2009 map of countries that allow and ban GMO products. Image by Zhitelew
Negative Side Effects of GMOs
One of the potential health risks of genetically modified food is allergies. To genetically modify a food, scientists take genes from one food to put into another food. This can cause allergic reactions and other side effects when people consume the modified foods.
For example, in 1996 soybeans were genetically engineered to have the same protein components as Brazil nuts. The problem researchers found was that the soybeans also contained the allergic properties of the nuts.
Thankfully, this was discovered before they were released to the public.
However, not all instances of potential adverse effects have been discovered before being released to the public. For example, in 1989 a genetically modified dietary supplement of tryptophan allegedly killed 37 people, permanently disabled 1,500 people, and caused 5,000 people to develop a blood disorder before the FDA was able to recall the product.
Another serious concern is that GM foods contain antibiotic markers, which is thought to be one of the reasons that the effectiveness of treatments are decreasing. This means that more powerful drugs are going to be needed to treat infections and diseases in the future.
Humans health is not all that’s at risk. Damery reports that GM plants allow farmers to increase the amount of pesticides and herbicides used on their land, which will increase the amount of chemicals finding their way into the water system and damaging the soil.
GMOs: Weighing the Pros and Cons
These are just some of the pros and cons of genetically modified foods – with such a controversy, it’s no wonder that the fight for Proposition 37 in California was so hard-fought on both sides. Understanding the laws and what GMOs are and how they are made will allow consumers to make an informed decision about purchasing and consuming foods that are genetically modified.
Resources:
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. Genetically Modified Food and Organisms. (2012). Human Genome Project. Accessed December 29, 2012.
Damery, P, et al. The Debate on Labeling Genetically Modified Food. (2011). Accessed December 29, 2012.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Weighing the GMO Arguments. (2003). Accessed December 29, 2012.
I like reading everyone’s arguments. Gives me a new perspective on how I look at GMO. (BTW totally against it☺)
ur all dum lol GMOs r the greatest (in all seriousness they are (so stop being uninformed masses of idiots blinded by the bandwagon and faked new articles))
Perhaps people should understand that we have been naturally changing the genetic code of flora and fauna for centuries. It’s called selective breeding. Look at Dogs, Cows, Horses, Corn, Apples, and Pumpkins. You cannot name a single domesticated plant or animal that has not been altered in some way. GMO does not necessarily mean that it was changed in a laboratory. Human selection of desired traits has been going on since the dawn of time. Plus GMO’s are more strictly regulated than most people think. Perhaps more insight and digging up of information will increase people’s understanding. Thank you.
im with cool person man
GMO products are terrifying. There is no other company in the world more powerful than the power house known as Monsanto. Think. If a company owns the FDA and USDA and produces GMO products… first of all thats a governmental issue.. secondly thats a problem that no one wants to address… but most importantly perhaps is the lack of ability to maintain health standards, especially when an act has been passed that allows for Monsanto to produce and sell any product regardless of health issues that may arise (actual act https://act.credoaction.com/sign/monsanto_protection_act_v2). To further my point I would like to include a brief history to the company that supplies the US with its GMO products. 1901 marks the start of Monsanto. They were included in the research of the Manhattan Project and the production of Agent orange in the Vietnam war. Basically… stay away from GMO’s. We need more articles and activists. Keep on spreading the bad news.
Perhaps some scientists are working to remove a vast majority of cons in the production of GMO products, and may soon move on to make meat GM too. Sometimes, you have to look past the flaws and see what can be fixed and move on.
Can someone tell me how Google thinks this relates to Facebook?
who else is using this for an assessment task?
OMG me!
The paper dealt with the description of the principles and general risk assessment model for the environmental release of transgenic organisms on the basis of analysing and comparing the various methods on risk assessment, in combination with the past research results of the authors.
Without the wide introduction of transgenic food, people are increasing worried about it’s safety.
They’re called genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and they’re in 80% of the processed food on grocery store shelves—and a handful of whole foods as well, with perhaps more on the way soon.
thats where i was looking at the information for my biology project
FEATURE MEME’S IN THIS YEAR 2017!!!!
Shut up you non-memelord scrub plebeian, I hope you get cancerous memes.
BTW meme’s is not correct, that would be “meme is” you iliterate scrub.
you are an absolute legend KYS
nobody nos if they are or not
you spelled illiterate wrong. Check your spelling!
why are most gmos bad
what are you talking about laron
But Asher can stay, he part of the fam
who is samule and asher
Get off the website Samuel
If pros are bad, then why are people still eating it? ANSWER THE QUESTION!
pros are good dummy
Are you ready?
I like Chicken, go eat chic fil a
GMO is an unnatural thing but considering the worlds population increase over the past couple years, it is the only way to ensure mankind’s survival for the long-term.
How much less hunger in the world now that half of it produce GMO..?Actually more then before..plus all the gone and going broke traditional farmer torpedoed buy the GMO cartel.
A part my allusion to the not in good fate of the who in power..I like to point to the fact that all man produce touch or interfere with is turning in poison for him self and the ambient…this is one of the proofs that we were made out of an interference by an entity into Nature just as we making our modest contribution now.
What are more of the information on the GMO crops?
what are the big pros for GMOs?
thats where i was looking at the information for my biology project
For one, it could possibly help underfed countries. However, Europe will not take part in the use of gmo
its food
Are there any other reasons why GMO’s are bad?
great information
My contribution on whether the GMOs be labeled or not is that; if the those who are advocating for GMOs are sure that the procedures and the their products have no bad effect on human health and the environment, they must publish the procedures, the input and what ever they have put in this product open and clear for every body to understand just like it is done in organic products so that the consumers go for them by choice not by chance. It will be unfair if they are advocating for the goodness of GMOs and yet are not willing to tell the end users what is in it, then they have a hidden agender of destroying humanity. Organic processes are clearly displayed for who ever needs them and the products are clearly labeled ORGANIC, those who do not need them are free to avoid them. What are the GMO pro-activists hiding behind “NO LABELS”? After all principle of chemical use says that never use chemicals that are not labeled and never keep chemicals in unlabeled containers.
So far as what they are hiding behind, I’d say they’re hiding from loss of profits from uninformed public opinion. The non-GMO camp has so effectively smeared the term GMO that, were producers forced to label their products, they would immediately lose marketshare and go belly up.
In my opinion, rather than labeling the products as GMO, they should simply be required to include information on what other genes were spliced into the altered product. This could simply be stated as “May contain traces of peanuts and wheat,” or the like.
There are so many potentially life saving applications for GMOs. See the following website for just one example:
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/modified-rice-has-five-times-zinc-and.html?m=1
As an aside, I grow as much of my own food as I can anyway, but just because I love being closer to my food.
That doesn’t mean I can’t see the other side’s viewpoint, though.
we really need to know much on the dangers of gmo
GMO is still a topic nowadays. I still believe that people should have the right to know which is GMO and they have the right to choose.
In a couple of weeks I will be 73 years old. I recently noticed that most of the processed foods contain health reducing contents, especially GMO ingredients.
As a believer in GOD, I do not want to consume foods that have been tampered with genetically by non-believing scientists. GOD doesn’t need any help to improve HIS perfect creations. Since most people no longer grow their own foods, people should be made aware of the ingredients included in their food.
I am not so smart to be able to discover these items without a little help. As a result, I never purchase but a few canned or processed foods. Additionally I purchase organic foods where possible, yet believe I am deceived many times by the use of tricky or deceptive advertising.
I believe all commercially produced food should be boldly identified as GMO or non-GMO. There should be no way for producers by using trickery of words to include GMO organisms of any kind into food identified as non-GMO. I also believe that if GMO food producers have nothing to hide, this is a reasonable requirement.
I personally believe that only people who are starving will agree to purchase GMO foods or, illiterate people who cannot read the contents.
My food choices have reduced to a level that I have little choice anymore. Still I will eat the same foods over and over and over, before I will ever pay money for foods produced by lust and greed motivated producers.
Any food with high fructose corn syrup, monosodium glutamate (or their many disguised names), GOM foods, or those that are injected with hormones or antibiotics should be required to be boldly advertised.
Have you ever eaten a banana? How about corn? I’m sure you have. Organic or not, those are some of the most heavily modified organisms, and the modifications have made them significantly healthier. This is such an ignorant remark on your part. There is absolutely no way the population could be as large as it is today if it weren’t for these organisms, since there would be a major shortage of food. Cull the population or increase production of GMO’s (which have not been proven to have ANY negative side effects from valid studies). Your choice, but I don’t think God would be too fond of culling the population just so you can eat your all natural foods. If you actually do research, you will come to the same conclusion as I have, as there are many false accusations against these harmless GMOs. All of these GMOs have come about because they are necessary, and the vast majority of them have positive health effects, such as “golden rice” which is a new variant of rice developed to help impoverished youth get the necessary vitamins that they would otherwise be deficient in, which would cause blindness. If it weren’t for GMOs, society would not be able to function the way it does today, regardless of whether or not you realize it. If you would like me to provide you with easy-to-understand links, I’d be more than happy to, I’m tired of the ignorance of today’s society, especially since there is so much knowledge to obtain just from one simple google search.
Zachary,
For someone that has “researched” the issue, you fall short of the risks and the non-industrial scientists that do not agree that GMO’s are safe. I, myself, came across this article while in my fifth week of in-depth research of GMO’s.
How do you come to your conclusion that we would have fallen short on food if not for GMO’s? Farming has existed for many, many years. Is this your opinion or what Monsanto addresses?
In fact, GMO creates a loss of farmers. Because of GMO’s that thousand’s of India cotton farmers have committed suicide. (.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html ) The debt owed to the manufactures for seeds and chemicals and ill-producing crops was too much for them to bear..
While GMO’s promise less chemicals, the overuse of glyphosate (Round-up) is contaminating our water and is ingested by insects, wild life, and humans alike. The herbicide is found in our urine and even a mother’s breast milk (http://www.glyphosate.news/2016-03-09-glyphosate-found-at-high-levels-in-mothers-breast-milk.html). Here, let me pour you glass of herbicide and see how likely you are to drink it. It’s the same concept. Leaky-gut anyone?
While you state that you have ‘researched’ the issue, I suggest you dig a little deeper at the real issues and not repeat the sales pitches that have been thrown out by the greedy manufacturers that want to control the world even if it comes with consequences of un-reversible, catastrophic consequences. I also suggest that you research how GMO’s have even made into legislation. You may be a bit shocked to see this sneaky tactic.
The refusal to label GMO’s is because common sense tells people to avoid toxic contamination and humans err far too often than not. The GMO monopoly companies know they would no longer be able to literally force their technology down our throats which would hurt their precious profits.
Buy organics, grow your own, support your local farmers and get health insurance! (Oh shoot, that’s government controlled now too.)
I agree with you. God bless
Whenever a group of people want something put into effect, it is amazing how many pros they can find and how few cons. Yet, frequently, when all is said and done, it is the cons we see and not so much the pros.
From the reports I’ve read, that were not written by Monsanto, GMO foods were shown to have less nutritional value than organic foods. Insecticides such as Roundup & those that the produce grow themselves from the inside out are clearly shown to cause tumors, reproductive problems, autism, allergies, super bugs, soil depletion, use of stronger pesticides, etc. Monsanto’s shady business methods are putting farmers out of business worldwide with their bullying tactics & their products not living up to Monsanto’s claims.
The GM Foods can be changed to have more dietary value, although you are correct in stating that most do not, it is something they are currently working on.
I agree with you on that
You DO realize that almost all of “naturally grown” crops are GMO’s. And many people don’t suffer from any types of cancer. So, your comment is invalid.
how can GMOs be positive if they cause most people to probably get cancer or something
Roundup is NOT insecticide but a very safe, short active herbicide. Kills anything green then microbes degrade it. GMO crops use this resistant trait to make food production easier. I had to hoe soybeans growing up, not fun. Organic and GMO free require 3rd party certification paid annually by the squeezed hard working produce grower. I grow using these principles and practices but “don’t subscribe” to the ridiculous fees required. Either you trust my local produced food or you don’t. A LABLE is a poor truth detector. Grow your own in your backyard!
They are absolutely not shown to cause these things. In fact, the scientists that work with GMOs are specifically working to reduce allergens, and immediately stop working on a project if they find that a new allergen could come from the ge plant. No link has been provided between autism and anything else, so that is a 100% invalid statement. Reproductively speaking, I’m not aware of any studies that have been conducted and published, so that’s an ignorant statement. The study that claimed a link between GMO consumption and cancerous tumors in rats was fatally flawed, as they used too small of a sample size, neglected to do any sort of a statistical analysis, and used a breed of rats with an 80% chance of developing cancerous tumors. Soil depletion isn’t a factor, as that relies more on the farmers techniques (i.e. crop rotation). Also, stronger pesticides don’t have anything to do with GMOs, as they would be needed with any other variant of plant if it is needed for those ge plants.
Oh, wow. You really squirmed around to make it look like the negatives are legit. That “1989 a genetically modified dietary supplement of tryptophan” was not a genetically modified dietary supplement at all, for example. It was created, like tons of other things, using GM bacteria (like the way we create insulin to save the lives of diabetics). The batches of tryptophan that killed people contained KNOWN TOXINS from the way they were made, but they were not properly tested. There was not some strange unknown created by GM here… it was known, discoverable toxins. But proper testing wasn’t done. You know, how SPINACH has killed people when it was tainted with known toxins like e-coli. Your attempt to pretend to be even handed by opening with a weak defense of the benefits of GM is more than shown to be a lie by the way you handled the tryptophan incident. Shame on you.
Walk down the aisles of your local supermarket and you’ll find floor-to-ceiling shelves packed with food boasting nutritional benefits: whole grains in cereals, omega-3s in eggs, lycopene—that powerful antioxidant—in ketchup. But there are other ingredients hiding in these products, and most of us don’t even know they’re there. They’re called genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and they’re in 80% of the processed food on grocery store shelves—and a handful of whole foods as well, with perhaps more on the way soon.