The GMO Food Debate

Are Genetically Modified Food Crops a Good or Bad Idea?

Companies like Monsanto have been selling the idea of super food crops like GMO corn, soy and wheat for years, yet concerns about health and environmental safety remain.

Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”) are present in almost every prepared food in supermarkets today. Unless the package says “organic” or “non-GMO,” you can be reasonably sure that any soy, corn, or wheat in most commercial foods have been genetically modified. For a food source that has become so common, it’s almost shocking how little we actually know about the long-term safety implications – and how little the general public knows about GMO foods at all.

Why Genetically Modified Foods May Be Good

The ideal food crop is one that grows easily in several soil and climate conditions; does not require expensive, toxic chemicals to act as pesticides or otherwise aid or protect the plants’ growth; and has a nutritious, tasty edible yield. Genetically modified organisms can supply many of these needs that “natural” crops do not.

  • By manipulating the genetic code of a crop in the lab, it is possible to create a strain of corn, for example, that is hardier and will survive a wider range of climates than ordinary corn.
  • Some GMO foods are designed to produce chemicals that will repel insects and other pests, making hazardous pesticides unnecessary.
  • Others are modified to boost their nutritional value or to appeal to shoppers by changing the colour or size of fruits or veggies.

Some argue that humans have been eating modified food crops since the beginning of agriculture; that by choosing particular strains of food crops to plant, harvest, and breed, we have intentionally altered the gene pool for as long as farming has existed. Yet there is, arguably, a difference between designing a plant or animal’s genes naturally, through selective breeding, and artificially creating new genes in a lab.

Why Genetically Modified Foods Are Potentially Dangerous

Although designer crops that require less pesticides and produce more food may sound like an ideal combination, the reality is that the safety of GMO food crops has not yet been established conclusively.

  • Organizations such as Greenpeace question the impact of a plant “super strain” on natural local flora. Genetically modified food crops can easily spread out of the field and into the environment, choking out wild plants.
  • The digestibility and health impact of GMO foods can by no means be taken for granted. We simply do not know the long term effect of eating modified foods. They may prove to be more nutritious… or they may be carcinogenic. At present, no one knows.

How to Avoid GMO Foods

  • Buy organic. Certified organic foods do not contain genetically modified ingredients.
  • Read labels closely on anything containing soy, corn, potatoes, or wheat, the most common transgenic crops. If it doesn’t say organic or non-GMO, these foods are almost always modified.

Case Study: GMO Pigs Excrete Less Phosphorus

One of the biggest problems in pork production is the amount of phosphorus excreted by the pigs. Pig manure used as fertilizer tends to pollute environments and waterways with toxic amounts of phosphorus because the pig digestive system needs a particular kind of phosphorus and no other kind can be absorbed.

Transgenic pigs or “Enviropigs” (TM) developed at the University of Guelph are able to absorb 60% more phosphorus from their diet - nicely solving the problem of phosphorus pollution while saving farmers money on supplements.

The downside? The gene used to modify these pigs comes from the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli).

The long-term health impact of eating pork from these genetically modified pigs is not yet known.

Victoria Anisman-Reiner, B.Sc., C.C.A., C. Anisman-Reiner

Victoria Anisman-Reiner - Victoria Anisman-Reiner is a freelance writer with extensive experience in holistic health care and animal training.

