Why is genetically modified food a problem

GM foods have inspired stronger weeds and pesticide-resistant insects, and the solution to that problem has been to create even stronger pesticides to eradicate these crop parasites. A study by scientific journal Environmental Sciences Europe estimates that million pounds of pesticides have been used on American fields between and since the GM crops were introduced to US farmers — a 7 percent increase in about fifteen years. The solution has been to merely increase the usage of herbicides and try to create even stronger crops.

Charles Benbrook, conductor of the study and research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, says that farmers are using 25 percent more herbicides every year to kill the same number of weeds.

Despite some research, it is still ultimately unknown whether bees have been dying off in droves due to neonics , a insecticide introduced to farmers in the s. Mass bee deaths have claimed 30 percent of the bee population in the past six years. Is this due to neonics?

The biggest problem here is that no one really knows. In the past, mass bee deaths have been linked to parasitic varroa mites. Now, many point the finger at neonics even though they are allegedly less toxic than previously popular organophosphate pesticides. The European Food Safety Authority said that neonics or neonicotinoid pesticides were responsible for killing off a remarkable amount of the bee population and banned further use of them in Europe for at least two years a judgment made in mid EFSA has also noted that the same pesticides may even harm the brains of unborn children.

Every study on GM foods conducted by none other than Monsanto itself has pointed to the safety of its own crops, but the few independent studies that exist often say otherwise. Besides putting a lock on their patented seeds and literally outlawing their usage for independent study, Monsanto has also been caught allegedly attempting to discredit studies that cast GM foods in a negative light.

That is not good science. Probably what would bother me the most is pesticide resistance which translates into a heavier use of pesticides. Fares, N. Ewen, S. Birch, A. Geoghegan, M. Majerus, J. McNicol, C. Hackett, A. Gatehouse, and J. Malatesta, M. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, and G. Caporaloni, L. Rossi, S. Battistelli, M. Rocchi, F. Tonucci, and G. Biggiogera, E.

Manuali, M. Rochhi, B. Baldelli, and G. Histochemistry 47 4 : Pryme, I. Vecchio, L. Cisterna, M. Malatesta, T. Martin, and B. Prescott, V. Campbell, A. Moore, J. Mattes, M. Rothenberg, P. Foster, T. Higgins, and S. Tudisco, R. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. Cutrignelli, V. Mastellone, V. Terzi, L.

Avallone, and F. Ermakova, I. Preliminary Studies. Sagstad, A. Haugland, A. Hansen, P. Olsvik, and G. Seralini, G. Cellier, and J. Boraldi, G. Finamore, A. Roselli, S. Britti, G. Monastra, R. Ambra, A. Turrini, and E. Velimirov, A. Binter, and J. Vienna, Austria. Accessed July 22, Kilic, A. Cisterna, B. Flach, L. Vecchio, S. Barabino, S. Battistelli, T.

Martin, M. Malatesta, and M. Primicerio, D. Hessen, and T. Trabalza-Marinucci, M. Chiaradia, G. Brandi, C. Rondini, L. Avellini, C. Giammarini, S. Costarelli, G.

Acuti, C. Orlandi, and G. Sissener, N. Sanden, A. Bakke, A. Krogdahl, and G. Atremis, D. Spiroux, F. Roullier, D. Biological Sciences 5 7 : Aris, A. Clair, R. Carrnan, J. Vlieger, L. Ver Steeg, V. Sneller, G. Robinson, C. Clinch-Jones, J. Haynes, and J. The above sources were taken directly from an article written by Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts.

Please take a look for yourself:. Krimsky, Sheldon. To clarify I want to say that my above comment was only meant to show that GMO foods are safe to eat, but we should not accept this as the end of the debate. Megan has done a fine job of synthesizing multiple studies that show how safe the GMO foods are for consumers, however we should not believe this is a closed book on GMO safety. More testing should be done, especially with long term studies that track changes over two or three year periods.

Interesting how many people are defending GMOs on this board even though they have no personal investment in the topic…Or do they.. The only reason this topic is searched and therefore this article discovered is someone is either concerned about the safety of GMOs, wants to learn more about GMOs, or the person has a vested interest in the success of GMOs.

So to be on this board defending GMOs is questionable to say the least, particularly because there is not enough evidence to even make a claim about the safety of GMOs. So making such a definitive claim is negligent and really suspicious. I have spoke with professors that casually speak of the risk a researcher poses to his or her career if they publish studies shining any negative light on GMOs.

Thats actually incorrect Jacob. There is a significant amount of information backed by credible sources to indicate that health outcomes from non-GMO foods are the same as GMO foods. She earned her B. The data starts in through , and GMOs were first introduced in So if GMO foods cause cancer or tumors or birth defects why did animal health actually improve? What I was trying to say with my above comment is that there is research on both sides of this argument and the data points to GMOs being safe for human consumption.

However, there are still some studies that show otherwise so we need to continue to pursue that information. You will not be able to prove they are safe, you can only prove they are as safe as non-GMO foods, which is what the large majority of studies prove. I suggest you take a look at the study in my above comment in red text. One more thing to add here, Jacob. I had to read multiple academic sources, multiple opinion articles, multiple articles from both sides of this argument and then produce a lengthy essay that combines all this information into one piece.

The reason I was putting this information up for others is because I know others have come to this article seeking information about GMO foods. I know many of those people are not in college or may not have a college degree. I was attempting to put the information that I found up here in a concise manner to help others. It is completely up to you if you want to read the two studies that I have linked in red text , but if you are looking for more information just as I was then I hope what I found was helpful to you.

This article by Megan Norris was one of many sources of information that I used. For anyone else looking up the safety of GMO foods you should know the facts and do your own research.

Thank god for the internet and being able to find out the truth. The aim is to make them better right? Anyway, this is how I see it. A big thanks to the writer of this article. I am actually doing an assignment and have to compare different 4 articles to find which one do answer my question on GMOs. Wooow i found this as best and interesting. I didnt even have a knowledge on GMOS as im a commerce student but now im no more left out.

Thanks to the internet. This is why places like Harvard need to be fact checked. Now we have countless lawsuits against Monsanto for glyphosate poisoning and several lawsuits have been awarded millions in damages.

Great job Ivy league! Who the globalist masters you serve? GMO make youre babys have downsindrome. Pls do not buy intto the lies that these people are spreading.

Protect our future!!! There ya go! Maybe your lawyer can just shut down Harvard in its entirety. After this, they can get started on the process of shutting down her references and then their references and so on, all the way until they get to………. Just tell your lawyer to shut down the internet. That may be easier. I think we all have to consider that GMOs are a new concept and that the data we have is not conclusive.

Even some sources admit that they do not know and cannot predict the long term effects of GMOs and according to studies made in , they were often wrong about the general safety of GMOs. This caused scientists to review their work, so to be honest this is a new subject that we sill cannot be certain about but in the end should be up to the consumer.

Love your post! If you are not already, you most certainly should be a writer. Thanks for posting! I disagree with GMOs because they prove facts about stuff I disagree with. I am also actually fearful of advancing technology and how far we have come as a society from my generations because things are changing and I am scared of change.

The only reason I hate on this is that I am fearful of all this and that it will outlive us. I also get all my sources from very reliable sources such as blogs and webpages. This Karen above me is the only one I will ever agree with, good use of sarcasm, this is how it should be done. I feel that the comments are providing more…realistic information than what this article is giving out.

I am doing this research for an exam and i did not expect gen z rollin up in the comments. Hi, Thanks for sharing such an amazing post on GMO products. Above all of these, I was looking was something like this and find this very helpful. Thanks again for sharing such an amazing post! Best Regards. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email. Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser. Skip to content by Megan L. Norris Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms GMOs continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products.

Uhh Jerk- You never had to do that! They were just complimenting the article. You are a genius. Smarter than most of the people on this website. Exactly Eunice!! They made by gaming places. In essence, GMOs increase pesticide use and pesticide use is harmful to the environment. Good luck with your research. Er… Where did this come from? Basically, Silence Wench. There is a lot of proof of evolution. You just have to be willing to read other books. Wait so Harvard is not a valid source anymore but some random blogger is?

Thats good in my country we have no GMO but glad u decided to start eating organic food. Wish I were a doctor. Can you please help me answer this question. Guys, do your own research.

Please see the argument written above in the original piece. Yes science has the rise in those things has to do with a higher amount of greenhouse gassas. They probably tried although most of them are not based and real evidince.

Ur judging a city by a random person in it that did something bad. Well that is just a bunch of lies every single person is judging GMOs by Monanto. Maybe non toxic, but what about nutritional value? I wonder how come more than 30 countries have banned GMOs?

I wonder why 40 countries in the world believe Islam. It must be true if they do, right? Using your own method here to show you how stupid such statements are Neither yours nor previous commenters argument is valid. Bullshit you mean? Did you mix up numbers five and six of your bibliography on your toxicity section? Thank you for your diligent research in an internet full of every kind of article and study.

First of all, I just wanted to say that this article really helped me in my English class. Dear Dr. Any other advice or suggestions you may have would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Niki. The article is quality content, but the comments section is my favorite part. Please take a look for yourself: Krimsky, Sheldon.

You never know when the next breakthrough will save lives. Harvard is founded by rapists and beta males. Check da faxxx. I really appreciate your way of writing you have shared in this post. According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground.

Yellow, black. They disregarded their own scientists, the clear scientific evidence and the deaths and illnesses already attributed to this problem. The agency refused to require pre-market toxicological testing for GE foods or any toxicity monitoring. FDA made these decisions with no scientific basis and without public notice and comment or independent scientific review. The genetic engineering of food creates two separate and serious health risks involving allergenicity.

The first is that genetic engineering can transfer allergens from foods to which people know they are allergic, to foods that they think are safe. This risk is not hypothetical. A study by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that when a gene from a Brazil nut was engineered into soybeans, people allergic to nuts had serious reactions to the engineered product.

At least one food, a Pioneer Hi-Bred International soybean, was abandoned because of this problem. Without labeling, people with known food allergies have no way of avoiding the potentially serious health consequences of eating GE foods containing hidden allergenic material. There is another allergy risk associated with GE foods.

These foods could be creating thousands of different and new allergic responses. Each of these numerous novel proteins could create an allergic response in some consumers. The FDA was also well aware of this new and potentially massive allergenicity problem.

However, the FDA again ignored its own scientists. Because these foods were allowed to be marketed without mandatory testing for this kind of allergenicity, millions of unsuspecting consumers have continuously been exposed to a potentially serious health risk. This FDA action is especially negligent in that the potential consequences of food allergies can include sudden death, and the most significantly affected population is children. Those who are less familiar with GM foods are comparatively more inclined to say the effect of GM foods is neither better nor worse than non-GM foods.

Younger adults are more likely than their elders to consider GM foods health risks. There are modest differences in views by gender. A Pew Research Center survey also found women were more likely than men to say it is generally unsafe to eat GM foods. While a related Pew Research Center report found issues related to climate and energy issues are strongly divided along political lines, Democrats and Republicans hold similar views on the effects of eating GM foods. Those who care a great deal about the GM foods issue are also more likely to follow news on this topic.

In contrast, only about one-quarter of other Americans follow news on GM foods somewhat or very closely. Those who care a great deal about this issue are more likely to report greater awareness about the topic. There are only modest differences in concern about this issue by other demographic and educational groups. Older adults, ages 65 and older, are a bit less likely than their younger counterparts to care deeply about the issue of GM foods.

Those with high school degrees or less are a bit less likely than other educational groups to care about the issue of GM foods. Americans have mixed expectations about the likely effects from genetically modified foods, with many expressing both optimism and pessimism about consequences of GM foods. Most of the public expects GM foods to increase the global food supply. At the same time, about half of Americans say environment and health problems will result from GM foods.

People who are more personally concerned about the issue of GM foods are especially worried that such foods will lead to health and environmental problems for society. In contrast, majorities of those who are less engaged with this issue say environmental and health problems stemming from GM foods are not too or not at all likely.

These expectations of risks for society from GM foods are in keeping with the wide differences among these groups in their views of the health risks associated with eating GM foods. Men and women have somewhat different expectations for GM foods.

Men are more optimistic, while women are more pessimistic about the likely impact of GM foods on society. These modest differences in expectations by gender are in keeping with other studies. There are modest generational differences in expected effects from GM foods. Adults ages 65 and older are less pessimistic than their younger counterparts about the likely effects of GM foods for society; more adults ages 65 and older say harm to the environment or to public health from GM foods is not at all or not too likely to occur.

But younger adults, especially those ages 18 to 29, are more likely to think that GMOs will result in more affordably priced foods. Those with high science knowledge are more optimistic in their expectations that GM foods will bring benefits to society. Education, which is closely linked with levels of science knowledge, shows a similar pattern.

Postgraduate degree-holders are more inclined to say GM foods are very likely to increase the global food supply and to lead to more affordably priced food than those with less education. Public views of scientists and their understanding about the health risks and benefits of GM foods are mixed and, often, skeptical.

Most Americans perceive considerable disagreement among scientific experts about whether or not GM foods are safe to eat.