Here
and
Now

opinions

If you don't want your food genetically modified, tell nature to stop it.

41 Comments

Chipotle hit the headlines recently when the company announced it would no longer serve customers genetically modified foods. This despite the fact that more than a trillion meals containing genetically modified food have already been eaten in the United States without incident. Science has decisively found that these foods have no negative impact on health.

Chipotle's move seems to be based more on marketing than on science.

Recent research drives home how misled alarmists are about genetically modified food. All human beings, two Cambridge University scientists have established, are genetically modified, including Chipotle's customers. Over the years, hundreds of foreign genes have jumped into human DNA through a natural phenomenon called "gene flow." As a result, all humans carry genes that originated in algae, bacteria and fungi.

If humans can safely accept alien genes without mishap, why not food, too?

Farmers and breeders have for centuries used cross-breeding to improve the genetic characteristics of crops and animals. Because this process involves gene transfers within the same species, environmental advocates label it "natural" - even though cross-breeding is clearly man-made. Modern genetic splicing makes it possible to combine genes from completely different species to produce much-needed products, including pest-resistant and high-yielding crops.

The Bt gene from pest-resistant bacteria, for example, has been inserted into cotton to create a pest-resistant Bt cotton. The combination has greatly raised yields and reduced pesticide use. But some activists condemn this as a crime against nature.

When fears about genetically modified foods first arose, little was known about gene flow, also called horizontal gene transfer. The idea that genes could jump across species violated then-conventional wisdom. But scientific research has established that natural gene transfers regularly occur. So genetic transfers are not a human invention - just a belated human effort to imitate what nature has been doing all along.

This discovery has convinced some longtime campaigners against genetically modified crops to make a U-turn. British author and journalist Mark Lynas, for example, converted from being an activist opposed to genetically modified food to a firm supporter in a notable 2013 mea culpa speech, in which he apologized for letting his opinions trump the scientific data.

Scientists once thought that gene transfers occurred naturally only in simple organisms like bacteria. But research shows that transfers are also common in complex species, including human beings. Does this genetic intrusion make humans a monster species? Hardly.

The "Economist" used the headline "Genetically Modified People" for a report on genetic research by Alastair Crisp and Chiara Boschetti, the two Cambridge scientists. They have identified 145 genes that have crossed over from other species to humans.

This is, of course, a tiny fraction of the 20,000 odd genes in a human body. Why then should environmentalists lose sleep over the introduction of a single alien gene into crops?

Research on gene flow is still in its infancy. It could ultimately reveal thousands of alien genes that have entered human DNA. This should be no surprise: Nature has had almost a million years to do its work.

One gene identified by the Cambridge researchers helps hold cells together; it crossed over into humans from a fungus. Marine algae appear to be the source of another human gene associated with fat mass. Bacteria have provided a third gene that helps define blood groups.

Apart from human transfers, the scientists examined gene transfers in nine other primate species, 12 fruit fly species and four nematode worms. They found that the phenomenon was ubiquitous. The researchers considered the possibility that what looked like gene transfers between species might actually be genes both had inherited from a common ancestor millions of years ago.

Genes found in another animal could be a common ancient inheritance. But genes in animals that came from plants or bacteria would almost certainly represent gene flow. Crisp and Boschetti found that, on average, worms had 173 gene transfers, fruit flies 40, and primates had 109. Humans, with 145 transfers, were more genetically modified than other primates.

The researchers found two imported genes for amino-acid metabolism, 13 for fat metabolism and 15 for modifying large molecules. They identified five immigrant genes that generated valuable anti-oxidants, and seven that aided the immune system.

Far from creating monsters, the scientists found that genes from alien species appear beneficial. Activists against genetically modified organisms can argue that natural gene transfers have been spaced out over millennia, giving species time to adapt. But every time a natural gene transfer occurred, it carried the same risks as the insertion of a Bt gene into cotton or eggplants.

Besides, all crops, genetically modified or otherwise, are field-tested for safety before commercial release. The United States has approved dozens of genetically modified crops for commercial use. Virtually all U.S. corn and soybeans today are genetically modified.

Chipotle's claim of serving food free of genetic modifications is dubious because the meats it serves come from animals and chickens likely fed on genetically modified corn and soybean meal. More important, why should Chipotle even make the claim when its own customers are genetically modified?

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

a trillion meals containing genetically modified food have already been eaten in the United States without incident.

Expect for the massive rise in Colon Cancers, Obesity, CFS, diabetes and a host of other diseases.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

This despite the fact that more than a trillion meals containing genetically modified food have already been eaten in the United States without incident.

Yeah, sure. We believe you.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

The author of this article is either being extremely disingenuous or he has a very limited understanding of genetics.

Over the years, hundreds of foreign genes have jumped into human DNA through a natural phenomenon called "gene flow." As a result, all humans carry genes that originated in algae, bacteria and fungi.

Why then should environmentalists lose sleep over the introduction of a single alien gene into crops?

The genes we share with algae and bacteria (and which we have carried for millions of years, not just a 10 year study) are part of the non-coding sequences of our DNA which have no known effect on our physical appearance or immunity to disease and so on. Some call this 'Junk' DNA because it does nothing but it makes up over 90% of our genome.

In complete contrast to this, the handful of genes they want to modify in various plants and animals are specifically selected because we know that manipulating that specific genes will produce some dramatic change in the organism. You simple can't equate the two.

I'm sure even people at Monsanto would cringe if they read this article. He's doing no favours for the pro-GMO crowd by spreading misinformation.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

More important, why should Chipotle even make the claim when its own customers are genetically modified?

"Customers are genetically modified" ... What????

Modified by definition means modified by man (or Monsanto), but modified by nature is called evolution.

I wonder who is funding the author's research grant?

I think we all know.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

I been saying this for years. Finally someone else can argue down the stubborn morons who will continue trying to slap this very basic fact down. People like to live in their little story book world where the earth and dna is somehow "pure" and the only factor that poisons that beautiful nature is bad filthy evil man and their insistence on "playing god". They love to imagine Nature as a Mother (thus the name "Mother Nature") who nurtures us all... a Mother Gaia who pours life water into our veins with some kind of magical spiritual process. But there is no magic godess. We are a prodcut of a very faulty (but like Democracy, the best we have) process that is akin to throwing speghetti at a wall and seeing what sticks. People forget that nature is violent and brutal. We live today upon the corpses of billions of extinguished lineages because "nature" (if you TRULY want to personify it as an entity) is a mad, evil scientist that plays the Russian Roulette game with our genes, then the process of elimination game with our lives. Cancer didn't magically come on the scene when man started industrializing, people! It has been found as far back as ancient Egyptian mummies. If fossil records could show cancer, what you would see is a sea of animals who died from cancerous mutations so that a handful of lineages could be in the running for the genetic lottery. Of THAT handful of beings that didnt die from cancer, most will die because their mutation wasnt beneficial. The misiscule number of survivors get to live on and give rise to the next superior generation. If you could see with the eyes of a god, you would see a world in which plants wage chemical warfare, viruses insert their genes into other species' gene code, and random mutations give way to all manner of illness, disease, and the future of life. An educated person knows there is nothing magical about DNA... there is no spell broken when you change a gene to make a tomato riper. You don't break some mystical oath with the gods if you modify a plants DNA to make corn sweeter. You are changing one gear in the mechinations of a chemical machine to yield the results you want. Stop thinking like 16th century country bumpkins! Read a book instead of regurgitating religious dogmatic mumbo jumbo.

2 ( +14 / -12 )

It is a dangerously adolescent and silly notion to create this false equivalence between the manner in which Nature modifies life and the manner in which mankind interferes with those processes by forcing modifications.

They are not the same thing, and no amount of finger-wagging from half-informed Op-Ed writers will change that.

Chipotle may only be half-genuine in their public effort to raise awareness of the issue through their marketing, but it is a real issue nonetheless and of concern to more and more people every day. Thus the demand for non-GMO is rising to levels that cannot be ignored, and the free market may eventually force players to abandon GMO if they want to survive.

Darwinian market forces ... ironic, no?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I don't mind there are genetically modified foods at supermarkets, but at least costomers should know this food is modified or not before buying/eating it. Some people don't care but some people do care.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

A little long, Jorge, but rather spot-on.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Quantifying the risks to the environment and human health are the most important areas of research. Present science seems to suggest GM crops have not caused adverse effects to the environmental, however research into new genetically modified plant strains point to risks that could have a impact on the future environment and public health. The risk of a new gene passed on to other plants is clear. An example is out crossing, herbicide tolerance gene could be passed into other plants.

Are there adequate safeguards against gene flow between the GMOs and native organisms?. Food safety evaluation? The EU role through the European Food Safety Authority is paramount to set clear guidelines for testing and subsequently sets clear benchmarks. I may spit nails at the EU propensity for unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, but the EFSA plays a crucial role. It employs independent scientists with a diverse range of disciplines.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Those who are against GMO need to present established scientific evidence of their harm. Until that time, I have to consider such moves as those from Chipotle simply marketing.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Science has decisively found that these foods have no negative impact on health.

... the cow was first domesticated about 10,500 years ago. Despite 10,500 years of drinking milk many humans are lactose intolerant, because our bodies simply cannot cope with the (genetically speaking) relatively small differences between cow's milk and human milk.

Gluten intolerance is another naturally occurring problem some humans had with adopting to the shift from hunter-gatherer (meat, fruit and berry diet) to farming about 12,000 years ago when we shifted to eating wheat - some people just couldn't handle it.

The prevalence of these conditions was low, in the 1920's only about 0.01%.

Then in the 1980's (when genetic modification first started) that number began to shoot up to around 1%, and the research from the 2000's showed it had hit about 10%, and was rising.

The bottom line is that humans are not the all-eating omnivores think we are. We simply can't digest some foods. There's also a MASSIVE amount of research showing that eating foods we are unable to process causes major problems for humans.

There are also other issues as well. It is a pretty idiotic farmer who grows a product that more than 10% of the market can't eat. Another big issue is that GM products are genetically identical, so when a bug or fungus attacks a crop there's no variation in the genetic makeup of the plants and the entire crop gets wiped out. Think "potato famine" level disaster, and entire country's supply of wheat wiped out by a single new pest.

Yes, the yields are higher, but they're also not safe for a sizeable portion of the population and should be clearly labeled, and anyone NOT labeling their GM products should be charged with reckless endangerment.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

@Jorge Hint: Paragaph breaks

Sure, go and help yourself freely to GMO, Swaminathan Aiya. I'm sure Monsanto wouldn't mind.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Expect for the massive rise in Colon Cancers, Obesity, CFS, diabetes and a host of other diseases.

Gee I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that people eat a lot more today then they have at anytime in history and are living far longer.......

There has never been a time in human history that food is this plentiful and cheap as it is today and humans on average have never lived as long either....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Hi karlrb That's a fair request, I think there has to be more flex in the debate than 'for or against' though.

On one side of the fence GM maize (MON801) the only commercially grown GM crop has been hugely effective in eliminating damage from the corn borer and the secondary effects of fungal diseases producing poisons that contaminate food and feed.

However antibiotic resistance genes is a contentious issue, up to date the threat has been minimal, as the probability of a successful transfer of an antibiotic resistance gene is very low not withstanding genetically modified foods with foreign proteins and food allergies.

Science has decisively found that these foods have no negative impact on health

Well junior has sprouted a matching set of cauliflower ears, However nature has a knack of punishing scientists decisiveness.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The author is a research fellow at the Cato Institute - a huge Monsanto and food industry apology organization so basically her drivel can be dismissed as a conflict of interest. If it so safe why is it Monsanto has forced the US Congress to keep the TPP details from citizens. The pols don't want to lose all those juicy campaign donations. And they donate to both parties to maximize their wishes.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Just to correct - GM maize (MON801) the only commercially grown GM crop in the EU

0 ( +0 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknrollMay. 24, 2015 - 12:15PM JST

Science has decisively found that these foods have no negative impact on health

Well junior has sprouted a matching set of cauliflower ears, However nature has a knack of punishing scientists decisiveness.

Save your hating for the reporters.

Scientists actually are still debating the issue. Go to Google Scholar and type in the words "GMO Food Safety" and you'll see that the top dozen articles are mostly about how to properly assess the safety of GMO foods, and the results are decided mixed depending on how the word "safe" is being used. Do they mean non-toxic? Do they mean safe for everyone (in which case peanuts would be out!)? Do they mean about as safe as most of the stuff on the market now?

The reporter has made a completely unsupported and frankly untrue statement and is just expecting you to swallow it because... ummm... he assumes you're an idiot who will believe whatever you're told?

The reporter in question has a masters degree in economics, which makes him in no way qualified to make pronouncements on what all of "science" says.

So don't hate on science. Hate on the reporters who are reporting on issues WAY outside their area of expertise without even the simple courtesy of a reference or a brief literature review.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Well to emphasize junior hasn't sprouted a matching set of cauliflower ears to further correct myself.

Frungy for the record and to avoid any future confusion my capacity for or to hate an object, person or profession can be measured Infinitesimally after all the author is a research fellow bearing an opinion.

I can polish off a full set of what some might consider impressive credentials, all of which amounts to diddly squat in life tapestry of how one takes scientists and there views and opinions outside the confines to perceived fields of expertise. My life experiences, taking into account I am yet to reach 30, both in professional and private life draw me to the conclusion that boasting or waving a set of competed exam papers in debating any subject indicates a closed mind. Experience is constantly understated over fast-tracking.

Maybe I was not clear, so to reemphasize the final paragraph of my comment, a humble opinion, advises caution not hate. Thank you Google Scholar tip.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is the most convincing article I've ever read for supporting genetically modified foods.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

itsonlyrocknrollMay. 24, 2015 - 01:34PM JST Frungy for the record and to avoid any future confusion my capacity for or to hate an object, person or profession can be measured Infinitesimally after all the author is a research fellow bearing an opinion.

A research fellow who clearly hasn't done any research.

I can polish off a full set of what some might consider impressive credentials, all of which amounts to diddly squat in life tapestry of how one takes scientists and there views and opinions outside the confines to perceived fields of expertise. My life experiences, taking into account I am yet to reach 30, both in professional and private life draw me to the conclusion that boasting or waving a set of competed exam papers in debating any subject indicates a closed mind. Experience is constantly understated over fast-tracking.

So in other words you're saying that you listen to him because he's a research fellow, but at the same time you dismiss qualifications and titles.

... contradiction much?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So what is natural is just like man-made?

So reducing millions of years to just a few should not give us pause?

So going from total randomness in choice of gene, to cross breeding entire sets of genes, to picking out one gene known to have massive effect, should not give us pause?

So we should not even consider what starving certain creatures we consider "pests" will have on the environment, despite mankind having quite a history of wiping out species?

So we should not worry about in the future, all our produce requiring acquisition of intellectual property rights just to grow a vegetable garden?

And we should never mind that with huge numbers of new things introduced to our foods, so many problems were only realized several decades after the introduction?

So where have the fireflies gone? How about the frogs? And the bees? Don't you think maybe we should slow our roll just a bit and make sure we got some things absolutely right first, despite some people's desperate desire to get filthy rich?

How many times have scientists said "Whoops!" over the last century? Do I really need to put a list together for you?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Cato institute, huh. You should google how bovine growth hormone ended up in milk thanks to Monsanto. And these are the people you are trusting to not create some monstrosity that will severely damage the food chain.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It is a pretty idiotic farmer who grows a product that more than 10% of the market can't eat.

So all peanut farmers should shut down because some people can't eat peanuts? Really?

Although I am sure that all producers would like it if 100% of the population consumed their product, they are happy if enough people consume it to allow them to sell enough of it at a high enough price to make a profit.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Mike O'Brian

Peanut allergies affect approx. 0.6 percent of the population. You are castigating someone while wildly deviating from their stated caveat of 10 percent.

And what is idiot or not concerns much more than simply what makes a profit. There is also care and consideration for your fellow man, which is, in my humble opinion, a sign of intelligence.

Also, IMHO, greed is a sign of idiocy, as it risks the future and the long term, and the health of others in favor of short to medium term profit. And there is greed written all over GMO corporations.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hi Frungy I don't think this 'research fellow' opinion is of value, no intended disrespect to Swaminathan Aiya ,for the very reasons you have stated, my comment about credentials highlights this. I have carried out duties in various research assistant roles and without being rude or disrespectful some economists and scientists possess the vanity and egos of celebrity. I am used to writing reports maybe I taking to much for granted?

A considerable amount of additional research needs to be carried out into a link between genetically modified foods with foreign proteins and food allergies.