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 2+2?
23 Comments

Comments

Mar 12, 2009 2:18 PM
Guest :
I for one appreciate farmers using GMO's. As the general population gets further removed from the farm I don't believe they understand or appreciate what has to go into feeding this great nation in excess. None of us understand the devistating effects of droubt, disease ridden harvest, or a cold front destroying the food we had planned on eating the long winter months. This nation is used to advancing our technology at amazing speeds. Why not let our farmers use technology too. It makes our food more abundant and less expensive. I realize that there may be some unknowns out there, but immagine the good that can come of this. We could produce veggies that are higher in say calcium or vitamins. My kids would love to get more value out of less spinich. = 0) We are very prosperous in this nation. I don't believe the millions of people in Africa would complain about eating wheat that was grown using GMO's. They would be grateful. Let us be grateful that we are leaders in this amazing technology!
Apr 7, 2009 2:28 PM
Guest :
i dont like the idea of G.M.O
Jul 22, 2009 10:27 AM
Guest :
Actually, many parts of Africa and Asia, as well as Australia, New Zeland, and most of Europe have banned GMO foods. Having to spray "roundup" on a crop to make it grow hardly qualifies as "good food". Farming is a tricky business, yes. We all need to eat local when we can, protect our farmland, give aid to farmers to diversify, clean up the soil and water, and eat less. We can demand legislation to label GMO as such, and to boycott it. If we all were to do this, GMO would be unesscessary. The only "good" GMO does is line the pockets of already rich CEOs...
Aug 16, 2009 5:10 PM
Guest :
Which E. Coli? the article says that GMO pigs use phosphorus up to 60% better with a gene modification from E. Coli bacteria, but there are hundreds of strains of it. The one that was made famous by killing a 4-year-old whose hamburger was pink was 0157-H7. We can't assume that it was the strain which supplied this pig gene enhancement. I am not afraid of GMO foods, I read the voices of concern and I see no validity to the arguments, and great benefit on the other side of the issue.
Sep 6, 2009 8:14 PM
Guest :
GMO farming does not help the poor. GMO farming helps the rich. Google Monsanto.
Oct 19, 2009 9:31 AM
Guest :
This is hardly what you would call an objective article. While all the supposed "threats" of GMO's you mention are potential dangers (that after over TWO DECADES of testing by scientists all over the world) hold no scientific claims, no where in this article did I read about the many other GMO's that are irrefutably beneficial to society. What about golden rice that aids in the struggle against vitamin A deficiency in Africa and South East Asia (VAD is responsible for 1–2 million deaths, 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and millions of cases of xerophthalmia annually)? What about the medical advancements in the production of Human Growth Hormone in GM animals, that previously had to be extracted form cadavers. Europe has banned GMO's because they don't have the starving population and ravishing poverty our countries have. It's very easy to advise people to ban GMO's and buy organic, when you don't children starving to death on your way to work everyday. It's up to the next generation to feed and increasingly growing population with less land, less water and less energy. Biotechnology can help us achieve that. Don't believe everything you read, especially when it's written by activists and lobbyists, who last time I checked, didn't hold any kind of scientific degree.
Oct 20, 2009 9:48 AM
Guest :
To the previous poster: Do you know for a fact that the lobbyists and activists don't hold scientific degrees? None of them? (And if you answered yes, are you serious? You do realize that GMOs are still being debated precisely because no one can conclusively prove much of anything with regard to their safety, right?

You didn't mention - what's your science degree in? Oh, you don't have one?

Yes, this article is biased, but it speaks for safety rather than boldly rushing in to technologies that may prove dangerous... in twenty, or thirty, or a hundred years. Remember when people thought smoking was good for you? How about HRT?
Oct 28, 2009 9:33 AM
Guest :
And you think you need a scientific degree to form educated opinions? Not all of what is taught in University can be applied or be correct. Man tries to play god quite often. We may think GMO's are better for us because of the chemically enhanced vitamins...why should we enhance it?
As for Africa and them being grateful for GMO's, no. It would harm them more because it is unnatural and it would change the way we live.
Our society is becoming out of hand with trying to become an 'advanced' people. It's not always about getting more and more technology and engineering.
Nov 30, 2009 7:13 AM
Guest :
Wow, the person supporting the GMO's sounds exactly like a Monsanto employee shooting down peoples claims that GMO's are unsafe. The patrol internet site looking for people talikng bad a GMO's and chime in with the usual "I appreciate GMO's" or "
Don't believe everything you read, especially when it's written by activists and lobbyists, who last time I checked, didn't hold any kind of scientific degree" Ummm, its your lobbyist that got this shit through without being tested! Oh yeah anyone who can't spell DROUGHT, shouldn't chime in :)
Read more: http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_gmo_food_debate#ixzz0YM 9ctvV6
Hey Monsanto, Stop Playing God!
Jan 1, 2010 9:24 AM
Guest :
u know what.human spieces survived 1000s of years without any gmo foods. so why all of a sudden think that we can't survive without gmo foods??
Jan 21, 2010 11:38 PM
Guest :
I'm all for spreading the word about this IF YOU CAN PROPERLY CITE YOUR EVIDENCE. Where's the link to the studies? Am I to believe this information simply because YOU say it's true? That's like saying, "I know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Bush said so." I want to believe you but SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Don't expect me to take you seriously when the only citations your articles have are to other articles you've written.
Feb 4, 2010 3:25 PM
Guest :
yes but isnt gm foods bad for our health
Feb 15, 2010 5:08 PM
Guest :
I HATE the idea of genetically modifying anything!! It's just not natural.


Mar 4, 2010 9:22 PM
Guest :
People survived for thousands of years without GMO foods when the population was much smaller. The facts are, if we are to provide the food needed for an ever increasing population, on ever decreasing farmland, the only way that can be done is through technology. Depending on organic farming practices is a formula for mass starvation. I have no problem with people debating and questioning GMO's, it's what will make the companies involved pay even closer attention to their safety. But, I have no use for those who blindly label the technology as wrong or evil without really knowing how the science works or the ramifications of not doing all we can to meet the needs of our global population.
Mar 9, 2010 7:16 AM
Guest :
I don't care about GMOs at all. I've been eating them for years and I am still as fit as a fiddle.
Apr 7, 2010 11:35 AM
Guest :
I am a farmer. GMO's have increased yields which has put more money in the farmers pocket, which I have no problem with. Also there has been no proof that there is a problem with GMO's.
Sep 23, 2010 5:53 PM
Guest :
Proponents and opponents of GMOs treat them as if they are all the same, and it is this over-generalization that will eventually whittle healthy debate into partisan politics and name-calling such as is evident in this thread thusfar. I do have a graduate degree in a relevant science (MSc in Biopharmaceuticals from a world's top 25 university) and I believe that the key in this debate and all debates in biotechnology, is contingency. Legislatures must be encouraged to discuss particular cases of genetic modification instead of ruling on sweeping legislation banning all GMO's, or passing laws that subsidize GMO's believing that any form of a modified crop will secure yields for a generation. Enhancing vitamin A content in corn is completely different from splicing antibiotic genes into a pig. The organisms are different, the methods for achieving the characteristics are different, and the consequences are different. Most importantly, the consequences once they enter the human body will be different depending on the human consuming them!

All pharmacists and pharmaceutical companies know that there is a margin of error on the amount of harm (side effects) that traditional, safe drugs can have depending on the individual. When you take an Asprin and it interacts with another drug you are taking or your individual biology it could kill you. Most of the time it won't. This does not mean that a person will not be born in the near future who will have an adverse reaction. But as scientists we cannot control for this. The same goes for GMOs.

Thus, it is inappropriate to say all GMOs are bad, just as it is inappropriate to say all GMOs are good. What scares me is that the people who do not know the science do not want to know the science - that the people making the laws do not know or only want to know what part of the science can be fit into talking points for a press conference. We need to keep the scientists questioning and testing on both sides of the debate. If we let the people with the MBAs and JDs fund the science they want to see and allow the big corporations like Monsanto to patent crop genes, mark my words, we will see the downfall of genetic diversity amongst our foods which can only result in famine in the long run.
Jan 2, 2011 10:18 PM
Guest :
GMOs "can" be good because they have the potential to help solve hunger with the increasing population of the world but before we use them without even knowing, further studies must be made because we just don't know the harmful effects of it on human health and even the environment. And I think that it would not really solve world hunger if companies who create this GM foods will sell the seeds at a high price. (off course they will try to get high profits from big investments and what? leave the victims alone when time comes that harmful effects on human health start to rise?) if they really want to help, they must not be selfish! (humans are becoming lazy these days, world hunger will not be serious if only everyone will work for they're own sake and not wait for somebody to help them and give them what they need, while some are working hard but forgot to give their excess to the needy...) >>> My thesis project is about this and these are my opinions thank you!
Jan 17, 2011 6:10 PM
Guest :
GMO's are good in the sense that i wont make an effort to stop eating them but i will try to eat more organic foods, though organic foods are harder on the wallet.
Feb 14, 2011 8:29 PM
Guest :
i hate it. injecting animals is horrible and anyways if we let plants and animals get very resistant to bacteria, the bacteria will become stronger and harder to kill...
Apr 5, 2011 6:54 AM
Guest :
It's understandable as to why this method is particularly appealing to third world countries. For them there is a daily struggle to provide food for families and GMO's have the potential to change that. Despite this grasp on the obvious, the true problem ultimately lies within the corporations. I'm willing to bet that the gene used to modify pigs are patented by companies that charge money for others to use it. Furthermore, some genetic sequences help make plants immune to a certain brand of pesticide and farmers are forced to buy that company's seeds in order to clear the weeds without too much loss, thus creating a monopoly over the food industry. Before GMO's are used to support the third world nations, there must be considerable change in the way that such corporations operate.
Jul 13, 2011 6:06 AM
Guest :
GMO's are much more economical to produce keeping our consumer food costs lower. If we don't like it we have the choice of purchasing certified organic. Yes it is more expensive but obviously worth it to some. Instead of complaining why not just exercise your right to choose either less expensive GMO's or more expensive organic. If GMO's did not exist millions of people would not be able to afford to eat nutritionally balanced diets.
Sep 15, 2011 8:05 PM
Guest :
Wow, let's stick to the facts rather than the BS that's been handed us. These crops are far from drought resistance. Just ask the farmers in India or better yet search "GM Genocide". The top crops are corn, cotton, canola and soy. Most of that corn is trash and they dispose of it through ethanol, livestock feed or they hide it in ingredients like maltodextrin or ascorbic acid. The list goes on and on. These are not cheaper either, again, ask the farmers in India, (if you find one alive). The reason you think it's cheaper is because of subsidies through the government. Subsidies for the most expensive crops to grow! Now after only a decade we're seeing GM crops topple from root worms that have developed complete resistance from the poisonous plants that kill them. I'm sure before you spoke you believed the pretty picture painted to you by Monsanto and those funded by them and never bothered to do some research. If you did your research and food was labeled that contained GM ingredients you would avoid it at all costs. Tell me this, do you spray Round Up on plants to kill them or eat them? If you want veggies that are higher in nutrient value I suggest you buy or grow organically. Oh, and Africa being grateful... another ignorant statement as Africans are fighting this currently. Oh, but let's look at a third world area where they have been growing GM crops... that would be India, again. Anyother points to throw out there that haven't been proven already?
23 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement