GMOs have been in our food supply for more than 20 years. They are made by scientists who have genetically introduced new traits or characteristics to an organism, allowing it to grow faster, look better, taste sweeter, resist herbicides, etc. While the Food and Drug Administration FDA regulates foods and ingredients made from genetically engineered plants and animals to help ensure that they are safe to eat, some argue that the effects they have on the human body are not fully understood.
These include:. Immune problems. Accelerated aging. Faulty insulin regulations. Changes to major organs and the gastrointestinal system. Another concern is that because these foods are engineered to withstand herbicides , more of the toxic substances are sprayed on the plants, which ultimately increases the trace amounts of herbicides found in foods. Instead, concentrate on eating a heart-healthy diet that is high in fruits and veggies, and low in added sugar and processed foods.
Products derived from these foods, including oils, all contain traces of GMOs. The 10 most popular foods that contain GMOs are:. Food manufacturers are not required to label if their food is genetically modified, but GMO labeling advocates continue to raise concerns surrounding this issue. Until laws change, there is some hope for steering clear of GMOs if you wish to do so. The following guidelines may help you keep the GMOs in your diet to a minimum:. Buy food that is labeled percent organic.
Ampicillin is a valuable antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections in people and animals. A number of European countries, including Britain, refused to permit the Novartis Bt corn to be grown, due to health concerns that the ampicillin resistance gene could move from the corn into bacteria in the food chain, making ampicillin far less effective in fighting a wide range of bacterial infections.
The well-respected British medical journal, The Lancet , published an important study conducted by Drs. Arpad Pusztai and Stanley W. Ewen under a grant from the Scottish government. The study examined the effect on rats of the consumption of potatoes genetically engineered to contain the biopesticide Bacillus Thuringiensis B.
Thescientists found that the rats consuming geneticallyaltered potatoes showed significant detrimentaleffects on organ development, body metabolism, and immune function. The biotechnology industry launched a major attack on Dr.
Pusztai and his study. However, they have as of yet not produced a single study of their own to refute his findings. Moreover, twenty-two leading scientists recently declared that animal test results linking genetically engineered foods to immuno-suppression are valid. At the time the FDA assured consumers that the milk was safe. Since then, however, regulatory bodies in both Canada and Europe have rejected the drug, citing numerous animal and human health concerns.
Perhaps of most immediate concern for consumers is that research shows that the levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor-1 IGF-1 are increased in dairy products produced from cows treated with rBGH. The Canadians and Europeans further found that the FDA had completely failed to consider a study which showed that the increased IGF-1 in rBGH milk could survive digestion and make its way into the intestines and blood streams of consumers.
These findings are significant because numerous studies now demonstrate that IGF-1 is an important factor in the growth of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. Genetic engineering can also alter the nutritional value of food. Center for Food Safety is a tax-exempt c 3 organization. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without express written permission or proper citation.
Please credit any and all use of our work product to: Center for Food Safety, www. 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.
While most people trust scientists more than they trust each of several other groups to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods, only a minority of the public says they have a lot of trust in scientists to do this.
At the same time, most Americans say that scientists should have a major role in policy decisions about GM foods, but so, too, should small farm owners and the general public. Fewer Americans say that food industry leaders should play a major role at the policy-making table.
But views of scientists connected with GM foods are often similar among those who with deep personal concern about the issue of GM foods and those with less concern.
Differences are more pronounced between these groups when it comes to views of industry influence on scientific research findings and trust in food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods. In other respects, people with deeper concern about this issue vary only modestly from other Americans in their views of scientists and the scientific research on GM foods. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded there was no persuasive evidence that genetically engineered crops have caused health or environmental problems.
For example, those who view GM foods as worse for health are especially inclined to say that there is little agreement among scientists about the safety of GM foods. Past Pew Research Center studies have found a similar pattern when it comes to perceptions of scientific consensus and beliefs about climate change as well as beliefs about evolution. Across all levels of concern about this issue, few see broad consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe to eat.
Similarly, people who have heard or read a lot about GM foods are far more likely than those who have heard or read nothing about this issue to see consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe. About one-third of Americans say scientists understand the risks and benefits of eating GM foods not too well or not at all well. Those who perceive broad scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods are more likely to think scientists understand this topic.
By comparison, fewer people who do not care at all or not too much about this issue give scientists high marks for their understanding of the health effects of GM foods. Although, roughly similar shares of each group say that scientists understand the effects of GM foods at least fairly well. As noted above, those who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods are also a bit more likely than others to see scientists as agreeing that GM foods are generally safe to eat.
Americans are, comparatively speaking, more trusting of information from scientists and small farm owners on the safety of GM foods than they are of information from food industry leaders, the news media or elected officials.
In absolute terms, however, Americans are somewhat skeptical of information from scientists. About one-in-five say they do not trust information from scientists at all or not too much.
Public trust in information on the effects of GM foods from the news media, food industry leaders and elected officials is much lower. No more than one-in-ten Americans trust each of these groups a lot; majorities say they have no trust or not too much trust in the news media, food industry leaders and elected officials to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods. People who care more deeply about this issue express a similar level of trust in scientists as those with less concern about the issue of GM foods.
0コメント