I have thumbed you up on both your comments because I value your replies, a tutor once told me, it is better to be 'called out' than ignored.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

itsonlyrocknrollMay. 24, 2015 - 05:40PM JST Hi Frungy I don't think this 'research fellow' opinion is of value, no intended disrespect to Swaminathan Aiya ,for the very reasons you have stated, my comment about credentials highlights this. I have carried out duties in various research assistant roles and without being rude or disrespectful some economists and scientists possess the vanity and egos of celebrity. I am used to writing reports maybe I taking to much for granted?

Not at all. Perhaps you misunderstood me, but I'm mostly irritated at the tendency for newspapers to publish articles from people who know jack about the subject matter and give these invalid opinions undue weight in the minds of the public.

Someone can't give a medical opinion without a medical license, but newspapers side-step the issue crying "Freedom of the Press!!" while they spread disinformation. They do more damage than they do good. And seriously it is such an easy issue to fix, simply require newspapers to consult with a recognised expert in the area before publishing.

A considerable amount of additional research needs to be carried out into a link between genetically modified foods with foreign proteins and food allergies.

I completely agree.

I have thumbed you up on both your comments because I value your replies, a tutor once told me, it is better to be 'called out' than ignored.

And I so agree here! I don't mind being called out. Feel free to do it anytime - provided you have a valid argument I'll read and respond.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There are plenty of world scientist going on record claiming there is a real risk to human beings health from certain lab genetically modified foods, Also there has not been concludive studies to support tgat these midified foods are all safe yet...

Till that happens why risk it?

And people should always have the choice of what they wish to consume.

I applaud most of Europe rejecting monsanto and other US modified foods from entering their food chain...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Genetics is very exciting but part of the problem here is that the general public seems to believe that the science is much much farther along than it actually is. In reality, we have hardly scratched the surface (a bit like computing circa 1986). Talk to anyone in this field and they will tell you that we will know 10x as much as we know today in 15 or 20 years from now. The bottom line however, is that the GMO companies can't wait even another 10 years. They are desperate to put out products today in order to survive. We need to restrain them to some extent.

Frungy's example of coeliac disorder (inability to digest gluten) is a good example. We know that 99% of people who suffers from coeliac disorder carry a certain combination of genes (particularly HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8). However, around 40% of people who carry these genes are actually able to digest gluten without any problems. This means the cause for coeliac disorder lies in some other gene or combination of genes which we simply haven't discovered yet, but we probably will within 15-20 years. We just need a bit more time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There is no scientific proof that can stand up to scrutiny that genetically modified foods harm people. A rise in this or that disease does not prove GMO's are responsible. This thinking is akin to the idea that vaccines cause autism as there is no evidence that proves the assertion. The author of this story is correct. Generic mutations occur constantly. This phenomenon is more generally known as evolution.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@Living Memory

It is known as an analogy, it isn't meant to be exactly the same. Why not address the issue. What producer expects much less achieves 90% market share?

As to care and consideration for your fellow man, how does selling a product that some people can't or won't consume show a lack of care or consideration?

IMHO degrading a profit motive is a sure sign of idiocy. Humankind would still be living in the Stone Age without it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think it’s best to assume that whatever big corporations are advertising is most likely to our detriment or at the least not made for our own good. In the best case, they are simply interested in profits, meaning GMOs are of zero additional benefit to the customers but come with a lot of risks that conventional and established crops don’t have.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

More babble. Most people concerned with GMO are focused on something this "author" doesn't bother with, (except to mention the high percentage of corn, etc. that is GMO .... WHAT MOST OF US ARE UNHAPPY WITH IS THE MONSANTO "ROUNDUP-READY" NATURE OF THE MODIFICATION.. (dId I say that loud enough for you?) Corn, Soy beans etc. If you don't understand it try googling the phrase Round-up Ready. hmmmm? jccampb

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Scientists actually are still debating the issue. Go to Google Scholar and type in the words "GMO Food Safety" and you'll see that the top dozen articles are mostly about how to properly assess the safety of GMO foods, and the results are decided mixed depending on how the word "safe" is being used. Do they mean non-toxic? Do they mean safe for everyone (in which case peanuts would be out!)? Do they mean about as safe as most of the stuff on the market now?

