Genetically Engineered Foods
Analysts use many different phrases to describe genetically engineered foods. The biotech industry rarely uses the phrase "genetically engineered foods," sticking with the more bland (and less controversial) phrase "biotech foods."
In Europe, genetically engineered foods are more commonly referred to as genetically modified foods, genetically altered foods or GMOs (short for genetically modified organisms). But scientists generally agree that "genetically engineered" more accurately represents the process than "genetically modified."
Supporters of biotech foods often try to argue that we have been genetically modifying our foods for centuries, through a process known as hybridization, or interbreeding. But that process is far different than the recombinant DNA splicing used in modern agricultural biotechnology.
I'm posting this forum to discuss the science behind reconbinant DNA splicing on foods we consume and the possible effects on human health.
What has been studied? What hasn't? What conclusions can we draw (if any)?
Risk Assessment
From what I understood glancing over that article--the studies that are being criticized here as far as duration, number of animals tested, etc. were done by Monsanto?
Heard something on biofuels on the radio last week that a type of algae has been developed that will produce diesel fuel. The person being interviewed said of course it was important that this GMO algae never leave the lab.
Looking that up--I found this site: The Organic Center. Lead story here is on how pesticides are reducing crop yields.
GM Food
I guess the problem I have with this topic is two-fold...
1. I see balking at GM foods, and maybe rightly so, yet there are still some incredibly ignored problems in the way food is processed and preserved which in may incredibly elementary study and research and hearing talking head on the subject seems to be just as big of an issue.
2. It seems like there is conflicting research and no "smoking gun" against GM foods.
In the end, I haven't had a desire to study it much. I need to invest the time someday I suppose. Just an"outsiders" perception.
Smoking gun
Yup - I had personal reasons for delving into this concerning my allergic child.
The thing that bugs me is that because the way things are it can't be properly researched. There never will be a "smoking gun" if this doesn't change, but that doesn't mean that bad things aren't already happening. American health trends are on a downward spiral. Let's make sure this isn't something contributing to that.
I'm a scientist at heart - I'd just like the proper precautions to be taken and studies performed before we put something out there as "generally recommended as safe". That just can't happen if we don't identify or label this kind of food. We need to be able to isolate and make transparent the whole "case/effect" if there is one - for good or for bad.
GM Food
Ok...
... but are you saying this proves something?
Again ... health trends have been declining over the past few decades as well... and there's no way to "prove" that genetic manipulation of our food crops isn't a main contributor to this either.
Proof
I am saying that if you can't prove it does contribute then much of the speculation and hype surrounding the negativity of it seems unwarranted.
I am saying that we've been modifying genetics for decades even if at a more basic level with crop genetics and breeding. Now all the sudden it's a big issue...I am failing to see the merit behind the criticism.
With my 5 o'clock News level of understanding and interest in the topic...
You may need to move past the 5 o'clock news to understand...
Well - mainly I'm saying that you need to have a scientific analysis of genetically engineered foods before you can move past speculation of the risks. To do this you have to be able to have a control group that does not eat these foods vs a group that does and compare in order to analyze the risks and differences. Today, there's not really a good way to do this scientifically since the supply of these foods is not controlled in this country. This should have been done prior to releasing them into the human food chain - if you want my opinion, but in the least now - they should be controlled and labelled for a great many reasons... after the fact study being one of them.
That's not to say that there haven't been studies that show evidence that eating these foods is detrimental... because there are. I've posted a few of those studies on this site. I'm beginning to suspect that were they subjected to the proper tests, genetically engineered foods could be proven to be a major contributor to problems to the major health problems on the rise today.
On a side note...
I'm not sure I follow your point on crop genetics and breeding, because genetic manipulation is another creature from this entirely. The advanced technology itself introduces a risk that is not inherent in traditional crop genetics and breeding. You're introducing foreign genetic material into the DNA of whatever it is you are engineering.
Genetic manipulation is NOT an exact science. There's no way at this point to surgically insert a gene segment. It's more like firing a specialized shotgun to insert the new genetic material. You might be successful at adding trait X to a gene, but there may be several genes affected by the extra new genetic material. They can't control or predict the traits that come of this.
Crop Genetics / Breeding
The point is we've been flirting with this for years....I understand the fundamental scientific difference. However, questionable genetics manipulation have been going on for years with cross-breeding and other similar genetic modifications and practices that have been introduced through the lab and directly into the food chain without similar scrutiny. Now, all of the sudden people want to the throw the brakes because this is a whole new level.
I am not totally disagreeing with you...I am just saying there isn't exactly precedence historically in the field to really force this type of testing. Not that that makes it right...I agree, it should be studied. I am just saying the envelope has been pushed for years...now we're at a point on the slippery slope where more people are concerned.
Re: Crop Genetics/Breeding
I don't know. I admit that I'm not very well-versed in such things, but there does seem to me to be a huge difference between selective breeding and injecting genetic material "shot-gun style" into a sample with hopes that something good (and not bad) will come out of it. I mean, in the breeding process nature seems to have ways of controlling "the bad" by either causing it to fail to develop at all or by otherwise rendering it unviable. It seems to me that when we bypass the natural processes we also bypass those built-in controls.
Furthermore, it's true that selective breeding also short-circuits intrinsic controls in nature... it artificially hijacks or accelerates the evolutionary process... and this fact hasn't gone unnoticed by critics. Excessive hybridization is often cited as a contributor to the rapidly decreasing biodiversity of our food supply. So I wouldn't say that all of the "envelop pushing" that we've done with food has gone unnoticed until recently.
Again, though... I'm no expert, so... anyone please do correct me if I'm mistaken in any of these points.
Difference
I am not questioning the difference. In my mind there is a clear distinction. And, I am not against scrutiny of the practice either, in fact I am largely for it.
All I am saying is this envelope has been being pushed for years and there doesn't seem to be any precedent for anyone to have thrown the brakes on this.
Re: Difference
"Anyone" being?
I mean... there are many countries other than the US who have issues with all kinds of genetic manipulation practices.
Sorry... not trying to be smart here. 
I'm just not following where you're looking for a precedent... and, I guess, why a precedent is even important. I mean, it isn't uncommon for bad practices to be ignored for long periods of time before the folks who object begin to be heard.
Anyone Being,..
Anyone being those in the community of science responsible for throwing the brakes on something like this....take your pick: FDA, USDA or any other entity that would bear that responsibility.
Technically, I don't think we disagree other than you feel more strongly that something could have and should have been done up front. I agree I would of liked that, but nonetheless I can see easily how it's got to this point.
Question those responsible
Well, I'm one of those people that feels the public needs to question those who are responsible in order to help keep them honest. We need our public servants to have public accountability- IMO.
There is a skill gap between an FDA, USDA or federal government employee and the physician or scientist researching the foods out there that are deemed "safe" for us to eat.
Heck, I was reading about alternatives to margarine - cause in my opinion that's some nasty stuff... I'll quote and article by one of the physicians out there that noticed this same flaw in our system:
According to Russell Jaffe, M.D., a noted medical researcher, hog farmers will not feed trans- fats to their animals because the pigs will die if they eat them. When Dr Jaffe contacted the US Department of Agriculture, he found that it knew all about this but was not interested in the possible human effects since this area was not under its jurisdiction. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) hasn't done anything about it, either. The fact that the food industry has succeeded in keeping a lid on public awareness of these facts is testimony to the political power it wields in governmental and scientific circles.
The food industry funds a great deal of research. People in the research community know that you can often predict the outcome of a study if you know who is funding it. In that light, it's unwise to accept blindly the press releases on 'the latest research' without considering who paid for it. There are some rather scientific-sounding foundations out there that are basically 'front' organizations for the food industry.3
Please note - I'm only quoting this snippet, as I haven't done much more than skim the article myself. As relates to the GM conversation, I'm only pointing out the political opinion of one doctor about the workings of the same entity that regulates the safety of such a thing. This opinion being based on the personal experience and study of that one doctor. I will mention, however, that I have seen a great many other sources that take issue with this same thing.
The thing I appreciate about this article itself is that it is referenced with highly reputable medical sources as supporting evidence for this doctor's claims about margarine and hydrogenated oils. That sort of thing weights my stock in that person's reputation.
Question
Well, I'm one of those people that feels the public needs to question those who are responsible in order to help keep them honest. We need our public servants to have public accountability- IMO. -DL
Well, I hope you are reading my replies as though I am saying we shouldn't be...
Question...
Oh no, no... not at all.
I gather you're just a tad more conservative than I on this GM food topic is all.
...didn't mean to pound it into to dirt, if that's how it came off. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from, in case that isn't clear.
Conservative...
No it didn't come off that way...I was just ensuring that I wasn't coming off that way. 
And, technically, I doubt we disagree much on it...I am not against anything you've proposed. I just think that it's hard to expect the brakes to be put on the issue with what's in place.
I am all for labeling GE foods. I am all for testing GE foods before they hit the human, or even livestock, food chains.
However, I think it needs to be done with consideration for not only for safety, but also not to overly impede it from being pushed to market.
I think they've erred on the wrong side...I would of erred on the side of safety.
conservative
I think you're right that we don't disagree on much.
I'm not sure how to stop a train in full steam either. There are a lot of complex issues to consider at this point.
As far as any other commodity, I think that it would be wise to let market forces come into play as far as what is being pushed to market. To do this we need labelling. The the issue of cross contamination with organic fields also should be addressed.
Organics
Now, there is an interesting perspective that I had overlooked...but, it's kind of funny to me in a way that when organics were pushed to market it was in a similar fashion. You had a core group of activists pushing to get things through because obviously there was financial gain in a niche market and it all went through with relative ease. Then a year or so later we have 60 Minutes documentaries on problems within the organic foods industry.
Nothing against organics...and I think most of the problems have since been resolved, but when you mentioned it that came to mind.
It might take action on the state level
I saw this and thought this was a step in the right direction:
Bills seek labels for biotech food (Hawaii)
Summed up - the biotech industry does not want to label... well for many reasons... but go on ad infinitum about:
"If it is not dangerous, harmful or different, why label it?" said Kamiya.
Well... because it IS different. You can't grow GM crops next door to the organic farmer - let's just use their arguement - because you WILL harm that organic farmers profit margin in crops they have to scrap because they were cross contaminated.
I don't agree with the people out destroying GM test crops, however, I wonder if there would be much of that going on if consumers were allowed to exercise a right to choose whether they eat GM food or not by having it conveniently labelled. For the common Joe who can't afford to shop 100% organic, it stands it's an unwritten, forced acceptance of this science - and well... some people don't like to be force fed.
Difference
Feeding the World Without Genetic Engineering
Feeding the World Without Genetic Engineering (This is a cool article!)
| Libraries Science News | Keywords GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PLANT BREEDING | |
Description The work of a Kansas State University professor is challenging the assumption that genetically engineered plants are the great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population. | ||
 |
|
Newswise — The work of a Kansas State University professor is challenging the assumption that genetically engineered plants are the great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population.
Jianming Yu, an assistant professor of agronomy, is teaming with Rex Bernardo, a professor of agronomy and plant genetics at the University of Minnesota, on research with marker-assisted selection. This agricultural technology offers a sophisticated method to greatly accelerate classical breeding through genetic analysis and selection of existing natural diversity in various crops without having to resort to alien species. Currently, marker-assisted selection has been a routine in many private seed companies with large-scale fingerprinting, global germplasm assessment and comprehensive bioinformatics support.
Yu's and Bernardo's research is focused on breeding methodology, finding more efficient ways to breed better varieties of corn, sorghum, wheat or barley that yield higher, require less irrigation and are resistant to diseases in farmers' fields. The pair's work was recently published in an edition of the scientific journal Crop Science.
"With abundant molecular markers that can be routinely processed with modern genomic technology, we found it is more efficient to focus on selection based information all across the genome rather than the traditional way of genomic regions containing signals that pass a threshold," Yu said.
Their research is "a result of our constant deliberation of how to incorporate modern genomic technologies into breeding process, a more general term as genomic-assisted plant breeding, which differs from what scientists have been doing -- using markers to guide the introgression of single or multiple disease resistance genes," Yu said.
