It means that some—but not all—products containing GMOs will have to be labeled by In its current form, categorical exemptions prevent this law from delivering the meaningful protections Americans deserve. Learn more. Which foods might contain GMOs? Most packaged foods contain ingredients derived from corn, soy, canola, and sugar beet — and the vast majority of those crops grown in North America are genetically modified.
To see a list of high-risk crops, visit the What is GMO page. Animal products: The Non-GMO Project also considers livestock, apiculture, and aquaculture products at high risk because genetically engineered ingredients are common in animal feed. This impacts animal products such as: eggs, milk, meat, honey, and seafood.
Processed inputs, including those from synthetic biology: GMOs also sneak into food in the form of processed crop derivatives and inputs derived from other forms of genetic engineering, such as synthetic biology. Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents to control the use and distribution of their genetically engineered seeds.
And as U. True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today.
Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens. Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding.
And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it.
These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed.
Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field. Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations.
Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. There is evidence to support that charge.
The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn.
Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct. There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing.
Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages. This article was originally published with the title "Are Engineered Foods Evil?
Food, Inc. Peter Pringle. Tough Lessons from Golden Rice. Martin Enserink in Science , Vol. Natasha Gilbert in Nature , Vol. Watch a video on how genetically modified crops are made at ScientificAmerican.
David H. Freedman is a journalist who has been covering science, business and technology for more than 30 years. Credit: Nick Higgins. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. See Subscription Options. Go Paperless with Digital. The vast majority of the research on genetically modified GM crops suggests that they are safe to eat and that they have the potential to feed millions of people worldwide who currently go hungry.
Yet not all criticisms of GM are so easily rejected, and pro-GM scientists are often dismissive and even unscientific in their rejection of the counterevidence. A careful analysis of the risks and benefits argues for expanded deployment and safety testing of GM crops. Benefits and worries The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Credit: Jen Christiansen Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods.
Feed Your Mind Main Page. PDF KB. It is very likely you are eating foods and food products that are made with ingredients that come from GMO crops.
Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar. A few fresh fruits and vegetables are available in GMO varieties, including potatoes, summer squash, apples, and papayas. To make it easier for consumers to know if the foods they eat contain GMO ingredients, the U.
Department of Agriculture maintains a list of bioengineered foods available throughout the world. Most GMO corn is created to resist insect pests or tolerate herbicides. Bacillus thuringiensis Bt corn is a GMO corn that produces proteins that are toxic to certain insect pests but not to humans, pets, livestock, or other animals.
These are the same types of proteins that organic farmers use to control insect pests, and they do not harm other, beneficial insects such as ladybugs.
GMO Bt corn reduces the need for spraying insecticides while still preventing insect damage. While a lot of GMO corn goes into processed foods and drinks, most of it is used to feed livestock, like cows, and poultry, like chickens. Most GMO soy is used for food for animals, predominantly poultry and livestock, and making soybean oil. It is also used as ingredients lecithin, emulsifiers, and proteins in processed foods.
GMO cotton was created to be resistant to bollworms and helped revive the Alabama cotton industry.
0コメント