Anyone that has ever been on the sidelines and has seen the safety testing that is done for GM crop approval in the US and EU would know these cultivars are more tested than cultivars generated by other "man-made" technologies (including grafting or exposiure to radiation or chemicals (the latter by the way do not require safety testing as they are not considered GMO). I think a very helpful read to those who wish to devote resources to more pressing concerns about the world;s food supply is the following: Chassy BM (2010) New Biotechnology Vol 27, No. 5, pp. 535-544. I have no issues in consuming GMO foods - I am more concerned with foodborne illnesses, food adulteration and air pollution - all of which have been shown to negatively impact human health.

Yes. When compared to chemical pesticide treated products they are safe. But not compared to fresh home made crops.

As a farmer I found negative effect of Bt plants in my field and surrounding for example my village was famous to produce watermelon since 50 years but since last 10 years after launch of Bt cotton farmer used only bt and after 2 years watermelon production stopped because of insect attack and fruit quality... Please suggest why it happen and what to do ? so I can suggest to my village farmer also regarding this

Im not sure that we can say "100% tested safe GM food crop"...it's better to say to our present knowledge it seems to be safe...because in many cases " not all of corse" what was 100% tested as safe at the year 1950 per exemple was found to be even unsafe nowadays...what do you think?!

Nothing is 100% safe in this world. Everything is relative, some are safe, some are unsafe and similarly more safe or less risky. In case of GM crops/ food the term used is substantially equivalent, so a crop can be as safe as native crop neither more nor less toxic or for that matter more safe. I must have taken GM crop like soya and maize product in USA, Canada and Brazil and till date I do not have any problem.

@Nandheesh and @ Andre, from ages we have a negative feeling for every technological development, keep aside BT. Interestingly, all our food are genetically modified by nature time to time. So just because it is GM, it is not UNSAFE. Although, I also second technological conscience.

Mirroring previous comments, it is impossible to call anything 100% safe. The comparisons in safety are also often misleading; a lot of propaganda for either side of the argument have attempted to compare levels of chemical (or toxicity) safety with genetic security/safety which can be highly misleading and say more about the bias of the authors. Most food safety measures are purely based on chemical toxicity alone and although I'm open to the concept of GM, I do consider the research on the genetic 'safety' aspect of GM highly flawed (especially having personally been involved in crop trials). It is also this aspect that causes a lot of public mis-trust in GM foods.

There is a recent publication that shows that the negative effects of GMO foods are daunting, you can get the study on line from these details below.

Longtermtoxicity of aRoundupherbicide and aRoundup-tolerant genetically modifiedmaize

Gilles-Eric Séralinia, , ,

Emilie Claira,

Robin Mesnagea,

Steeve Gressa,

Nicolas Defargea,

Manuela Malatestab,

Didier Hennequinc,

Joël Spiroux de Vendômoisa

a University of Caen, Institute of Biology, CRIIGEN and Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, EA 2608, Esplanade de la Paix, Caen Cedex 14032, France

b University of Verona, Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences, Verona 37134, Italy

c University of Caen, UR ABTE, EA 4651, Bd Maréchal Juin, Caen Cedex 14032, France

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

To my perspective, a GM crop is not to banish from control strategies as any other control means. We need food, we face pests but we have tools to control them so why not using them? However, i would rather say that using exclusively GM would quickly lead to resistance. GMs are tools but not the ultimate solution and should be used as such. when could then avoid to have to develop more and more new powerful events in a close future as they might not be appropriate for human consumption.

@ Terence Epule... The work from Séralini et al. has been extensively reviewed by a number of researchers and it has been demonstrated it has so many flaws it can not be taken seriously as a proof of any negative effect of GM crops, particularly maize. Just to mention something, 30% of rats fed with maize only (not GM maize) developed tumors. Does that mean we should stop eating corn since there is an underlying risk? I don't think so...

