important details at-a-glance. GENERA is a project of Biology Fortified, Inc., which is an independent tax-exempt nonprofit organization devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about issues in biology, with a particular emphasis on plant genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture.
This is a listing of all studies currently stored in GENERA's database. There are over 400 studies in the database.
On October 25, 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested technical assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in investigating adverse event reports (AERs) of human illnesses that were potentially associated with consumption of genetically modified corn products.
This CDC link provides access to those reports. When viewing this page take note of the side panels showing that the CDC has been investigating numerous contaminants over the years. They range from pesticides, air and water quality, and even fungi contamination such as Aflatoxicosis. Many of the reports in those sections point to problems. The CDC is not adverse to calling a spade a spade. READ MORE.
Agricultural and human biotechnology are reshaping farming, food and medicine. The GLP explores the intersection of DNA research, media and policy to disentangle science from ideology.
Genetic research and biotechnology can improve food security, the environment and public health. Yet dramatic innovation can lead to unintended consequences and present ethical challenges. In theory, the study of genetics and related cutting edge sciences are widely celebrated. But in practice, the words “gene” and “genetic engineering” often stir fear and misunderstanding when applied to biomedicine and farming. Intricate science scares people who don’t understand risk and complexity. What is the potential of agricultural and human genetics? The commitment of the GLP is to promote public awareness of genetics and science literacy.
A 2014 scientific review from the University of California, Davis, reports on the performance and health of food-producing animals consuming genetically engineered feed that was first introduced 18 years ago.
The review, led by UC Davis animal scientist Alison Van Eenennaam, examined nearly 30 years of livestock-feeding studies that represent more than 100 billion animals.
Collaborating on the study was co-author Amy E. Young in the UC Davis Department of Animal Science.
Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal "Food and Chemical Toxicology" today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors refused to withdraw it. The link to this story plus the links in the article provide insight into critical thinking. The comments submitted by the many readers are also very interesting.
The study lost credibility because the number of rats involved in the study were very small. Also, the time involved invalidated the results. The rats were fed GMO maize for two years, virtually the entire lifespan of a rat. The rats used in the experiment are a strain that spontaneously develops tumors especially in their older age. These rats are normally used in tumor experiments such as the ones showing how diets high in Omega-6 make tumors grow faster versus rats fed diets with proper EFA ratios. But when experiments go to the very end of the lifespan of rats genetically predisposed to develop tumors, the tests become invalid because of the genetics of the rats and nothing else. If tests supporting the proper EFA balance for retarding cancerous growths had been conducted decades ago the same way as this now famous, discredited GMO rat test, the conclusion that a diet high in Omega-6 fatty acids causes cancers to grow rapidly would have been highly criticized.
There is good science and bad science on both sides of many studies. Just because one group or another does not like the outcome that is no reason to debunk a study. If that was true there would be no advancement in any field of endeavor. It is the credibility of a study that is all important. Also, one study rarely proves anything. For a scientific point to be accepted as fact, studies have to be replicated numerous times. This discredited rat study has not been replicated even once -- even by those highly apposed to GMO feeds.