Care2: How to Win a GMO Debate: 10 Facts Why GM Food is Bad (blog) http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-to-win-a-gmo-debate-top-10-facts-why-gm-food-is-bad.html

By: Melissa Breyer, December 12, 2011

It’s happened to the best of us. The topic of genetically modified (GM)

food and crops comes up and someone somewhere starts spewing a spate

of pro-GMO rhetoric like, “GM food is the only way to feed the poor!

GM crops benefit farmers! GM food and crops are safe!” and we are left

with a stammering retort of, “but, but, no, but, uhm, no!”

Next time be prepared by bolstering your argument with these 10 Reasons

to Avoid GMOs, courtesy of international bestselling author and GMO expert Jeffrey Smith from The Institute

for Responsible Technology (IRT). This list of ten facts and supporting text clearly explain just how serious a

threat GM food and crops pose to our personal health as well as the health of the planet.

1. GMOs are unhealthy.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all

patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders,

accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material

behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer

into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the

blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with

three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and

disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and

others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm

that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM

tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our

children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses

Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM

bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of

the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever. GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool.

Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential

impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic

losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they defy deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for

example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of

Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic

herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic

herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects. By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side

effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant

can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional

deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax. Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by

governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for

this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate

labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the

market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim

that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially

different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming

consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side

effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote

biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney,

later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety. Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using

the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists,

however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research

is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed. Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied

funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other

legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.”

Attempts by media to expose problems are also often

censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment. GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds,

insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms.

They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are

unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating

habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down

50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause

birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine

disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in

North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in

yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the

Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and

yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)

report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were

“highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags

behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and

damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing

hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental

sustainability.

On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and

appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them

out of our food supply. Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain

them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for

example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and

alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone

has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon,

Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and is one of the world’s leading

advocates against GM foods. His book Seeds of Deception is rated the number one book on the subject and has

had a substantial influence on public perception and even legislation. Smith has reached tens of millions of

people through hundreds of media interviews. He is also the author of Genetic Roulette: The Documented

Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

Forbes Magazine: 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable

Jon Entine, Oct. 14, 2013 (I write skeptically about science, public policy, media and NGOs). Opinions expressed by Forbes

Contributors are their own.

NOTE: This piece was co-written with a writer at the Genetic Literacy Project, JoAnna Wendel.

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little

to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims

are simply not true.

**********

“The science just hasn’t been done.”- Charles Benbrook, organic researcher,

Washington State University.

“There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat.”- David

Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies

“[The] research [on GMOs] is scant…. Whether they’re killing us slowly— contributing to long-term, chronic maladies—

remains anyone’s guess.”- Tom Philpott, Mother Jones

“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not

tested….”- Organic Consumers Association

The claim that genetically engineered crops are 'understudied'—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted above—

has become a staple of opponents of crop biotechnology, especially activist journalists. Anti-GMO campaigners, including

many organic supporters, assert time and again that genetically modified crops have not been safety tested or that the

research done to date on the health or environmental impact of GMOs has "all" been done by the companies that produce

the seeds. Therefore, they claim, consumers are taking a 'leap of faith' in concluding that they face no harm from

consuming foods made with genetically modified ingredients.

That is false.

Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases

numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional

or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In

response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the

safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn't find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or

animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use

of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from

2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

“Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what

has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,” lead researcher Alessandro Nicolia, applied biologist at the

University of Perugia, told Real Clear Science. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated,

the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”

The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of

genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been

generally positive.

The Italian review not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten years but also summarizes findings

in the different categories of GM research: general literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and

traceability.

The “general literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US, EU and other countries when

it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric,

Nicolia and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.

Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. These

studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found

“little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.

One of the fastest growing areas of research is in gene flow, the potential for genes from GM crops to be found—

“contaminate” in the parlance of activists—in non-GM crops in neighboring fields. Nicolia and his colleagues report that

this has been observed, and scientists have been studying ways to reduce this risk with different strategies such as

isolation distances and post-harvest practices. The review notes that gene flow is not unique to GM technology and is

commonly seen in wild plants and non-GM crops. While gene flow could certainly benefit from more research, Nicolia

and his colleagues suggest, the public’s aversion to field trials discourages many scientists, especially in the EU.

In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or

toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization

and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.

The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural

order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients.

This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the

digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a

popular anti-GMO criticism.