In the same journal and volume where Séralini's work was published, there is a review from Snell et al. of 24 studies (12 of them long-term and 12 multigenerational), showing evidence that GM plants are safe and nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155268

The reality is we have all been eating GM food for years. Most all the produce in the general grocery store is all GM and has been for awhile. Truth is we wont know if GM foods cause ailments until we have grown old and have been eating them for years. You also need to ask yourself if you would rather eat a GM piece of fruit or a bag of chemically altered Cheetos? In the end it is all about moderation, if you can buy locally grown non GMO food then go for it and eat the GMO's in moderation, if you are worried. Stay informed and make good choices.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html

When first GM crop Bt cotton was released for commercial cultivation, there was fear amongst the farmers that cultivation of Bt cotton is dangerous. In Vidarbha area of Maharashtra biotech scientists including myself visited to different places, assembled farmers and explained them the advantages and potentiality of the technology. We also told them how Bt protein act on insect and what happens to mammals including human if is consumed. Now everybody knows that for activation of Bt protein alkaline pH is require. you wont find any mammal having alkaline pH. Bt brinjal though it is waiting for clearence from GEAC due to huge opposition from masses, but still it is unofficially available in market. So indirectly we are consuming.

Now let us scientifically analyse the situation. Bt gene was isolated from B.thuringiensis a soil bacterium which is alredy present in nature. Has it not involve to integrate with other living material so far? I want to ask what is evolution.

I agree with all what you have all said. Its a complex issue. I particularly buy your proposals Marie Bowsman.

Starting from the the recent post of Sukhadeo, please do not indicate that Bt brinjal "is unofficially available in the market. So, indirectly we are consuming." type of statement unless you possess supportive evidence. Bt brinjal is not grown in India unofficially. Please send me evidences if you think otherwise. As for Marie's comment that we stay informed and make good choices, unless we are given choices, how can we choose? In India, there is no choice due to moratorium on Bt brinjal. We cannot take Seralini's works as acceptable as it has too many flaws. As for as Ivan's observations that insects may develop resistance to GM crops, same is the case also with conventionally bred crops; it then doesn't mean not to use them at all. Research is a continuum and better resistant crops need to be continuously developed in response to changing pest resistance levels. When I said "100% safe", I meant that as per today's requirements, when GM crops meet all of the biosafety tests. I want to elicit the feeling of my fellow researchers about eating GM foods. We should be ready to consume GM foods listening more to our head and lesser to our hearts.

@ Honur, that is the irony that we are more emotional than practical in case of accepting the fruits of modern science, thanks to the sci-fi hollywood movies where every thing genetically modified end to be an Frankenstein. The truth is very different. BT is a very NATURALLY found gene (in a bacteria from which BT name has derived), as already mentioned by some body in this thread, not an ALIEN gene from outer space. No body is telling that it should not be tested 100% before its use, but we should not scrap it mere on suspicion that it may be found TOXIC in future. every year quintals of pesticides are flooded in the farmlands and at the end to the water bodies, which are scientifically proven KILLER of not only the PESTs, but also human being and poison to the environment. At least GM plants are proven safe. Why we are not comparing at the right point?

Of course, that safety is paramount and should not consume foods with GM products.

If I am ready or not it is not matter, GM foods are at the market and we are already eating them each day.

GM food is a fact in our world today.The increase in human population demands the search for new methods to increase food productivity .In this respect the consumption of GM food may be inevitable.However, to prove that GM food is 100% safe need more research and defintely more time.

That's right, just the time will talk about GM food, perhaps after two or three generations it will be known.

GM food or not, my perception is once toxic free or significantly null, there should be no restriction from consumption. Either natural or otherwise genes do transfer....

I agree with Chetana GR. If the crops are modified to be toxic to the pest or potentially environment, then we should take serious caution to consume them. But the crops are modified to improve the nutrition values and health benefits, we should give a try, at least.

to Yangchao Luo and Chetana GR

You may have heard that penicilin is poisonous for rats (or mice, not sure now). Does that mean that we should not eat it? No. Bt-toxin is poisonous for even more distant organisms and is save for mammals. It is even save for bees and other insect which we need in the fields, but is usually killed by chemical pesticides.

The question is, whether is Bt-toxin really harmful to environment.

You cannot access the full article you reference reporting the safety of GM foods like you can the one done by Séralini et al, how can you tell how they came to their conclusions?

Also, the report showing safety you provide a link to was done by University of Nottingham.

Google University of Nottingham Monsanto and you will see connections.

Here is the full Séralini et al paper:

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793308/

Genetic Roulette - The Gamble of Our Lives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlTYFKBg18

Vandana Shiva - The Future of Food and Seed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYwOTLopWIw

EVERY THIRTY MINUTES FARMER SUICIDES, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE

AGRARIAN CRISIS IN INDIA

http://www.chrgj.org/publications/docs/every30min.pdf

Find here a link to internal documents from FDA scientists doubt over safety of GMfoods:

http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html

Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research:

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/PublicResearchPrivateGain.pdf

GM food safty is still myth . Yet it had to derive. As long as for india it is far away so far.

and for further 10 yrs as pe TEC recomandations & SC order

GM food is still at cross roads. because GM cropping system is not upto the mark of agronomic systems. so far nutrition part is no good evalution in the world.

if any one have such research papers (published and unpublished ) please send us.

KBN Rayana, DG., IAMMA, at US office NY 11510

Now there is a GM discussion hosted by FAO --- look to their web site.

However the results of this discussions is looks to be unorganized with its back ground paper. What is failure in FAO front.... it did not defined whether GM cropping is derived as a regular cropping being a Un organizations. But asks for future of GM .. is not a funny?

kbn Rayana, DG, IAMMA, at NY office, USA., HQ: hyderabad/india

Anyone that has ever been on the sidelines and has seen the safety testing that is done for GM crop approval in the US and EU would know these cultivars are more tested than cultivars generated by other "man-made" technologies (including grafting or exposiure to radiation or chemicals (the latter by the way do not require safety testing as they are not considered GMO). I think a very helpful read to those who wish to devote resources to more pressing concerns about the world;s food supply is the following: Chassy BM (2010) New Biotechnology Vol 27, No. 5, pp. 535-544. I have no issues in consuming GMO foods - I am more concerned with foodborne illnesses, food adulteration and air pollution - all of which have been shown to negatively impact human health.

I think you need to look at the most recent attempt to label GMO foods in the US by California. The voters turned down this proposal 53% to 47%. Yes, the seed and food industry outspent the yes side about 5 to 1 in advertisement. However, some of the opponents of this legislation were the American Association for Advancement of Science, California Universities, and every major newspaper in California. If there were convincing evidence that GMOs are so inherently risky to eat, these organizations would not have opposed this legislation. This says volumes about the safety of eating GMO food. I do not think it is any more risky to eat GMO food than eating nonGMO food. Of course, eating any kind of food is not risk free.

As Marie Bowsman pointed out, we have been eating GM crops for years. Farmers have been manipulating plant species for thousands of years!! Fear of eating GM seems to come from the misconception (in the majority of cases) that eating an altered genome is dangerous. I would like to point out though that we are always being exposed indirectly and directly to different genomes. If we look at the number of cells that make up the functioning "human" then overwhelmingly, the majority are bacteria. We are but the sum of our bacteria! These bacteria are undergoing their own form of evolution and slowly but surely altering their own genomes. Some mutations are positive for us (enhanced metabolism) and others are negative (drug resistance etc). Personally, I love me some GM crops!

This is the question, "some mutations are negative". Genetically modified foods have been modified as mutations, it is not possible yet to obtain an exact site for gene construct insertion.

yes, I am ready to consume GM food crops.those who oppose , i have just one question that why they don't check for the mutations in non GM crops. because there can be some mutations in non GM crops and we simply eat them. so wats the problem with GM crops then

Farmers don't insert genes of gut eating pesticides into their seeds.

You can believe what you want to believe but genuine researchers look at evidence to form hypotheses or opinions.

Here is just a fraction of some evidence of a company that cannot be trusted:

"In 1926, Monsanto founded and incorporated a company town named Monsanto, later renamed Sauget, Illinois. In the late 1960s, the Monsanto plant in Sauget was the nation's largest producer of PCBs, which remain in the water along Dead Creek in Sauget. An EPA official referred to Sauget as "one of the most polluted communities in the region" and "a soup of different chemicals"[77]

In 2002, the Washington Post carried a front page report on Monsanto's legacy of environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama, related to its legal production of PCBs. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending at that time provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.[78] In another story published in 2002, the New York Times reported that during 1969 alone Monsanto had dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for Choccolocco Creek which supplies much of the area's drinking water and that the company buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.[79] In August 2003, Solutia and Monsanto agreed to pay plaintiffs $700 million to settle claims by over 20,000 Anniston residents related to PCB contamination.[80]

As of 2012, Monsanto is associated with 11 "active" Superfund sites and 20 "archived" sites in the US, in the EPA's Superfund database.[81] Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.[82][83][84]

United Kingdom

A UK government report showed that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from the Brofiscin quarry, near Groesfaen in Wales, an unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater had been polluted since the 1970s.[85][86] The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. The UK Environment Agency estimated that it would cost £100m to clean up the site, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.[87]"

Scientists Under Attack. GMO - The Inside Story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvf46v_B3Q

The World According To Monsanto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJiIuQyStr4

How Corporations Corrupt Science

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf

The Future of Food - What Every Person Should Know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPFk4S1Q6vo

@Kathy: From a "genuine researchers look at evidence to form hypotheses or opinions" I would expect to have noticed, that GMO != Monsanto. Monsanto is only one company making GMOs, there are others and if the regulations were not so stirct, there would be many more.

I am ready to eat GM foods that have been proved unequivocally safe by the appropriate committee. It really saddens me that many of approved GM foods are not welcome by several countries that are scientifically advanced as well. More than Science and Technology, politics is involved. Many leading scientists in different countries do not come forward to advocate approved GM foods. This I consider as the most important reason why in many countries the approved crops are not popular and are under utilised. For instance, Golden rice, Bt- cotton, Bt- corn, Bt-Brinjal,Edible Vaccine (HBSAg) etc can readily be used. We can not be resisting every thing for the sake of doing it.

Are the words of inquiry "safe" as opposed to "nutritious" and "health proomoting"? Since recent explosions in chronic illness tracks the escalation of GM and microwaved/irradiated of the food supply, our primary concern is not so much safety as it is about nutrition and health promotion.

Should the inquiry be more about "safety" (as in unwanted organisms) or should it be in micronutritional delivery and health promotion? Our research shows a proportionate, if not exponential increase in chronic disorders and illness that tracks the increasing predominance of GM/degerminated and microwaved/irradiated foods in the US diet.

As a scientist I have my own assessment on GM safety. However, having worked in agriculture and industry I am more cautious because it is clear that the agrochemical companies backing GM are simply hoping to increase GM food uptake because it increases revenue for their shareholders and it is not from any altruistic reason (despite the wild claims). If GM is to become commonplace then the very least the companies can do is to clearly label what contains GM for individuals to choose and respect the consumer's choice. I personally will avoid GM, simply because this industry has an appalling track record in misleading the public, releasing only favourable data and not evaluating or monitoring long-term effects.

I must thank all the participants of this debate. I have got a paraphernalia of responses ranging widely from emotional, social, economic, societal, humanitarian, corporate and of course to the fundamental scientific angles! I could have responded to individual queries but I have restricted myself just to allow free flow of opinions. Some responses have not directly been to the problem but against the so called "vested" commercial corporate giants. I will add the following rebuttals/points to my question for which I continue to expect brainstorming responses:

1. What if the GM crops are produced not by the private sector but by governmental/non-profit organizations? Will society accept these crops?

2. What if the corporate giants give away GM crops free of cost to the governments (of course in the form of varieties) but control hybrid GM crops?

3. Are we ready to accept GM crops that produce life saving drugs like plantibodies, edible vaccines, insulin and alike and drugs against life threatening diseases including cancer, AIDS, cardiac complications, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc and other lifestyle disorders and malnutrition maladies?

4. Are we ready to accept GM crops that radically clean up the environment like phytoremediation, oil spill cleaning, carbon sequestering and other climate change factors?

5. Are we ready to accept GM crops that are result of public private collaborative researches?

6. Are we ready to accept GM crops that address third world problems including hunger, malnutrition, infant mortality and women health?

7. Are we sure that whatever improved crops through conventional plant breeding are safe?

It is all about the nutrition to me. I do not see it in GMs. Our societies are starving for bioavailable nutrition, and pandemic chronic disease is escalating in every nation, a direct result of debauchery of the food supply. Organic nutrition is fundamental to all the diseases listed in #3. Until we resolve the pandemics without more synthetic fortification, irradiation, and degermination, I remain steadfast that we are posing public health threats through the mass marketing and distribution of GMOs.

In case it is not piosionous there s no harm in eating

Currently 98% of the GMO plants are not giving any additional nutrition or economic advantage for consumers but herbicid tolerance and insect resistance. These, are advantages for producers and even more risk for consumers.

Why not if everything is tested (100 %).

