GMO DEBATE: Why The GMO Debate Misses The Point

Why The GMO Debate Misses The Point

• gmo
 
• By Sasha J. Wright
 
• Posted 10.29.2013 at 10:32 am
  in Popular Science

Magnified image of a stress tolerant plant bioengineered at BASF

The escalating rhetoric of the GMO debate has rippled across the biohacker world—especially as DIYers start trying their hand at bioengineering. We’ve been calling for ecologists to step up and give some perspective. They’ve universally balked. So we’re grateful for Sasha Wright. She’s an ecologist at the Jena Biodiversity Experiment in Germany where she designs computer models to predict how biodiversity responds to climate change. She teaches ecology and plant physiology at Sarah Lawrence College and just finished teaching a course on ecology and environmental release at Genspace. Sasha has a lot to say, so this is part one of a two-part series.

1.

Over the last couple of months Scientific American and the New York Timespublished public pleas to halt the rhetoric surrounding genetically engineered crops and public health. For the most part, the scientific community agrees that eating GE foods is “no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques” (AAAS 2012). 

These statements, however, say nothing about ecological risks.

In fact, a scouring of large scientific organizations that have made official statements about GE crops and their effects on human health (including the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Royal Society of Medicine), reveals that none of these bodies have made similar statements about their effects on the environment. That’s because the case is still out. In fact, the case should remain “out” for several more decades.

That hasn’t stopped some – both scientists and journalists – from following the lead of Pamela Ronald when she wrote:

After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Scientific American 2011). 

This is just not true--at least when it comes to the environment.

Ecosystems are complex. Plants interact with everything from pollinators, pests, and pathogens to soil microbes, earthworms, and other plants. At least two types of ecological problems can result from the release of GE crops:

1. GE crops can interbreed with wild relatives which can create weeds that are more aggressive and/or resistant to herbicides. Beyond the risk of bioengineered plants exchanging genes with neighbors, the continued use of a single herbicide creates selective pressure for weeds to stumble upon the genetic combination for resistance traits. This may already be occurring in creeping bentgrass (Watrud et al. 2004), sunflower (Snow et al. 2003), and others (Chapman & Burke 2006).
2. To date, the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin expressed in GE plants has been shown to negatively affect other organisms in the food chain, including monarch butterfly larvae (Lossey et al. 1999), green lacewings (Hilbeck et al. 1998), and ladybirds (Schmidt et al. 2009).

Ecologists understand that 10, 15, or even 20 years of data about an ecosystem may be insufficient to really know how it functions (Luo et al. 2011, Reich et al. 2012). Twenty years of data may only be a fraction of the time necessary for an ecosystem to stabilize in response to a changing environment--if stability is even realistic. To add even more complexity, it may take several generations to detect how GE crops affect individual species and species interactions at the genetic level.

So yes, it may take more than 17 years to understand the implications of adding novel gene combinations to an ecosystem.

To me, the more important truth may be that we should not sell the public on certainty when science is a system where certainty is impossible, where new evidence is meant to update our understanding, and where complexity defines the system.

The public must understand that scientific “truths” don’t exist. Scientific understanding always and almost inevitably changes with new evidence. That’s the beauty of science. When the public fails to understand science as a process, the discovery of new information can erode the relationship between the public and the scientific community.

Check out my latest e-book entitled: "Social Media Marketing in Agri-Foods: Endless Profit and Painless Gain"

The book is available on Amazon and Kindle for $4.99 USD. Visit amazon/Kindle to order now:
http://www.amazon.ca/Social-Media-Marketing-Agri-Foods-ebook/dp/B00C42OB3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1364756966&sr=1-1

Thanks for taking the time

HEALTH ALERT: BRAIN MECHANISM STIMULATES HUNGER HORMONE IN OBESE

BRAIN MECHANISM STIMULATES HUNGER HORMONE IN OBESE

Published October 30, 2103 in Food Product Design

Posted in News, Obesity, Weight Management, Science & Research, International, Diet, Healthy, Brain Health, Nutrition, Satiety

ROUEN, France—A mechanism in the brains of obese people may affect the hunger hormone, called gherlin, causing extended appetite stimulation and overconsumption of food, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Communications.

Despite efforts, many morbidly obese people continue to consume too much food. This overconsumption of food is called hyperphagia, and has been linked to certain antibodies that affect ghrelin in obese patients, causing levels of the hunger hormone to remain at normal or even lower levels in these patients.

Researchers at the University of Rouen studied the effects of immunoglobulins, antibodies that recognize ghrelin and regulate appetite, which are found in the blood of obese patients. Using rodents, researchers administered ghrelin in combination with immunoglobulins extracted from the blood of obese patients, or with immunoglobulins derived from genetically-obese mice. Conversely, ghrelin only was given, or combined with immunoglobulins from non-obese people or mice.

When gherlin was administered with immunoglobulins extracted from obese patients or rats, food intake was stimulated more strongly. Rodents administered with gherlin only, or with gherlin combined with immunoglobulins from non-obese people or mice, were better able to regulate their appetite by restricting food intake.

Researchers found immunoglobulins bound to ghrelin to protect the hunger hormone from being broken down rapidly in the bloodstream. The ghrelin then acts on the brain for longer and stimulates appetite.
“The immunoglobulins have different properties in obese patients," said Sergueï Fetissov, researcher and main author of the study. “They are more strongly ‘attracted’ to ghrelin than in subjects of normal weight or in anorexic patients. It is this difference in ‘affinity’ that enables the immunoglobulins to transport more ghrelin to the brain and boost its stimulating action on food intake."

Research continues to identify various reasons as to why obesity rates continue to rise. In fact, earlier this year researchers from UNC School of Medicine discovered that certain parts of brain cells may play a role in eating disorders, including obesity.

Editor's note: Looking for ingredients to support your next product launch in the Weight Management category? Leading suppliers, including Kemin, Nexira, Nutratech, Pharmachem Laboratories and PL Thomas, will be at SupplySide West in Las Vegas, Nov. 12 to 16. Click here for the full exhibitor search , or register now .

Sources:

• Inserm: Obesity: a new appetite-increasing mechanism discovered

Check out my latest e-book entitled: "Social Media Marketing in Agri-Foods: Endless Profit and Painless Gain"

The book is available on Amazon and Kindle for $4.99 USD. Visit amazon/Kindle to order now:
http://www.amazon.ca/Social-Media-Marketing-Agri-Foods-ebook/dp/B00C42OB3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1364756966&sr=1-1

Thanks for taking the time

HEALTH ALERT: EXCESS OMEGA-3 INTAKE MAY HAVE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS

EXCESS OMEGA-3 INTAKE MAY HAVE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS

Published October 29, 2013 in Food Product Design

Posted in News, Omega-3s, Dietary Supplements, Nutrition, Seafood, Fatty Acids, Healthy, Healthy Foods, Science & Research, Market Research, Market Trends, Fats/Oils, Immunity, Immune Health,Cardiovascular, Heart Health, Cancer, Fish, Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA), Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA),Digestive Health, Nutraceuticals

CORVALLIS, Ore.—Previous studies have shown omega-3 fatty acids s are associated with lower risk of sudden cardiac death and other cardiovascular disease outcomes; however a new paper published in the journal Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes & Essential Fatty Acids suggests consuming excessive amounts of omega-3s from either supplementation, foods or a combination of both may increase the risk of negative health outcomes.

Previous research led by Michigan State University’s Jenifer Fenton found feeding mice large amounts of dietary omega-3 fatty acids led to increased risk of colitis and immune alteration. As a follow-up, Fenton and co-authors, including Norman Hord, associate professor in Oregon State University’s College of Public Health and Human Sciences, reviewed the literature and discussed potential adverse health outcomes that could result from excess consumption of omega-3 fatty acids.

 “We were inspired to review the literature based on our findings after recent publications showed increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and atrial fibrillation in those with high blood levels of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs)," Fenton said.

Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties that benefit heart health and inflammatory issues; however, the researchers said excess amounts of omega-3 fatty acids can sometimes alter immune function in ways that may lead to a dysfunctional immune response to a viral or bacterial infection.
The researchers noted that the amounts of fish oil used in most studies are typically above what one could consume from foods or usual dosage of a dietary supplement. However, an increasing amount of products, such as eggs, bread, butters, oils and orange juice, are being fortified with omega-3s. They said fortified food, coupled with fish oil supplement use, increases the potential for consuming these high levels.

“Overall, we support the dietary recommendations from the American Heart Association to eat fish, particularly fatty fish like salmon, mackerel, lake trout or sardines, at least two times a week, and for those at risk of coronary artery disease to talk to their doctor about supplements," Hord said.

“Our main concern here is the hyper-supplemented individual, who may be taking high-dose omega-3 supplements and eating four to five omega-3-enriched foods per day," he added. “This could potentially get someone to an excessive amount. As our paper indicates, there may be subgroups of those who may be at risk from consuming excess amounts of these fatty acids."

Sources:

• Oregon State University: Excess omega-3 fatty acids could lead to negative health effects

Check out my latest e-book entitled: "Social Media Marketing in Agri-Foods: Endless Profit and Painless Gain"

The book is available on Amazon and Kindle for $4.99 USD. Visit amazon/Kindle to order now:
http://www.amazon.ca/Social-Media-Marketing-Agri-Foods-ebook/dp/B00C42OB3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1364756966&sr=1-1

Thanks for taking the time

GMO DEBATE: The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They're Safe

The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They're Safe

Now it's time to have a better public debate.

   

(PHOTO: JUSTASC/SHUTTERSTOCK)

 Published in Pacific Standard September 24, 2013 • By Michael White •

It's no secret that people are nervous about foods made from genetically modified organisms. A July Gallup poll found that 48 percent of respondents believed that GM foods "pose a serious health hazard," compared to 36 percent who didn't. California voters may have rejected a ballot initiative to require labeling of GM foods last fall, but aNew York Times survey found overwhelming support for mandatory labeling on the packaging of GM foods.

Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences foundthat "no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population," and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods "are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health."

What evidence will it take to convince the public that GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods?

The scientific literature backs this up. In February, theJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry published aliterature review covering 20 years of safety studies. The authors found "overwhelming evidence" that using biotechnology to genetically modify crops "is less disruptive of crop composition compared with traditional breeding, which itself has a tremendous history of safety." An overview of safety studiesappearing this month in Nature Biotechnology noted that, despite disagreement over a need for more long-term safety studies, both critics and proponents of GMOs agree that so far "genetically modified foods have failed to produce any untoward health effects."

In other words, the scientific consensus is that GMOs do not pose risks to our health or the environment that are any different from the risks posed by the non-GM crops created with modern breeding programs.

The discrepancy between the public debate over GM foods and the debate within the scientific community has left many scientists puzzling over the question: What evidence will it take to convince the public that GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods?

The editors at Nature Biotechnology argue that evidence is not the problem. The issue is that, so far, people have no reason to believe GM foods are being created for their benefit. Changing negative attitudes will "require a concerted and long-term effort to develop GM foods that clearly provide convincing benefits to consumers—something that seed companies have conspicuously failed to do over the past decade." The question of benefits has been buried because the GMO debate has been framed around the unhelpful distinction between GM and non-GM foods. Instead of asking if GM foods in general are less safe, the editors argue, we should be focused on the specific risks and benefits of individual products, whether they are GM or not.

A focus on the risks and benefits of all new crops could move the debate in a direction that would prompt scientists, companies, and regulators to more clearly justify the role GMOs play in our food supply. To date, consumers nervous about GMOs have been given little reason to think that companies like Monsanto are designing GM crops to solve any problem other than the one of patents and profits. As journalist Mark Lynas put it in his rousing defense of GM foods, for most people GMOs are about a "big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us."

But many researchers working on GM crops are in fact trying to solve important problems, such as feeding a growing population, keeping food prices affordable worldwide, making healthier fruits and vegetables widely available, confronting the challenging growing conditions of a changing climate, saving Florida's oranges orHawaii's papaya from pests, and fighting malnourishment in the developing world. For many of these problems, genetic engineering is faster, more cost-effective, and more reliable than conventional breeding methods.

Our society's unresolved controversy over GMOs is not about safety; it's about whether we have an acceptable process in place to ensure that our health is not put at risk for the sake of biotech's bottom line. Researchers, biotech companies, and regulators need to settle on an appropriately rigorous, transparent, and independent safety testing process for all new crops, one whose methods and results are publicly available. Currently, as the Nature Biotechnology review notes, safety assessments in the U.S. are a patchwork affair with weak legal underpinnings. But for GM solutions to our food challenges to be widely accepted, the public needs to know that they are not being coerced into eating something whose risks and benefits are unknown.

Check out my latest e-book entitled: "Social Media Marketing in Agri-Foods: Endless Profit and Painless Gain"

The book is available on Amazon and Kindle for $4.99 USD. Visit amazon/Kindle to order now:
http://www.amazon.ca/Social-Media-Marketing-Agri-Foods-ebook/dp/B00C42OB3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1364756966&sr=1-1

Thanks for taking the time

GMO Foods: How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

Published in Wikihow.com  Edited by Serj Sagan, Sondra C, Maluniu, Krystle and 60 others

Genetically modified(GM) foods - are they safe or harmful? While regulatory authorities have approved GM food that is on the market, some people are concerned that there is risk of harm. Most foods we eat may contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). If you live in Europe, avoiding GM foods is easier since laws require labeling. In the US and Canada, however, food manufacturers are not required to label if their food is genetically modified or not. Here are some guidelines for steering clear of GM foods in your diet, if that is your choice.s to make them more resistant to herbicides.^[1] See How to Live With a Soy Allergy for more information on avoiding soy products

1

Become familiar with the most common applications of genetic modification.These are the products (and their derivatives) that are most likely to be genetically modified:

• Soybeans - Gene taken from bacteria (Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and inserted into soybeans to make them more resistant to herbicides.^[1] See How to Live With a Soy Allergy for more information on avoiding soy products

1. • Corn - There are two main varieties of GE corn. One has a Gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted to produce the Bt toxin, which poisons Lepidoteran (moths and butterflies) pests.^[2] There are also several events which are resistant to various herbicide. Present in high fructose corn syrup and glucose/fructose which is prevalent in a wide variety of foods in America.
   • Grapeseed/Canola - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to herbicide.
   • Sugar beets - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
   • Cotton - engineered to produce Bt toxin. The seeds are pressed into cottonseed oil, which is a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.
   • Dairy - Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.
   • Sugar. In 2012 the FDA approved GMO Beet Sugars to be allowed to be sold on the market under the name.... "SUGAR" So now, when we go to buy "All Natural" Breyer's Ice Cream, we can't even know for sure that we are actually eating regular natural cane sugar. If you see "CANE SUGAR" there's a good chance it's not GMO. This is one of the biggest frustrations with labelling, as sugar is in so many things, and we might be avoiding food that POSSIBLY has GMO sugar, but really does not.
   • Papayas.
   • Zucchini.
   • Corn sold directly to the consumer at Roadside stands / markets. Buy organic corn, popcorn, corn chips only.
   • Baked goods: Often has one or more of the common GM ingredients in them. Why do we need corn or soy in our bread, snacks or desserts? It's hard to find mixes to use as well. Some brands avoid GMs, find one you like and try to stick with it. Organic is one option, learning how to cook brownies, etc, from scratch with your own organic oils is another.
2. 2 Buy food labeled 100% organic. The US and Canadian governments do not allow manufacturers to label something 100% organic if that food has been genetically modified or been fed genetically modified feed. You may find that organic food is more expensive and different in appearance from conventional products.  Also, just because something says "organic" on it does not mean that it does not contain GMs. In fact, it can still contain up to 30% GMs, so be sure the labels say 100% organic.
3. 3 Trusted Organic Certification institutions include QAI, Oregon Tilth, and CCOF. Look for their mark of approval on the label of the product.USDA Organic standards pale in comparison , do not consider a product 100% organic if it is only USDA Organic Certified..  This applies to eggs, as well. Eggs labeled "free-range", "natural", or "cage-free" are not necessarily GE-free; look for eggs to be 100% organic.^[3]
4. 4 Recognize fruit and vegetable label numbers. If it is a 4-digit number, the food is conventionally produced..  If it is a 5-digit number beginning with an 8, it is GM. However, do not trust that GE foods will have a PLU identifying it as such, because PLU labeling is optional. ^[4] If it is a 5-digit number beginning with a 9, it is organic.^[5]
5. 5 Purchase beef that is 100% grass-fed. Most cattle in the U.S. are grass-fed, but spend the last portion of their lives in feedlots where they may be given GM corn, the purpose of which is to increase intramuscular fat and marbling. If you're looking to stay away from GM0s, make sure the cattle were 100% grass-fed or pasture-fed (sometimes referred to as grass-finished or pasture-finished).
   • The same applies to meat from other herbivores such as sheep.
   • There is also the slight possibility that the animals were fed GM alfalfa, although this is less likely if you buy meat locally.
   • With non-ruminants like pigs and poultry that cannot be 100% grass-fed, it's better to look for meat that is 100% organic.
6. 6 Seek products that are specifically labeled as non-GM or GMO-free. It was once rare to find products labeled as such, but thanks to organizations such as the Non-GMO Project,^[6] they are becoming more common. You can also research websites that list companies and foods that do not use genetically modified foods, ^[7], but be aware that information is often incomplete and conflicting interests may not be declared.
7. 7 Shop locally. Although more than half of all GM foods are produced in the US,^[8]most of it comes from large, industrial farms. By shopping at farmers' markets, signing up for a subscription from a local Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm, or patronizing a local co-op, you may be able to avoid GM products and possibly save money at the same time.
   • More and more small farms are offering grains and meat directly to customers, in addition to the usual fare (vegetables, fruit, herbs).
   • Shopping locally may also give you the opportunity to speak to the farmer and find out how he or she feels about GMOs and whether or not they use them in their own operation.
8. 8 Buy whole foods. Favor foods that you can cook and prepare yourself, rather than foods that are processed or prepared (e.g. anything that comes in a box or a bag, including fast food). What you lose in convenience, you may recover in money saved and satisfaction gained, as well as increased peace of mind. Try cooking a meal from scratch once or twice a week--you may enjoy it and decide to do it more often.
9. 9 Grow your own food. This way you know exactly what was grown, and what went into growing it.

EditTips

• Don't be fooled by "natural " or "all natural ". This is simply clever marketing and has no significance. Studies show that a consumer would prefer the "natural "label over organic! Consumers often think it means organic. It means nothing insofar as quality or health.
• QCS is another organic certifying agency of merit.
• Producers who label their food GM-free aren't making any health claims regarding the product.
• At chain and non-chain restaurants, you can ask which, if any, of their foods contain GMs, but the waiters/waitresses and kitchen staff are not likely to know. Ask them to find out what oils they cook with. It is usually one of the big four: corn, soy, canola or cottonseed. You may request butter to be used instead, though these are often products of cow that ate GM corn feed, it is a secondary product.

Check out my latest e-book entitled: "Social Media Marketing in Agri-Foods: Endless Profit and Painless Gain"

The book is available on Amazon and Kindle for $4.99 USD. Visit amazon/Kindle to order now:
http://www.amazon.ca/Social-Media-Marketing-Agri-Foods-ebook/dp/B00C42OB3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1364756966&sr=1-1

Thanks for taking the time