Tomato Genetically Modified To Be More Expensive

[waltky]

Debate still crazy after all these years...

GM Foods Still Controversial After All These Years
November 28th, 2014 ~ Proponents and critics of genetic modification (GM) have been arguing over the potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on health and the environment for more than a decade now.

Genetic engineering can manipulate the DNA of crops to switch off existing traits or add new ones in ways that were not possible before. Proponents argue that genetic engineering has been at work long enough without reports of health or environmental risks. They say the process undergoes rigorous testing and is more precise and more sustainable. Opponents say the biotech industry’s safety tests are self-motivated and lack oversight. They argue that in addition to concerns over long-term health issues, the environmental impact of GM farming is already evident. TECHtonics reached out to two experts from each side of the debate to get a glimpse of where some of these issues stand today.

C.S. Prakash, Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics at Tuskegee University

The argument that genetically modified crops release escaped genes into the environment or that they cause allergies are concerns that are, in his view, “orchestrated and made up,” says Prakash. He says pollination and cross-pollination is always going on and has not prevented people from growing food crops for thousands of years and maintaining the purity of crop varieties. There are “no side effects to genetically modified crops,” says Prakash, and no increase in allergens because of GM crops. “It’s the other way round,” he added. “We have a technology where in the future, we can [grow] allergen-free plants, allergen-free food, or we have the technology where we can come up with sensors to identify food contamination and food poisoning and allergy. And so I don’t think there is any scientific basis for either of these.”

An agriculturist prepares to plant “Golden Rice” seedlings, grown from genetically-modified rice grains, at the International Rice Research Institute in Los Banos, south of Manila in the Philippines

He says the biotech industry does “rigorous testing” for food safety and environmental impact and will “make sure that any crop, commodity that is introduced into the market goes through substantial testing and that there is not going to be any known side-effects in terms of its nutritional quality being compromised or any new undesirable traits being introduced into our food. We clearly don’t want that.” “The risk of any product – food product, or any product – is inherent in the product and not in the process in which it was developed,” he said. “And so, many scientific bodies and organizations that have looked at biotechnology have said that … inherently, there is nothing dangerous about it.” Biotech, argues Prakash, has “far more answers and far more ways to answer about the consequences of food developed from GM technology compared to conventional.” With conventional breeding, he says “we absolutely had no idea what we were doing and what were the consequences of that. And yet we went ahead.”

Labels on bags of snack foods indicate they are non-GMO products, Los Angeles, California

Nevertheless, going conventional or GM is a matter of preference – and precision, says Prakash. “If you want something that is much more knowledge-based and science-based, and something that is more direct and straightforward, then you go for genetic modification,” he said. “But it also brings in a lot more expense, a lot of regulation, and of course, in some countries right now, GM crops are not allowed.” The biotech industry, according to Prakash, is not opposed to voluntary labeling of GMOs. But he argues that food is not typically labeled based on how it was grown, but rather on its nutritional content. He also suggests that labeling might antagonize consumers or give the impression that there is something dangerous about the product. He argues that labeling leaves consumers without a choice and puts “hurdles in the development of the technology for absolutely no reason.”

Ricardo Salvador, Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[waltky]

Dat's right - Granny won't eat chicken w/ hair on it...

Researchers Find No Evidence GMO Crops Are Unsafe to Eat
May 17, 2016 - After two decades of studies, researchers have found no evidence that genetically modified crops are unsafe to eat, but said the evolution of resistance in both insects and weeds — caused by growing these crops — could be a serious problem.

According to a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, it is not possible to make “sweeping generalizations about the benefits and risks of genetically engineered (GE) crops.” Committee chair Fred Gould, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, said the wealth of data and opinions created a “confusing landscape” and that the new report offers an unbiased review. “We dug deeply into the literature to take a fresh look at the data on GE and conventionally bred crops,” Gould said.

A long-standing controversy

The study comes after controversial conversations and legislative action on labeling food products that contain genetically engineered characteristics. The committee focused on corn, soybean and cotton, which represent the majority of commercial GM crops grown in the United States. The 20 committee members reviewed at least 900 publications and heard from dozens of witnesses. Their report concludes, “While recognizing the inherent difficulty of detecting subtle or long-term effects on health or the environment, the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops.”

Grower Robert Purdy stands in his field of genetically engineered sugar beets near Salem, Ore., June 6, 2014. Researchers have found no evidence that genetically modified crops are unsafe to eat.​

The study also found no links “between any disease or chronic conditions and the consumption of GE foods.” “It was tiring but worthwhile, because it really brought to our attention a lot of studies we would not have looked at," Dominique Brossard, chair of the department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin, told NBC News. “Our process was really, really inclusive and attempted to address as much as possible the concerns that were raised by public comments.”

Experts not involved in the project said the report offers a “sober assessment.” “The inescapable conclusion, after reading the report, is the GE crops are pretty much just crops,” said Wayne Parrott, professor in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at the University of Georgia. Ruth MacDonald, chair of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University, told NBC News that she hoped this new report could “reduce public concern about the safety of GE foods.” "This is yet another document that adds to the long list of those that have reached the same conclusion, that there is no evidence that GE foods are a risk to human health," she said.

Researchers Find No Evidence GMO Crops Are Unsafe to Eat

See also:

UN Committee Finds Weed Killer Glyphosate Unlikely to Cause Cancer
May 16, 2016 — The weed-killing pesticide glyphosate, made by Monsanto and widely used in agriculture and by gardeners, probably does not cause cancer, according to a new safety review by United Nations health, agriculture and food experts.

In a statement likely to intensify a row over its potential health impact, experts from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) said glyphosate is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans" exposed to it through food. It is mostly used on crops. Having reviewed the scientific evidence, the joint WHO/FAO committee also said glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic in humans. In other words, it is not likely to have a destructive effect on cells' genetic material.

Central Illinois corn farmer Jerry McCulley sprays the weed killer glyphosate across his cornfield in Auburn, Ill.​

The conclusion contradicts a finding by the WHO's Lyon-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in March 2015 said glyphosate is "probably" able to cause cancer in humans and classified it as a so-called Group 2A carcinogen. Seven months after the IARC review, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent agency funded by the European Union, published a different assessment, saying glyphosate is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans."

The differing findings thrust glyphosate into the center of a row involving EU and U.S. politicians and regulators, the IARC experts, environmental and agricultural specialists and the WHO. Diazinon and malathion, two other pesticides reviewed by the WHO/FAO committee, which met last week and issued its conclusions in a statement on Monday, were also found to be unlikely to be carcinogenic.

UN Committee Finds Weed Killer Glyphosate Unlikely to Cause Cancer

Related:

Study: Farms Among Major Air Polluters
May 16, 2016 - The biggest source of the world's fine particulate air pollution is not cars, or factories, or power plants. It's farms.

A new study explains that when ammonia from fertilizers and animal waste combines with nitrogen oxides and sulfates from exhaust pollution, microscopic solid particles, so-called aerosols, are created. Aerosols can reach deep into the lungs, causing heart or pulmonary disease. It's estimated fine particulate air pollution is responsible for more than 3 million death each year around the world.

A French farmer drives a tractor as he ploughs a field in front of power-generating windmill turbines at a wind park in Vauvillers, in France, November 23, 2015. A new study counts farms among the biggest contributors to pollution.​

The authors of the study in Geophysical Research Letters stress that their work is not meant to discourage the use of fertilizer. Atmospheric scientist Susanne Bauer, the lead author, said, "We expect population to go up, and to produce more food, we will need more fertilizer." Bauer points out, however, that since agricultural emissions must combine with other pollutants to create aerosols, having cleaner sources of energy and more efficient cars in the future will greatly reduce those other ingredients.

So, even if ammonia emissions hold steady or increase, air quality would not decline. Johannes Lelieveld, lead author of a 2015 report on aerosols, warns that assessment will hold true only if societies successfully curb industrial emissions.

Study: Farms Among Major Air Polluters