GMO food carries the same exact health consequences as the equivalent non-GMO version. You're trying to be pedantic to get around this fact which has been made abundantly clear with the overwhelming weight of research and science behind it. Trying to argue that GMO food isn't safe because people are equally allergic to GMO peanuts indicates your lack of good faith when it comes to this issue.

The reporter has made a completely unsupported and frankly untrue statement and is just expecting you to swallow it because... ummm... he assumes you're an idiot who will believe whatever you're told?

You're expected to believe it because the supported the frankly true statement that GMO food is just as safe as non-GMO food is supported by the overwhelming weight of research and science. Citing google scholar as proof that it isn't is hilarious. It's a controversial topic, that doesn't mean the science hasn't been settled.

The reporter in question has a masters degree in economics, which makes him in no way qualified to make pronouncements on what all of "science" says.

That doesn't seem to stop anybody from saying that evolution and climate change are real despite their lack of scientific qualifications.

So don't hate on science. Hate on the reporters who are reporting on issues WAY outside their area of expertise without even the simple courtesy of a reference or a brief literature review.

Would you say that if he was arguing for the legitimacy of climate change research?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Illyas - GMO food is not "just as safe as non-GMO food" in the same way that a vitamin tablet is not as safe as eating fruit. I could give you a thousand similar examples where things seemed safe and were marketed to the public as "proven safe by scientists" - but later proved not to be.

Do some reading - note that these are published sources in reputable scientific journals. The consensus is by no means "clear".

Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 49(2), 164-175.

Paparini, A., & Romano-Spica, V. (2004). Public health issues related with the consumption of food obtained from genetically modified organisms. Biotechnology annual review, 10, 85-122.

Nordlee, J. A., Taylor, S. L., Townsend, J. A., Thomas, L. A., & Bush, R. K. (1996). Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(11), 688-692.

Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk analysis, 22(4), 701-711.

Ewen, S. W., & Pusztai, A. (1999). Health risks of genetically modified foods. The Lancet, 354(9179), 684.

Note that some of these articles are in top-tier journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and have been peer-reviewed according to the highest possible standards. You cannot dismiss these opinions as "fringe" theories - these are as main-line as science gets and there clearly is NO consensus.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There are plenty of world scientist going on record claiming there is a real risk to human beings health from certain lab genetically modified foods

There are plenty of world scientists going on record claiming there is a real risk to human health from certain naturally crossed foods.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

never read so much rubbish all written in the same article. congrats.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Very sorry to be blunt, but I really love reading illiterati and people with very rudiment knowledge about scientific processes talking and in fact arguing about science and especially GMO. Thank you very much for the entertainment you are providing. Just a hint: when you quote a scientific study, please, take 5 minutes out of your time and read at least the summary and the methodology to understand what the article is about.

No science exist, so far, (because science is always transitional) to back up any fear-mongering against GMO. But idiots do exist.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No science exist, so far, (because science is always transitional) to back up any fear-mongering against GMO. But idiots do exist.

No scientific studies exist to show that long term ingestion of high volumes of GMO food isn't harmful. We haven't been eating it for a long enough term in a high enough volume to have these studies yet. Until we do, some people will choose to err on the side of caution, and they should have this right to do so.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I could give you a thousand similar examples where things seemed safe and were marketed to the public as "proven safe by scientists" - but later proved not to be.

Wait you mean that scientists are not infallible? Don't tell the global warming believers that - they will say you are stupid and ignorant.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don't get why people must be treated like Guinea Pigs. Let us eat normal food.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

how to get gimelimMay. 25, 2015 - 01:59PM JST No science exist, so far, (because science is always transitional) to back up any fear-mongering against GMO.

So after criticising everyone roundly as "illiterati" and "idiots" you then proceed to sum up with the statement that there is no science to back up fear-mongering against GMO.

There is plenty of science. From abnormal biochemistry in pregnant mothers eating GMO foods to serious health problems in pigs fed on GMO foods, to mention just two peer-reviewed papers.

So who are the illiterati here? Those who refuse to read and acknowledge the evidence or those who maintain a healthy skepticism based on ample data that contradicts the safety claims of GMO food providers?

Finally, anyone who reverts directly to personal attacks on anyone who doesn't share their position clearly has a terribly weak argument and shouldn't be taken seriously.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites