http://www.csa.com/ discoveryguides/gmfood/ Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was overview.

php published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high Pollen from B.t corn gets mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. blown by the wind into corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the other crops in neighboring fields and the insects then caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study are exposed to the toxins in was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to which will kill them. support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that B.T toxins kill many species would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other of larvae but there is no insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. way to make a b.t toxin that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government only kills crop-damaging research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the pests and not affect the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of other insects. acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further. Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue. There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene24, 25, 26. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive. Environmental hazards Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops27, 28, 29. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the nonGM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary
Although we could seperate the crops, wind may still blow the toxins into the other crops and still continue to destroy the species. This is also a risk for humans as the toxins could blow into living areas.

Human health risks

Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed lifethreatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of It may be required to test GM causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may foods to avoid possibly harmful reactions to consumers with the be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food food allergies. allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall discuss later. Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats32, 33. This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny34. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes Scientist claim that GM foods are not a risk on humans was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene health, with the exception of possible allergenic ity. simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption. On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health. Economic concerns Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations. Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology35.

Introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction to young children. They delope life threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Patenting GM food is a huge concern to agribusiness. By patenting the food, the farmers would not be a leg I afford the high price of the food in third world countries for GM crops. This will only widen the depth between wealthy and poor.

Farmers in the third world countries would then need to buy new seeds each year, something in which they aren't use to and predicted that they won't be able to afford it every year.

Experts say 60% to 70% of processed foods on U.S. grocery shelves have genetically modified ingredients. The most common genetically modified foods are soybeans, maize, cotton, and rapeseed oil. That means many foods made in the U.S. containing field corn or high-fructose corn syrup, such as many breakfast cereals, snack foods, and the last soda you drank; foods made with soybeans (including some baby foods); and foods made with cottonseed and canola oils could likely have genetically modified ingredients. These ingredients appear frequently in animal feed as well. If this shocks you, a new USDA-funded survey shows you're not alone. Researchers from the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers' Cook College found that only 52% of Americans realized that genetically modified foods are sold in grocery stores and only 26% believed that they have ever eaten genetically modified foods -- a modest 6% increase since 2001. But what exactly is genetically modified food? Is it safe to eat? Why isn't it labeled in the U.S.? The European Union and the U.S. are boxing it out. The U.S. government's position: Genetically engineered crops are safe, resist disease better, and can provide much-needed food in starving nations. The EU position: Keep it out. We prefer organic, which is much healthier. The risk of genetically modified foods to health and the environment outweigh the benefits. Only the multinational biotech companies will benefit, dominating the world food supply and squeezing out traditional farmers. The U.S. is the largest producer of genetically modified crops. More than a dozen countries around the world have latched on to the technology, including Argentina, Canada, China, Australia, India, and Mexico. 'Frankenfood' Fears The term genetically modified food (also known as biotech or genetically engineered food) refers to crop plants that have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Experts say this science, like any other, has no guarantees. Risks include: Introducing allergens and toxins to food Accidental contamination between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods Antibiotic resistance Adversely changing the nutrient content of a crop Creation of "super" weeds and other environmental risks Benefits include: Increased pest and disease resistance Drought tolerance Increased food supply Is Regulation Too Soft?

http://www.csa.com/ discoveryguides/ gmfood/overview.php Although the food it's self isn't genetically modied, doesn't mean the ingredients in it are not. Many foods made in the us contains eld corn or high fructose corn syrup, and those are included in many cereals, snack foods and soda

Genetically modied foods refers to crops that were modied in a laboratory. They were modied to desired traits and enhance nutritional content.

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? Jaffe agrees that overall, the current genetically modified crops -- which he says are generally one-gene additions -- are safe. He says no food is 100% safe -- genetically modified or not -- and the odds of having an adverse reaction to a genetically modified food are slim. "Even though we've done all of the tests and everything else, one might say, 'Yes, there is still some risk and we don't know the long-term effects.' That's true, but we have enough knowledge about the protein and where it's been introduced, how we've been exposed to it in our food supply in other ways without danger, to have confidence that this is a safe food now." "When you're doing genetic engineering, you're getting into a whole different mode of manipulating plants, and one, do we need to do it? Two, have enough studies been done in the past to really make it viable for commercial use?" Margaret Wittenberg tells WebMD. She is vice president of marketing and public affairs for Whole Foods Market, a certified organic supermarket chain that supports madatory labeling of GM foods. "There are just a lot of question marks, and I think many people have registered the concern that we need to have more answers before we move forward on having it commercially available at this point in time." One immediate health concern with eating genetically modified foods is allergens. Opponents point to an incident involving Starlink modified corn. In 2000, StarLink (approved by the EPA for animal feed in 1998 but not for human consumption because of concerns it contained a protein that could cause dangerous allergic reactions) turned up in many Kraft products, including their Taco Bell corn shells. Some corn crops were accidentally contaminated with the StarLink seed. Several people reported severe allergic reactions, and major recalls resulted. In the end, the EPA said federal tests didn't conclude that genetically modified corn causes allergies, nor did they eliminate the possibility that it could not cause such a reaction. "Contamination is a very real risk in terms of growing genetically modified crops," says Lisa Archer, grassroots coordinator for the Safer Foods-Safer Farms campaign and Kraft campaign at the nonprofit organization Friends of the Earth -- the group that sparked the StarLink investigation. "[Genetically modified crops] can contaminate neighboring crops relatively easily. Once you get this stuff out into nature it's very difficult to control where it goes, and StarLink is a great example of that." Archer's group continues to press Kraft -- the leading U.S. food supplier -- to stop using genetically modified ingredients in their products, hoping if it does, the move will have a domino effect on other food

It is said that no food is 100% safe, doesn't matter if it's modied or not. A lot of people worry about having reactions to the modied food, but the odds of a adverse reaction are slim.

There still may be a risk, we just don't know the long time e!ects just yet.

Many companies are known to have had allergic reactions in there silt of some of their crops being accidentally contaminated with a Starlink seed, a toxic plant. Some of the companies include Kraft and even Taco Bell corn shells. It was labeled as bot for human consumption. Though this doesn't conclude that genetically modied corn causes allergies. It still doesn't mean there is no possiblity that it could not cause such a reaction.

One reason food companies may shy away from labeling genetically modified food is the possibility of consumer rejection. Public opposition has had some effect, as seen in Europe, where the EU has banned genetically modified foods despite the U.S.' wishes. American companies have vowed not to sell products made with genetically modified ingredients there, yet some of the same companies continue to sell them in the U.S., Archer says. But there are some U.S. companies making the switch. "There are quite a few companies out there that have made this transition. Frito-Lay, for example, is sourcing non-GM ingredients, Gerber baby food is also sourcing non-GM ingredients, [and] there are many others that are listed on our web site," Archer says. In the end, the way to effect change, regardless of what side you take, is to take action, Wittenberg says. "I think it's the power of the dollar. Businesses watch to see what consumers are buying, and that's what they want to get into. That's the old entrepreneurial spirit." Despite differing opinions on genetically modified food safety, most experts agree on one point: The regulation system is flawed. "Clearly I think the regulation system in the U.S. could be greatly improved," says Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit, public advocacy group that supports the use of this biotechnology. But he says a CSPI study released in January 2003 showed that biotech companies don't always voluntarily comply with federal requirements. "They did not do state-of-the-art tests when they needed to do those. In some instances they had errors in their submissions, and the agency did not do a thorough review of those. Our view is that there should be a mandatory, premarket approval process by the FDA before biotech foods go on the market; that the public is entitled to have the FDA determining that the food is safe and not relying on [companies such as] Monsanto telling us the food is safe." The FDA litmus test for genetically modified food safety is based on a policy that states genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to nonmodified foods. "No serious scientist in the world would stand behind that unless they're on the payroll of the biotech companies. If they're substantially equivalent, why do these companies have a patent on them?" says Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association and author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. "You can summarize it in three words: [Genetically modified foods] are unpredictable, they are untested, and they are unlabeled." Monsanto states that genetically modified foods are "more thoroughly tested than any other food on the grocer's shelves to date" and "there have been no adverse effects documented from food produced from biotech crops." Among industry supporters of this technology are heavy hitters such as the American Medical Association.

many companies have said they would. Not make modied foods, but some of them still continue to sell them. Many foods have made the move to stop selling modied foods, such as Fritos Lays and Gerber baby food, including multiple others. I heard about this (Gerber and Fritos-Jays not using GM foods) in a magazine/ article

Genetically modied (GM) foods (also called genetically-engineered or transgenic food), hold great promise that they may provide one of the solutions to help feed growing world populations. But there are also potentially large, and often not well understood, risks from GM technologies--to the environment in general, and to biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems in particular. " Among the major successes cited for the genetic modication of crops are the insertion of Bt genes (that produce insect pathogens, derived from strains of the bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis) into maize, potatoes, and cotton to make these crops resistant to certain insect pests, and of herbicide-tolerance genes that allow GM crops to thrive despite being exposed to certain herbicides. Rice has also been modied--in one case so that beta-carotene (an anti-oxidant compound, found in carrots and other yellow and orange vegetables, that can be converted by our livers, along with other carotenes, into vitamin A) was produced, and in another, so as to reduce the concentrations of glutelin, a rice protein that is undesirable for sake brewing." However, behind these and other successes of genetic modication, lurk unexpected e!ects and potential pitfalls. The decrease in glutelin levels in rice, for example, was associated with an unintended increase in levels of compounds called prolamines, which can a!ect the nutritional quality of rice and increase its potential to induce an allergic response. Modied organisms can, in addition, escape from greenhouses and elds and aquaculture cages into natural, or quasi-natural, ecosystems, and disrupt their biodiversity. " GM foods may also damage biodiversity, for example, by promoting greater use of certain pesticides associated with GM crops that are particularly toxic to many species, and by introducing exotic genes and organisms into the environment that may disrupt natural plant communities and other ecosystems. Others argue that food production problems are generally not biological in origin, but instead lie in such areas as lack of market access, the burdens of developing countries debts, or in poorly developed food processing and transportation infrastructures, none of which GM technologies would serve to address." In addition, it is believed that most crops are presently far from realizing their full genetic potential through the process of hybridization, which may be achieved without further genetic modication, and there are concerns that GM technologies would lessen incentives to develop such hybrids. " - See more at: http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/genetically-modiedfoods#sthash.xAppQiko.dpuf

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/ topic/genetically-modiedfoods

Its no secret that people are nervous about foods made from genetically modied organisms. A July Gallup poll found that 48 percent of respondents believed that GM foods pose a serious health hazard, compared to 36 percent who didnt. California voters may have rejected a ballot initiative to require labeling of GM foods last fall, but a New York Times survey found overwhelming support for mandatory labeling on the packaging of GM foods." " Within the scientic community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modied by conventional plant improvement techniques. Major scientic and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that no adverse health e!ects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population, and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health." " What evidence will it take to convince the public that GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods?" The scientic literature backs this up. In February, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry published a literature review covering 20 years of safety studies. The authors found overwhelming evidence that using biotechnology to genetically modify crops is less disruptive of crop composition compared with traditional breeding, which itself has a tremendous history of safety. An overview of safety studies appearing this month in Nature Biotechnology noted that, despite disagreement over a need for more long-term safety studies, both critics and proponents of GMOs agree that so far genetically modied foods have failed to produce any untoward health e!ects." " In other words, the scientic consensus is that GMOs do not pose risks to our health or the environment that are any di!erent from the risks posed by the non-GM crops created with modern breeding programs." " The discrepancy between the public debate over GM foods and the debate within the scientic community has left many scientists puzzling over the question: What evidence will it take to convince the public that GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods?" " The editors at Nature Biotechnology argue that evidence is not the problem. The issue is that, so far, people have no reason to believe GM foods are being created for their benet. Changing negative attitudes will require a concerted and long-term e!ort to develop GM foods that clearly provide convincing benets to consumerssomething that seed companies have conspicuously failed to do over the past decade. The question of benets has been buried because the GMO debate has been framed around the unhelpful distinction between GM and non-GM foods. Instead of asking if GM foods in general are less safe, the editors argue, we should be focused on the specic risks and benets of individual products, whether they are GM or not." " A focus on the risks and benets of all new crops could move the debate in a direction that would prompt scientists, companies, and regulators to more clearly justify the role GMOs play in our food supply. To date, consumers nervous about GMOs have been given little reason to think that companies like Monsanto are designing GM crops to solve any problem other than the one of patents and prots. As journalist Mark Lynas put it in his rousing defense of GM foods, for most people GMOs are about a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us." " But many researchers working on GM crops are in fact trying to solve important problems, such as feeding a growing population, keeping food prices a!ordable worldwide, making healthier fruits and vegetables widely available, confronting the challenging growing conditions of a changing climate, saving Floridas oranges or Hawaiis papaya from pests, and ghting malnourishment in the developing world. For many of these problems, genetic engineering is faster, more cost-e!ective, and more reliable than conventional breeding methods." " Our societys unresolved controversy over GMOs is not about safety; its about whether we have an acceptable process in place to ensure that our health is not put at risk for the sake of biotechs bottom line. Researchers, biotech companies, and regulators need to settle on an appropriately rigorous, transparent, and independent safety testing process for all new crops, one whose methods and results are publicly available. Currently, as the Nature Biotechnology review notes, safety assessments in the U.S. are a patchwork a!air with weak legal underpinnings. But for GM solutions to our food challenges to be widely accepted, the public needs to know that they are not being coerced into eating something whose risks and benets are unknown.

There's re no health risks from eating GM foods, it is no di!erent then eating it naturally.

This was stated in the other article, where they were arguing whether or not they were a risk or not.

Although people may think that GM foods are bad, they are actually helping and preventing things from happening. Some of these things include saving fruits from states, In which if it wasn't for modifying them they wouldn't still be around.