"The traditional way is to identify genome regions that show significant information," he said. "The new way is to consider all information genomewide. In other words, we strategically shifted the focus from finding the most interesting genome areas to considering all information simultaneously. This is critical, especially given that most of traits with agricultural importance are controlled by many interacting genomic regions and their individual effects are relatively small."
Yu and Bernardo plan to conduct experiments with sorghum in Kansas and maize in Minnesota.
"It will provide breeders, public or private, a powerful tool to advance their breeding practices," Yu said.
Thirteen myths of genetic engineering
New Zealand's Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering has prepared a helpful guide to genetic engineering that discusses the following points:
Myth No. 1: Genetic engineering (GE) is not new. It is just the same as speeded-up selective breeding.
Myth No. 2: Genetic engineering is precise.
Myth No. 3: GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has been modified.
Myth No. 4: GE food is extensively tested and the GE food at present on our supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat.
Myth No. 5: Genetically engineered food has improved nutritional value.
Myth No. 6: One can always choose not to eat GE food.
Myth No. 7: Farmers will benefit from growing GE crops.
Myth No. 8: GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides.
Myth No. 9: There is no evidence that GE crops are harmful to the environment.
Myth No. 10: GE crops will save the world from famine.
Myth No. 11: You can trust the scientists that GE food is good for you and the world.
Myth No. 12: You can't stop progress.
Myth No. 13: There are more important things to worry about than GE foods.
Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?
Several Studies that have been done on GM foods
Article points discussed:
Information is scarce about health hazards, such as toxicity in genetically modified (GM) crops.
GM foods may cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.
They can also produce allergies.
Current testing methods need radical improvements.
Some rats died within a few weeks after eating GM tomatoes for unstated reasons.
Rats' ability to digest was decreased after eating GM corn.
Allergen content increased when soybeans were genetically modified.
The toxin level of GM cotton is unpredictable.
Rats had meager weight gain when fed GM soybeans.
Toxins were found in mice after eating GM potatoes.
When the health risks of GM potatoes were revealed in some studies, a debate ensued.
Allergies are a major concern with GM food, especially if ingredients are not labeled in packaged food.
There are no reliable ways to test GM foods for allergies.
Conclusion:
We need more and better testing methods before making GM foods available for human consumption.
Independent study shows possible toxic effects of GM on mammals
A study was performed to include possible mid to long term effects of ingesting GM foods.
We assume that Séralini et al. [5] methodology can discriminate potential false positive and GM-linked effects, avoiding to some extent false negative ones, in the best way we can do for this discussed and too limited protocol already in use for commercialized GMOs. These GM-linked effects are then considered as signs of toxicity in the 90 days, not proofs of toxicity. The biological plausibility of a subchronic or chronic side effect of the GM diet, linked to the new toxin in the mammalian regimen, or due to the mutagenesis effect of the genetic modification itself, is thus non negligible.
Finally it should be stressed that statistically significant effects of GM diets, or of residues of pesticides that are contained by GMOs, have also been observed in other instances [21-25], but not in all studies [26, 27] enlightening the necessity of a case-by-case approach, and that the real toxicological studies are quite limited up to date for that [28].
All these observations taken together in our opinions do not allow a clear statement of toxic effects, but to suggest them as such, because they are clearly undeniable. Now, to any good researcher similar results would mean that there is much to be improved in the planning of experimental design; and thus to increase their resolution power to obtain unequivocal statements, for instance increasing the duration and/or the number of rats tested. Generally speaking it seems to us unbelievable that a risk assessment carried out only on forty rats of each sex receiving GM rich diets for 90 days (yielding results often at the limits of significance) have not been repeated and prolonged independently. We should overall take into account the fact that the analysed GM product could be fed long-term to people and animals of various ages and sexes, and with various pathologies.
We call for more serious standardized tests such as those used for pesticides or drugs, on at least three mammalian species tested for at least three months employing larger sample sizes, and up to one and two years before commercialization, for GM food or feed specifically modified to contain pesticide residues. We also call for a serious scientific debate about the criteria for testing significant adverse health effects for pesticides or chemicals, but overall for GM food or feed products, such as MON 863.
Ref:
Séralini GE, de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Sultan C, Buiatti M, Gallagher L, Antoniou M, Dronamraju KR. How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:438-443. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm