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. A clean record The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. A way forward There is a middle ground in this debate. Get smart.
Sign up for our email newsletter. Sign Up. Support science journalism. Plants that are more resistant to diseases spread by insects or viruses result in higher yields for farmers and a more attractive product. All of these factors contribute to lower costs for the consumer. They can also ensure that more people have access to quality food. Because genetically engineering foods is a relatively new practice, little is known about the long-term effects and safety.
There are many purported downsides, but the evidence varies, and the main health issues associated with GMO foods are hotly debated. Research is ongoing. This section discusses the evidence for a range of drawbacks that people often associate with GMO foods. Some people believe that GMO foods have more potential to trigger allergic reactions.
This is because they may contain genes from an allergen — a food that prompts an allergic reaction. It is worth noting that there have been no reports of allergic effects of any GMO foods currently on the market.
Some researchers believe that eating GMO foods can contribute to the development of cancer. They argue that because the disease is caused by mutations in DNA, it is dangerous to introduce new genes into the body. However, they note that no evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety and that reaching a conclusion will require more research.
There is a small chance that the genes in food can transfer to cells the body or bacteria in the gut. Some GMO plants contain genes that make them resistant to certain antibiotics. This resistance could pass on to humans. There is growing concern globally that people are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics.
There is a chance that GMO foods could be contributing to this crisis. The WHO have said that the risk of gene transfer is low. As a precaution, however, it has set guidelines for the manufacturers of GMO foods.
Outcrossing refers to the risk of genes from certain GMO plants mixing with those of conventional crops. There have been reports of low levels of GMO crops approved as animal feed or for industrial use being found in food meant for human consumption.
His film shows the good side and bad side of GMO foods. The issue of genetically modified organisms GMOs is an ongoing, nuanced, and highly contentious issue. With numerous studies supporting both sides…. As genetically modified produce makes its way to market this year, experts debate whether these foods are safer to consume than other products.
Corn, also known as maize, is one of the most popular grains in the world. Whole corn is high in various nutrients, especially fiber and antioxidants. Both beet and cane sugar are found in many foods, including sweets and sodas. This article reviews the differences between beet and cane sugar to…. The papaya is a tropical fruit that is high in nutrients and antioxidants.
This is a review of papaya and its health benefits. If you're looking to reduce your carbon footprint and combat climate change, diet and lifestyle choices can be a great place to start.
Here are 9…. While vegetarian and vegan diets tend to be more environmentally friendly, not everyone wants to give up eating meat altogether. This article reviews…. For many people, one of the best parts about traveling is getting to explore the local cuisines. This article looks at 10 of the healthiest cuisines…. This is a detailed article about sugar alcohols and their health effects. They have several health benefits but can also cause digestive problems.
Health Conditions Discover Plan Connect. Warwick, R. Share on Pinterest. What are GMOs? Advantages of GMO foods. Safety and concerns. How to identify GMO foods. The bottom line. Read this next.
0コメント