It is, again, about the nutrition. Testing for bacteria, toxins, etc. is only one piece of the puzzle. Micronutrient content between GMOs and organic are in stark contrast of each other. If GMOs had a comparable level of said micronutrients and were not irradiated so that amino acids can reach consumers, we would be in agreement here. But sadly, GMOs that are degerminated, genetically modified, synthetically fortified, irradiated, and microwaved--well, there is not a great deal left that is healthy for consumers. And, to me, that is the foundation upon which pandemic chronic diease or optimal health rests. Lots of references I could take you to on this one, but a simple key word search will render more than I have to time to provide today. This is not meant to offend, but the Monsanto guys have it all wrong if their goal is getting nutrition to a nutritionally-starved population.

Its no harm in eating GM food if tested properly

Tested for what?

We have no inform about its effects on a long periodism. Of course it is tested fully and i prefer to use it insted of crops that spray with chemical materials like pesticides or herbicides. So so

I see your point. But the GMs are absent of micronutrients and pose many health consequences. The US has had the GMs the longest and in every category of chronic disease, most especially cancer and diabetes, has skyrocketed (to put it mildly) over the past 30 years. We are now spending 20% of GDP for healthcare and under the new system is slated to go to 25% of GDP by the year 2017, if not before.

A big proportion of GM plants that produce foods are resistant to herbicides; therefore, they are sprayed with a higher quantity of herbicides because do not suffer damage and herbs around are completely killed.

Yes, I agree and wonder how anyone could want a diet of 100% GMOs when we have so much data showing negative long-term health affects. The superpests generated from such foods is staggering and requiring the return of DDT in several states of the US. It is suspected, for instance, that the disappearing honey bee population--due to the robust and pesticide-resistant varroa mite--is a result of GMO crops as much as any other cause out there. But the lack of micronutrients appears to be, by and large, the largest drawback.

GMO products are common in the market place and have stood the test of protection agencies in the U.S. and elsewhere. I think if we want to think micronutrients, then canned vegetables vs. frozen vs fresh vegetables might be a much better argument. Processing of food, broadly processing,e.g. canning vs. freezing, can differentially impact micronutrient levels. Hence, I do not see this as much of an argument against GMO crops.

However, we face a tremendous problem that non-GMO and/or organic farming supporters fail to understand, these production methods are not suitable for feeding the world. Just that simple. This has lead to open loop systems of agriculture that are more of a worry than GMO for those interested in N and P side of agriculture. The pervasive smell of field spread manure is diminishing in rural America as the number of integrated producers continues to decline.

@Max Chartrand

What for a scientist are you? Correlation does not imply causaution! The same we could say about number of Tvs in American houses and increased number of cancers and that would be much more related.

How can be DTT related with GMOs? Would you mind to share? And what about the data showing negative effects?

@Ana Maria Calderon

Yes, they use more herbicide, but they use it only once instead of several times a year thus the total applied amount is lower. And the problem of superweed is in no way related to GMOs. That's just selection for resistant plants which occurs when you use herbicide, no matter what plant you grow. But that's only question of management. If they were using different crops with different herbicides, the superweed could not arise. But different crops are not available due to strict regulations which help Monsanto to keep their almost-monopol.

Personally, I find it ironic that healthy green vegetables are now one of the main causes of food poisoning in the USA.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255645.php

I think we should see GMOs as a tool and not as an achievement. This technology offers such a variety of approaches that it is hard to imagine limits. It as been shown that GM plants, when appropriately modified and used, can significantly increase biological control of soil dwelling pest but we could also imagine to create sentinel plants helping us in detecting pests/diseases in IPM programs or plants that are extremely attractive or repulsive for natural enemies or pests respectively. Insects or herbicides tolerance/resistance is only on potent application of this technology with several known drawbacks (beside some benefits). Yet, I agree it is crucial to be critical and safe, we should not fall into a new obscurantist era and blindly reject any type of potential applications of this technology.

Dr, Hulasca, I speak as a clinician and a researcher when I say we have enough evidence to know that GMOs in general are not as nutritious nor as healthy for human consumption. The absence of micronutrients required by the body is a quantifiable feature of GMOs, as is the lack of food-to-nutrition synthesis and propensity for unintended consequences, such as rapid and abnormal formation of fatty cells from a GMO like High Fructose Corn Syrup. Knowing these things give pause to those of us who also work with the consumers of these products and see exponential rises in obesity, diabetes mellitus 2, CVD, and other attributable changes in the physiology of those whose diets consist primarily of GMOs. Now, in saying this, I would never suggest that correlation equals causation. But in line with bioethics in human testing, I would like to see more unbiased, independent studies proving the foregoing hypotheses (actually they are empirically observed variables that can be measured), but all such studies now must be by necessity small population (i.e. ungeneralizable) studies, as the vested interests to get a more positive result are the ones with the money to invest in the testing. In the meantime, we are left to ourselves as clinicians to decide what is best for the population we serve. Thank you again for the discussion.