These 1783 studies are expected to be merged into the public database known as GENERA (Genetic Engineering Risk

Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes

peer-reviewed journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic genetics, feeding studies,

environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA has more than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show

up in the new database. When merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—as

many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent scientists.

In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year

celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence

that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs

lies in psychology, politics and false debates.

Newsmax: GMO Food Pros and Cons http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-Wire/GMO-foods-positives-negatives/2015/06/10/id/649812/

By Ken Mandel | Thursday, 11 Jun 2015 10:03 AM

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are organisms made with engineered material with the goal of improving the original organism. They can then be used, in some cases, to produce GMO foods. GMO seeds are used in 90 percent of corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States, according to the Center for Food Safety. To avoid eating foods that contain GMOs, look for labels that specify that fruits and vegetables is "organic" or "USDA Organic." While GMOs come with known benefits to human health and the farming industry overall, there are some controversial negatives. First the pros: 1. Seeds are genetically changed for multiple reasons, which include improving resistance to insects and generating healthier crops, according to Healthline.com. This can lower risk of crop failure, and make crops better resistant to extreme weather. 2. Engineering can also eliminate seeds and produce a longer shelf life, which allows for the "safe transport to people in countries without access to nutrition-rich foods." 3. Environmental benefits. Less chemicals, time, machinery, and land are needed for GMO crops and animals, which can help reduce environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil erosion. Enhanced productivity because of GMOs could allow farmers to dedicate less real estate to crops. Also, farmers are already growing corn, cotton, and potatoes without spraying the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis because the crops produce their own insecticides, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 4. Better nutrition. By modifying some GMO foods in terms of mineral or vitamin content, companies can supply more necessary nutrients and help fight worldwide malnutrition, according to The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. For example, vitamin A-enhanced rice, or "golden rice," is helping to reduce global vitamin A deficiencies. 5. The use of molecular biology in vaccination development has been successful and holds promise, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Scientists have engineered plants to produce vaccines, proteins, and other pharmaceutical goods in a process called "pharming." Here are some negatives: 1. Food allergies in children under 18 spiked from 3.4 percent in 1997-99 to 5.1 percent in 2009-11, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, though it bears noting that there's no conclusive scientific link to GMO foods.

2. GMOs can pose significant allergy risks, according to a Brown University study. Genetic enhancements often combine proteins not contained in the original organism, which can cause allergic reactions for humans. For example, if a protein from an organism that caused an allergic reaction is added to something that previously didn't, it may prompt a new allergic reaction. 3. Lowered resistance to antibiotics. Some GMOs have built-in antibiotic qualities that enhance immunity, according to Iowa State University, but eating them can lessen the effectiveness of actual antibiotics. 4. Genes may migrate. According to The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, "Through 'gene escape,' they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant, and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided — often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible."

Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Getty Images

Livestrong: Pros & Cons of GMO Foods http://www.livestrong.com/article/213053-pros-cons-of-gmo-foods/ by JOSHUA DUVAUCHELLE Last Updated: Jan 13, 2014

Overview

Wheat is a common GMO crop.

GMO foods are genetically modified organisms that have had new genes from other organisms added to their

existing genes, according to Brown University. The university says the goal of such genetic engineering is to

give the original organism new characteristics, such as disease resistance. Although GMO foods may have

several benefits to your health and the general well-being of the farming industry, it may also present several

potential drawbacks.

Cons: Allergic Reactions

GMO foods can present significant allergy risks to people, according to Brown University. Genetic

modification often mixes or adds proteins that weren't indigenous to the original plant or animal, causing new

allergic reactions in the human body. In some cases, proteins from an organism that you're allergic to may be

added to an organism that you weren't originally allergic to, prompting the same allergic reaction experienced

from the first organism.

Pros: Insect Resistance

Some GMO foods have been modified to make them more resistant to insect pests. The University of California

in San Diego reports that a toxic bacterium can be added to crops to make them insect repellent, yet safe for

human use. This can reduce the amount of pesticide chemicals used on the plants, thus potentially reducing

exposure to pesticides.

Cons: Decreased Antibiotic Efficacy Some GMO foods have had antibiotic features built into them to make them immune or resistant to diseases or viruses, according to Iowa State University. When you eat them, these antibiotic markers persist in your body and can make actual antibiotic medications less effective. The university warns that such ingestion of GMO foods and regular exposure to antibiotics may be contributing to the decreased effectiveness of antibiotic drugs that is being noticed in hospitals around the world.

Pros: Environmental Protection Oklahoma State University reports that the increase of GMO crops and animals often requires less chemicals, time and tools, and may help to reduce environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and soil erosion. This can improve the general beauty and health of the environment surrounding farms and contribute to the sustaining of better air and water quality, which can indirectly benefit your personal well-being.

Cons: Gene Transfer A constant risk of GMO foods is that the modified genes of the organisms may escape into the wild. Brown University warns that herbicide-resistant genes from commercial crops may cross into the wild weed population, thus creating "superweeds" that are impossible to kill with herbicides. A related risk is that the escape of genetically enhanced animals and vegetation can create new super-organisms that can out-compete natural animal and plant populations to drive certain species into extinction.

Pros: More Nutritious Foods The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that some GMO foods have been engineered to be more nutritious in terms of mineral or vitamin content. Not only does this help you get the nutrients you need, it can also play a significant role in battling malnutrition in the developing world. The United Nations advises that vitamin A-enhanced rice is helping to reduce global vitamin A deficiencies.

Crop improvement since the Green Revolution has meant more food for farmers like these in Myanmar

Food & Agricultural Organization of the United States: http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Weighing the GMO arguments: Pro

The arguments that have been put forward for the use of GMOs in agriculture include:

Potential benefits for agricultural productivity

Better resistance to stress: If crops can be made more

resistant to pest outbreaks, it would reduce the danger of crop

failure. Similar benefits could result from better resistance to

severe weather, such as frost, extreme heat or

drought - although this would require

manipulation of complex combinations of genes

and appropriate pest management practices to

avoid excessive selection pressure on the pest.

More nutritious staple foods: By inserting genes into crops such as rice and wheat, we can

increase their food value. For example, genes responsible for producing the precursor of

vitamin A have been inserted into rice plants, which have higher levels of vitamin A in their

grain. This is called Golden Rice. As rice feeds more than 50 percent of the world's population,

it could help reduce vitamin A deficiency, which is a serious problem in the developing world.

Many other similar products aimed at bio-fortification are in the production pipeline.

More productive farm animals: Genes might be inserted into cattle to raise their milk yield,

for example.

Potential benefits for the environment

More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean that farmers in the

next century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and industrial

processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly reduce the

chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize,

cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the bacterial insecticide Bacillus

thuringiensis - because they produce its insecticidal agent themselves. Scientists are

developing trees that have a lower content of lignin, a structuring constituent of woody plant

cells. This could reduce the need for noxious chemicals in pulp and paper production. These

developments could not only reduce environmental impact - they could also improve the health

of farm and industrial workers.

Rehabilitation of damaged or less-fertile land: Large areas of cropland in the developing

world have become saline by unsustainable irrigation practices. Genetic modification could

produce salt-tolerant varieties. Trees might also be improved or modified to become more

tolerant of salt and drought. They might also be selected or bred for rehabilitation of degraded

land. While there is some advanced research in this area, salt and drought tolerance are the

result of quite complex gene combinations, and positive results will take longer than those

providing insecticide and herbicide resistance.

Bioremediation: Rehabilitation of damaged land may also become possible through organisms

bred to restore nutrients and soil structure.

Longer shelf lives: The genetic modification of fruits and vegetables can make them less

likely to spoil in storage or on the way to market. This could expand trade opportunities as well

as reduce massive wastage incurred in transport and supply.

Biofuels: Organic matter could be bred to provide energy. Plant material fuel, or biomass, has

enormous energy potential. For example, the waste from sugar cane or sorghum can provide

energy, especially in rural areas. It may be possible to breed plants specifically for this

purpose. And other unexpected, useful products could prove of huge value.

Potential benefits for human health

Investigation of diseases with genetic fingerprinting: "Fingerprinting" of animal and plant

diseases is already possible. This technique allows researchers to know exactly what an

organism is by looking at its genetic blueprint. One benefit may be that veterinary staff can

know whether an animal is carrying a disease or has simply been vaccinated - preventing the

need to kill healthy animals.

Vaccines and medicines: Similar to the long-established development of biotechnological

vaccines for humans, the use of molecular biology to develop vaccines and medicines for farm

animals is proving quite successful and holds great promise for the future. Plants are being

engineered to produce vaccines, proteins and other pharmaceutical products. This process is

called "pharming".

Identification of allergenic genes: Although some are worried about the transfer of allergenic

genes (see Brazil nut example under arguments against GMOs), molecular biology could also

be used to characterize allergens and remove them. Indeed, the Brazil nut incident actually led

to identification of the allergenic protein.

March 2003