Genetically Modified Food for you?

Lifestyle Relationships
1

Long, but interesting, as it may be the wave of the future, or maybe not. smile

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/guides/?article=GMOmain

One of the central public debates of the coming years may well be over what we should eat for dinner. Or more specifically, whether we should be eating (and growing and selling) genetically modified plants.

One side claims genetically modified plants can end world hunger and do away with pesticides. The other side protests that the risks are still unclear, speaks of “frankenfoods,” and warns of superpests.

Who’s right? The jury is still out. _

What is clear is that we’re already eating these plants. Estimates suggest that at least 60 percent of the processed food we eat contains genetically modified ingredients. By the year 2000 about 60 percent of the soybean crop and 25 percent of the corn crop in the United States was genetically modified. Although government agencies responsible for regulating food and agriculture assure the public that these bioengineered foods are safe, critics claim the risks have not yet been properly assessed. This backgrounder presents both sides of the controversy surrounding genetically modified plants.

What are GMOs?
Genetic modification involves inserting a gene from one organism into another. The result is considered a genetically modified organism (GMO). The transferred gene, known as a transgene, carries the instructions for making a protein, as all genes do. These proteins control the organism’s biological processes and determine its characteristics. The purpose of genetic modification is to transfer a gene responsible for a particular desirable trait to another organism so that it will then share that trait.

Although the term GMO can refer to a genetically modified plant or animal, it is used most often in discussing plants. Genetically modified plants are sometimes described as bioengineered or transgenic.

Scientists have traditionally bred plants for desirable traits. But conventional breeding is slower and far less accurate than genetic modification in producing the desired characteristics. Nearly 150 years ago Austrian monk Gregor Mendel laid the foundation for modern genetics through his experiments in cross-breeding pea plants. Genetically modified plants were first created in the early 1980s.

Proponents of genetically modified plants point to their many benefits over conventional crops: increased crop yields, decreased pesticide use, enhanced nutritional value. But critics of GMOs cite just as many risks: harm to other organisms, cross-pollination with conventional plants, the spread of new “superweeds” and “superpests,” etc. The principal claims of each camp are profiled below.

Benefit: Increased food production
Advocates argue that genetically modified crops can end world hunger. GMOs, they say, can increase the yield of such crops as rice, which feeds millions in Asia, and cassava, a tuber commonly eaten in Africa. There are several ways that GMOs can increase crop yields. By creating pest-resistant GMOs, scientists can reduce crop losses to pests, especially in developing countries that cannot afford expensive insecticides.

In addition, GMOs can boost agricultural production by making new cropland available. For example, scientists have bred a tomato that grows in salty soil. Proponents of GMOs argue that bioengineering could greatly boost agricultural production in areas of the developing world with poor soils that cannot otherwise be used for farming. Scientists also are working to develop crops that can withstand drought and tolerate cold.

Benefit: Decreased use of pesticides and herbicides
Pest-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GMOs reduce the need for spraying crops with unhealthy chemicals that can enter the food supply. In turn, reduced use of such chemicals would result in cleaner runoff from fields and a lower risk of poisoning water supplies and harming the environment.

Decaf GMO
Coffee producers use chemical solvents to remove the caffeine in coffee, and some decaf coffee drinkers fear that harmful residues remain. Scientists have identified the genes responsible for caffeine production and hope to switch off the genes, thereby creating naturally caffeine-free coffee beans.
_

Benefit: Improved nutrition
GMOs can greatly improve nutrition, say supporters. Rice, the staple food of millions of Asians, lacks vitamin A, and vitamin A deficiency can cause blindness. Scientists have developed a gene for rice crops that will produce the missing vitamin. Genetic modifications to other crops can address similar nutritional needs.

Risk: Harm to other organisms
A study by Cornell University showed that a gene for a bacterial toxin inserted into corn proved poisonous to monarch butterfly larvae that ate the leaves of those plants. It’s uncertain what unintended effects transgenes designed to resist pests might have on beneficial insects or how they could upset various balances in nature.

Risk: Uncontrolled cross-pollination
Genetically modified plants can unintentionally cross-pollinate with other plants. Transgenes turned up in Mexican corn that farmers had not intended for genetic modification. This corn grew at some distance from a field of GM corn–a greater distance than scientists had thought possible for pollination. Larger buffer zones than previously thought may be necessary to prevent transgenes from spreading. Canadian scientists also warned of the rapid spread of pollen from GM rapeseed, or canola, to an extent that makes it nearly impossible to grow noncontaminated rapeseed in Canada today.

2

continued:

Risk: Superweeds and superpests
Transgenic crops could presumably crossbreed with weeds and transfer their herbicide resistance, creating a class of superweeds that would be difficult to wipe out. A group of superweeds resistant to several widely used herbicides has been reported in Canada, according to English Nature, a government conservation agency. Similar concerns surround the inadvertent creation of new superpests, or insects that would be resistant to many pesticides. Just as overuse of antibiotics has led some bacteria to develop resistance to most antibiotics, widespread GMO agriculture could lead to pesticide-resistent superpests.

Risk: Allergies
With nearly one-quarter of Americans reporting an adverse reaction to at least one food, critics of GMOs say it stands to reason that mixing genes from different food sources will only increase the risk of additional food allergies. Food allergies are especially common among children, and GMOs could create new allergens (allergy-causing substances). Moreover, if the gene from a nut or other common allergen were transferred to another food crop, people with an allergy to nuts could unknowingly consume the allergen with potentially severe consequences.

Unscripted Responses
A project to transfer a gene from the Brazil nut to soybeans was halted after tests revealed that the modified soybean triggered an allergic response in people with allergies to nuts. In this case the source of the gene was known to produce allergies, but skeptics of GMOs argue that such knowledge may not always be available.
_

Risk: Widening the gap?
Some opponents of GMOs fear that the biggest gainers from bioengineered crops will be agribusinesses, the large corporations that develop GMOs for agricultural use. Creating GMOs and bringing them to market is costly, and businesses are patenting their GMOs. Critics fear that this may make the products too costly for developing countries or small farmers, thus widening the gap between rich and poor countries

The United States grows far more genetically modified crops than other countries. Nearly half the soybeans and one-quarter of the corn grown in the United States is bioengineered. Farmers cite two major reasons for switching from conventional crops to GMOs: the increase in yield, followed by a decrease in pesticide costs.

European countries face strong opposition to genetically modified foods, partly as a result of recent scares including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in the late 1990s and foot-and-mouth disease in Britain in 2001. These scares left many Europeans with little faith in government assurances about food safety.

Regulation of genetically modified organisms
In the United States three government agencies have responsibility for regulating genetically modified foods: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FDA determines the safety of foods and food ingredients. Although the FDA consults with food developers about their data on the safety and nutrition of GMOs, submission of such data to the FDA is voluntary. A GMO judged to be "substantially equivalent" to the existing crop, except for its transgene, does not require rigorous safety testing. The EPA evaluates the effects of pest- and herbicide-resistant GMOs on the environment. The USDA checks the safety of growing GMOs to learn, for example, whether the transferred genes are stable and whether the GMO might become a pest. In Canada, the Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency share responsibility for regulating the safety of genetically modified plants and foods.

Critics argue that the U.S. regulation arrangement--with responsibility split among three agencies and reporting largely voluntary--provides inadequate protection for consumers. A panel of scientists in Britain expressed concern over a U.S. decision not to require rigorous testing of genetically modified foods that show "substantial equivalence" to existing foods. As the extent of equivalence is unclear, they fear that this standard could disguise the presence of unknown toxins or allergens in GMOs.

Labeling of GMOs
In the year 2000 more than 130 countries signed a trade agreement known as the Biosafety Protocol on labeling GM foods. Canada was a signer; the United States was not. Under the agreement, exporters must label all GM foods and importing countries have the right to reject such foods. But within many countries labeling issues remain unresolved. The United States does not require labeling of GMOs judged to be substantially equivalent to existing foods. European countries have made labeling of GMOs mandatory.

3

Munni, I will give you a choice: GUPSHUP or MSN?

Which would you rather I destroy?

:p

4

if the fat amreekans stop eating 90% off the food then the world hunger problem will be resolved... there will be no need for GM food :p

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by waleed: *
if the fat amreekans stop eating 90% off the food then the world hunger problem will be resolved... there will be no need for GM food :p
[/QUOTE]

If 90% of Americans stop eating, all the problems will be solved...:D

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RT Wolf: *
Munni, I will give you a choice: GUPSHUP or MSN?

Which would you rather I destroy?

:p
[/QUOTE]

Yeh kya? uffh Neither one. Their pros outweigh their cons...for now. hehe. I know I went on this posting rampage, but I was bored. Can ya blame me? grin