1) I'm not doctor, yet.

2) It's Hluska

3) will you show us peer-reviewed article where they (you?) showed that these diseases are caused by GMO and not by high-sugar diet as you, Americans eat.

As Dr. Hiltpold wrote, GMO is reduced to Roundup-Ready plants by its opponents, but the potential of GMO is huge. Much bigger than that. Even the nutrient content could be improved. Nonetheless, it was not shown that GMOs are nutritionally inferior. It was shown that these values depend more on season and area where are plants grown.

Why are you for testing (or banning) of GMO but not of radiomutants or other crops which are used with no control?

Unequivocally it has been proved many a time that majority of GM crops are safe for human consumption and nutritionally superior or on par with normal crops. In fact, GM crops , engineered for stress tolerance, are most suited against the vagaries of monsoon in the present day environment.

To be honest, I think there is lot politics involved in the release of GM crops in the open environment. By-brinjal has been proved far beyond any canon of doubt to be fit for human consumption. But the govt. is not willing to support it. Reputed scientists of great repute remain spell-bound against these GM crops proved to be innocuous for humans as proclaimed by the governance of many international bodies on Transgenic crops.

In fact, I am ready to feed on any GM food crops approved for release in the open by the international governing bodies

Dear Mr. Max Chartrand, would you agree to use GM canola for oil production?

Why not, what is harm in consuming GM food?We must understand that the genes which are put in the plant system are mostly from microbes which are already present in environment. Some of these are plant derived also. Whatever we consume as (non-GM), are these safe?. Huge amount of pesticide is used to control harmful insect. Dont you find these more harmful as residues. Does it not effect your metabolic and biochemical processes. Many peoples all over the world suffered and suffering a lot by consuming product sprayed with pesticides. I will say genetic engineering is a boon for the masses. What is s harm in taking it?. The Gm product passes through series of biosafty studies before they are release. Instead of making irrelevant comments, we must understand the science behind it. Transgenics in my openion is one of the modern and safe technology which can help to feed the population.

I know of no independent, unbiased studies that show that GMOs have the same nutritional parity with organic foods, especially the degerminated forms of GMOs. There is ample evidence that GMO High Fructose Corn Syrup (Princeton, UC-Davis, UC-LA, etc.), contrary to claims by those with vested interests, is contributing mightily to increases in obesity, diabetes 2, and CVD, all of which are exploding in the North American population. I travel worldwide, I note the caloric intake between nations like Japan (which has comparitive less GMO consumption and has a high Omega-3 diet, alkalized water supplies, etc.) and the US (whose diet is predominantly GMO and Omega-6, acidic, flouridated water supplies) is nearly the same, yet Japan has the thinnest people on Earth of the major nations, and the US is among the most obese. Caloric intake, therefore, is a small part of the problem, the larger problem being that in every category of chronic disease we are skyrocketing, and yet suffer great bioavailable nutritional deficiencies, food sensitivities, and unprecedented heavy metal accumulations. In my world travels I find that chronic conditions are uniquely American because of the deleterious changes in our food supply. The literature is replete with small, independent studies bearing all of this out, but the 600-pound gorilla is the plethora of biased studies financed by those who stand to profit by the outcomes that try to cover these undeniable changes in health and demographics. If we want to know whether a study can be trusted we only need to trace the origins of the money invested in it.

if we sure that the GM foods are 100% safe, of course we can prefer them to the conventional foods. use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc is increasing today and we should be aware of harmful effects on human and environment. so, i think we need more and more tests on GM crops and foods. we know many of genes transfer and insert to genomic DNA. it can flow and transfer to undesired plants. for example, gene transfer to nucleus instead of chloroplast to produce herbicide resistance plants, is dangerous and can produce super weeds.

PS- I do not see a reduction in the unwanted artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbacides in GMOs, but instead an increase over conventional farming methods. The highly resistant GMOs come with a price, and that price--besides the nutrient factor--appears to be the resulting super weeds and pests for which there is no viable solution on the horizon.

"The synthetic nutrients permeating the food supply today is particularly troublesome as synthetics have to borrow amino acids from the hormones of the human body, creating hormonal deficiencies for which medicine has only side-effect laden psychotropics (i.e., SSRIs, etc.) as an answer to this pervasive problem."

What in the world are you talking about??? Are you a troll??

@Max. Please tell me that you are not a licensed medical doctor.

The total ignorance of biochemistry you display is bad enough, but you are advising patients?? My faith in the medical system is low as it is and your posts are not helping.

Steingrimur, do you have evidence that Canola is biochemically equal to or superior to Extra Virgin Olive Oil in terms of immunology of the human body, or that synthetic vitamins are on par or superior to natural bioavailable ones? Or that GMOs, overall, are on par or superior to organic. We have a nation where chronic conditions are a epidemic proportions and their diet and nutrition is replete with the former and almost absent the latter. You appear to condemn those who subscribe to the more natural, organic diet/nutrition without getting into the evidence of why they are wrong. I am an educator and consultant. Medical practitioners who cannot resolve serious health anomolies of their patients consult with professionals for alternatives to the less than effective modalities of more conventional approaches, and invariably find positive results. Of course, there are no well financed vested interests in such approaches, so the evidence is still building from a small literature base. But building it is to the benefit of those who find solutions to otherwise untreatable conditions.

Max. I don't condemn people who are into natural/organic etc. etc. I just have very low tolerance for people who toss out nonsense sciency-sounding verbiage.

Like: "The synthetic nutrients permeating the food supply today is particularly troublesome as synthetics have to borrow amino acids from the hormones of the human body."

This sort of drivel belongs on late night infomercials.

Your point is well taken, Steingrimur. I should have said "missing co-factors" and then explained how that cascades into other biological anomalies. Thank you for bringing that out.

Not sure if just trolling or really an incompetent doctor... :-/

So, you really see no difference other than GMO-usage between US and Japanese cuisines? Use of fructose syrup vs. fish and rice?

Just one graph for you

http://gmopundit.blogspot.cz/2013/02/herbicide-resistance-in-weeds-is-not.html

And you didn't answer my question, would you or would you not approve usage of GM-canola for oil production? And I don't mean GM-canola vs. olive oil, but of course I mean GM-canola vs. WT-canola, because one has to change only one thing at a time to really compare the differences!

I think I understand your question, Tomas, to be if I consider GM Canola a good source of lubricating oil. I'm not well versed on the genetic change from its natural form, which is considered an excellent lubricant, to the GM form now used as a food product. As a biofuel, my general impression is that it Canola is an excellent source. Whether the GM version contributes to super weeds, pests, etc. is something that would also need consideration in any balanced view.

"Missing cofactors"???

Missing cofactors myAss!

Plop the words "missing cofactors" into this pseudoscientific claptrap:

"The synthetic nutrients permeating the food supply today is particularly troublesome as synthetics have to borrow amino acids from the hormones of the human body, creating hormonal deficiencies for which medicine has only side-effect laden psychotropics (i.e., SSRIs, etc.) as an answer to this pervasive problem."

And you get pseudoscientific claptrap with the words "missing cofactors" in it.

Please stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.

Its a real tough question to answer. There has been a lot of concerns over the safety of gm food. And its sometimes tough to analyze. In the real sense, until we realize the full implications of genetic modification in each case, itbwill be tuff to answer. All i can say is, at this stage my answer is 'am not sure and hence no'. Am sure the 'yes' are most likely to be 'yes-but not sure'.

Well, my use of the term was to make a long story short. But since you appear to be the expert on this, perhaps you would not mind describing in an appropriate manner the diffferences in how the human body syntehsizes synthetic nutrients vs crystallized natural vs organically derived nurtrients. This is really where the discussion got started, because of concerns that GM foods do not have the same level of nutrients as organically grown, and society's propensity to add synthetic fortification to make up for the deficiencies. My work is on the outcomes side where we see what different diets do to the health of the population. That does not mean we can explain all of it. But we could use your assistance. Thank you.

Am not sure if gmo vs. Wild type food controversy has ever been based on the levels of nutrients. There is bound to be a little, very little difference. But an not sure if it will be statstically significant. And enzymes will not make any distinction between food-derived and pill-derived cofactors. Its a different story if a pill a some toxic impurity.

And am not sure if the question was gmo vs. Organic.

Yes

But one thing is for sure. The gmo technology is here to stay and will win the race. I agree with many posts that say gmo technology has tremendous potential and can serve the world really well. I wont be long before many gmo with very little adverse effects emerge as clear winners. Its just a matter of time.

My personal opinion-i have never ever believed in organic stuff. How many people buy organic and estimate pesticide residues before eating?

They r too expensive and and just a marketing strategy.

"...........perhaps you would not mind describing in an appropriate manner the diffferences in how the human body syntehsizes synthetic nutrients vs crystallized natural vs organically derived nurtrients. " ???

I guess the truly sad and pathetic part is that you sincerely believe this is a scientifically sound inquiry.

Again, please dont try to act like an authority on biochemistry. You are not doing a good job.

This is getting really heated up here. I guess its best for all of us to calm down a bit. Everyone has made their points and i guess that should settle things down for a while.

I agree with your assessment of organic foods.

@Lavett, thanks. Ihope u will agree with my last post.

Hi all, it looks to me that some of Max Chartrand's posts have been deleted.

Is there a moderator on these threads deleting posts?

I never understood why the organic and GMO are so often played against each other. I cannot see the exact point of exclusion. Sustainable landuse etc. are a completely different matter from using the best crops available. Maybe, optimisation towards this should be the target of a new GMO plant? Why not look at corn which is known to deplete the ground and try to circumvent that? Some of the debate GMO equals evil is probably due to the goals a privately owned business is defining their goals and measures to reach them.

Coming back to the question: This has already been answered as we cannot escape GMO food anyway, even if we tried as the cross contamination debate of Monsanto crops in the US clearly reveals. In general I do not see any danger as it was pointed out, that these crops are more scrutinized than any traditional food.

@Greiner, i think you make a very important point that perhaps gmo are more scrutinized than traditional food. Thats exactly the reason why i said soon or later there is gonna be a gmo very very well scrutinized and with very little or statistically insignificant adverse effects.

GMO are scrutinized at the beginning, before liberation. After that, GMO are treated exactly in the same way than other foods. Unfortunately, some of the adverse effects are after time when products are everywhere.

i will go for GMO food if they can avoid malnutrition or famine among poor children. GMO food definitiely will have the potential in the future, where the adverse effect is little or zero

Risk evaluation!

@Drogba, What we need for offering aid to people in difficult situations is good policies and a bunch of good-policy makers. Not sure how GMOs will help.

Without any proof we cannot say that GM food is good or bad. First let them (company who are developing GM food) take their to test it. They are saying that it is good for health on the basis of some initial result, but it is very serious matter. Event if we are taking are medicine, it is taking 15-20 years to come in to market then we are using it.

@Steingrimur Stefansson One can delete his or her own posts, so he probably deleted his.

@Max Chartrand GMOs are not superior to conventional food in nutrient level because it's easier and cheaper for Monsanto to spread Roundup-Ready plants and other companies are making only slow progress due to the strong regulations, but there is huge potential to improve crop properties.

We ate GM food already everyday, maybe.

what is the need of GM food ? We can enhance the crop production through organic farming. It will take some time to enhance the production but its a echo friendly and the safest way.

We have no choice to need the GM food, especially with the increase of world population and decrease of the water resources.

of course, we can use organic foods. we believe it is better. if we do not have enough food for our people nutrition, we should use another alternatives. organic farming, chemical farming, maybe GM foods.

It is not possible to have organic products if the water is limited. If you have water enough and rich soils you do not need any additional thing for a big production.

Dear Ana: With the decrease of water resources, we will need to cultivate the crops that are drought resistant. These plants can be obtained from the GM. Several plants are actually grow well in desert. Several researches are performed to transfer the drought resistance genes from these plants to other crops, that are used for human nutrition such as wheat and rice. The same for the salinity resistance gene, to enable irrigation with sea water.

Chetan Meena you must be kidding, right? Increasing production with organic farming? So why all organic farmers have lower output so far?

I have serious doubts over organic farming it self. Any way its going to be too expensive. Plus try to convince farmers to abandon use of pesticides etc and revert to organic farming. They,ll just laugh at the stupidity of the idea. May be organic farming can be tried in the back yard but for farmers who grow all the food for am entire population, organic may not cut. For god,s sake, they raise loans to buy sedds, fertilizers etc. If the crop fails because they subscribed to idea of organic farming, it will have serious effects on their families.

Organic farming does not appear to be a realistoc solution.