The controversies of Genetically Modified Foods

It can be foreseen that Genetically Modified (GM) food crops are on the rise, and we may even be consuming foods that are of GM origin in our daily meals!

How many of us here are against the idea of GM foods? How many are actually thankful for GM foods?

Why was GM foods developed in the first place then? Answer: To increase crop protection, because harmful substances like pesticides, weed killer,etc are all destroying our crops! *Our poor farmers!*  Therefore with genetic engineering, it helps to increase our crop yield. When crop yield is increased = they can be more widely available and CHEAPER too!

Global malnutrition, nutrient deficiencies, even though more prevalent in the third world countries, GM foods do help to address the problem too! Just like the Golden Rice, it has increased beta-carotene (provitamin A) which after consumed by us humans and undergoing digestion, it is converted to Vitamin A! There's a population suffering from Vitamin A deficiencies, or another suffering from night blindness! Who knows, with this Golden Rice, it actually helps reduce the prevalence!

See the notable development!!!!

However, genetic engineering are faced with A LOT of controversial issues!
- Environmental damage
- Economical, Socio-economic Concerns
- Food safety and the unintended health effects
etc etc etc...

Just like nanotechnology, even though it is proven that GM foods are safe for consumption now, what happens in the long run?

So...... what to do?

However, AVA and GMAC (an organization that works closely with AVA) ensures that the GM foods imported are all safe, strict risk assessment tests are carried out! But now, what comes next would be the requirement of Labeling. This topic is still undergoing discussion, so let's just sit back and wait for the results!

Gladys Lim

0901188C

So does it help or harm us?

Have been researching about Genetic Modified Soybean recently, and came across this article about Generic Modified Soybean making you sick.

The Statement: “To date, Health Canada has not identified health risks associated with GM foods that have been approved for sale in Canada.” (Stephane Shank, Health Canada spokesperson, 07/05/2011)

Codex Alimentarius Commission—a group of the world’s food safety regulatory agencies—reached consensus last week on new guidelines that will make it easier for food makers to label products with genetically-modified ingredients. The new guidelines are voluntary, though, so don’t expect advertisements about GMOs on the box of your favourite breakfast cereal anytime soon. And part of the reason Canada has not moved to mandatory labeling of GM foods is because, as Stephane Shank put it, “To date, Health Canada has not identified health risks associated with GM foods.”

So, is GM food really safe?

Here a news article I have found. 

We called Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a researcher in food distribution and safety at the University of Guelph, to find out. He told Science-ish, “There is no scientific evidence out there that would suggest GM seeds or foods that contain GMOs have health risks to consumers.” Dr. Charlebois did add this note of caution: the key phrase in Shank’s statement was ‘to date.’ “GMOs have only been accessible or readily available to consumers since 1994, so that’s 17 years ago. That’s not a whole lot of time for us to fully appreciate the risks around GMOs.”

Discourse around genetically modified organisms—defined by the WHO as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally”—has been a political and scientific battlefield. As a 2009 Nature news feature pointed out, “No one gets into research on genetically modified (GM) crops looking for a quiet life. Those who develop such crops face the wrath of anti-biotech activists who vandalize field trials and send hate mail… [Those] who suggest that biotech crops might have harmful environmental effects are learning to expect attacks of a different kind. These strikes are launched from within the scientific community and can sometimes be emotional and personal…”

There’s also the knee-jerk reaction by the public—often reflected in the media—that these food items are borderline ghoulish, unnatural, and therefore potentially harmful to human health. Just think about the coverage of the transgenic “Frankenfish” salmon. The fish was developed decades ago by AquaBounty Technologies to grow faster than naturally occurring salmon, and has been waiting for a final seal of approval from the Food and Drug Administration for years. (Just last week, House lawmakers in the U.S.voted to bar the regulatory body from okaying the Franken-salmon for mass consumption, though the bill still needs to pass through the Senate.)

Despite the political battles and the public’s wariness about these foods, Dr. Douglas Powell, a professor in food safety at Kansas State University who sat on the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) in the early 2000s, was even less cautious than Charlebois when talking about the potential of GMOs to harm to humans. “(The CBAC) reviewed everything that was out there and there was nothing to show GMOs present a risk to health.” In fact, Dr. Powell has since moved away from researching the subject because, he says, “I got tired of talking about hypothetical risks.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/11/will-those-genetically-modified-soy-beans-make-you-sick/

This goes back to the same question that everyone is pursing.
So is GM food really cause harm to our health?
Or does it really benefit us?
When minerals and vitamins are added in it, does it improve the issue about global malnutrition?
Consuming of GM foods does pro or cons,
You decide. :)

Felicia Goh
0901982I

DID YOU KNOW????

Did you know that GM food is firstly introduced into the market during the mid-nineties??? Well, if you don't, now you know!!! However, introduction of GM food has cause quite a stir in the market itself.

Since the first Genetically Modified food has been introduced into the market in the mid-nineties, uneven developments have occurred from one continent or a group of countries to another. This leads to an underlying economic issues which are of a direct interest of agri-food sector, which means this will affect the market of other countries who imports GM food.

Plus, a rapid increase of GM crops uptake is driven by profitability expectations. Farmers have been the first target group when GM crops incorporate agronomic traits such as herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. Because of that, more and more farmers are growing GM crops instead of the natural ones!!!

Furthermore, based on consumer resistance to GM foods, many food suppliers have taken a restrictive stance to GM food. In the EU, food processors and retailers are trying to avoid or to restrict GM food. In the US and in Canada, some grain traders and processors are considering segregating GM and non-GM crops for meeting the differentiated export, or even domestic, demand. Segregating implies setting up, organising and monitoring separate market channels for GM and non-GM products, throughout the food-chain. Other issues have an economic impact on the agri-food sector, in particular developments in technology, science and legislation. Risk assessment with regard to food safety and environment and related regulatory approaches are not covered in this report. Some regulatory elements dealing with risk management and consumer choice are however taken into account, where they have a direct impact on the agri-food sector.

Hee An
0900552A

GM Soy - Harmful?

Recently, when searching for the pros and cons of GM foods, I came across this article from thenaturalnews.com. The interesting title of this article – GM Soy Destroying Children – attracted my attention.

In this article, it was stated that several studies was done by the American Academy of Environmental Medicines, and these researches concluded that GM foods could result in infertility, immune problem, accelerated aging, changes in the cellular structure of major organs, etc. It can also increase risk of allergies, asthma, and antibiotic resistant infections.

Upon further reading, I found out that Monsanto was the biggest company providing GMO seeds and herbicides. Apparently, they make their GMO seeds resistant to their herbicides which have very strong toxic effects, so that their crops will not be destroyed by their own herbicides.

So how strong is their herbicide? According to UK Telegraph, direct contact of the herbicides can result in severe illness and maybe death. Also, mothers that stay close to these crops has double the risk of having a fetus with birth deformity. Besides these, one of Monsanto’s herbicides also causes harmful effects to U.S soldiers and Vietnamese citizens.

After linking from one website to another, I discovered that many people are writing posts about Monsanto being ‘Evil”. Here are some interesting links to get a better understanding of this influential company:

1) http://www.walletpop.com/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/ 

2) http://www.nafwa.org/general-nutrition/alternative-nutrition/24918-good-news-evil-monsanto-finally-reaping-its-just-desserts.html

Cindy Chan 

0902991I

Fukushima bans shipment of beef

If you've heard the radio, or watch the news, or read the newspaper, I'm sure everyone would be alarmed by the latest news on Fukushima banning the shipment of beef!

Why is it so?!

Due to the earthquake that occurred just months ago and the nuclear plant breaking down, fearing of the spread of radiation. And we were assured that food(s) from Japan were safe for consumption and there are no radioactive contamination.

BUT, now shipment of beef is banned because of the fear that the meat are all contaminated.

"More than 500 cows are thought to have eaten radiation-tainted hay and already been shipped to other parts of Japan."
Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14198789


"Consumers are extremely concerned, despite the government saying that eating the contaminated beef a few times is not harmful to health at current levels. Experts say this scare could cause people to avoid eating beef completely and severely hurt the industry in the short term.
People were already wary after some vegetables, milk, seafood and tea had all been found to have higher radiation levels since the nuclear disaster. But again the government has said the radiation in these food products is not at levels harmful to human health. "
Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14195987

AVA will conduct thorough checks, but do be careful of what you consume too!

Gladys Lim

0901188C

China's Food Safety - What to be done?

With regards to my earlier post on 'The Recipe of China's Food Safety Crisis by Huang Shuo', I came across this article which addresses the criticism made from Channel NewsAsia.

'Death penalty for China food safety crimes'

Read the article:
BEIJING: China's top court has ordered capital punishment for food safety crimes that result in fatalities, as the nation battles a wave of scares over tainted foodstuffs.

In a notice on Friday the Supreme People's Court urged harsher penalties for manufacturers who produce tainted foodstuffs and for food inspectors convicted of dereliction of duty.

"Those food safety crimes leading to fatalities or any other serious aftermath should be sentenced to death in accordance with the law," the notice said.

The order was issued after China eliminated capital punishment for some economic crimes in February, as it moved to curb use of the death penalty in a nation believed to execute more people than the rest of the world combined.

But a wave of food scares seems to have prompted the harsher penalties as safety problems continue despite government promises to clean up the food industry following a deadly 2008 milk scandal.

Tainted pork, toxic milk, dyed buns, melons laden with chemicals and other dodgy foods have surfaced in recent weeks, making consumers ill and highlighting the government's apparent inability to oversee China's huge and under-regulated food industry.

According to Amnesty International, China executes more people each year than the rest of the world put together, but the exact number remains a closely guarded state secret.

-AFP/wk

Taken from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1131765/1/.html 

After reading this, are we feeling a bit of consoled because we, consumers, were all in fear of consuming food products produced from China due to the various food safety issues (i.e. tainted food products) related? But on the other hand, is the penalty too harsh because it is human lives after all? But introducing this penalty may serve as an advantage because food producers would be more alert and to tighten their safety procedures. Well, controversial issue....

Gladys Lim

0901188C

Say bye to Bird FLU ?

Came across this article last week, and find it rather amusing.
How technology has improved.
Genetic Modified Food used to help in improving the stocks of the food product, and improve the nutrition of the food.
Now, it can even prevent BIRD FLU from occurring!

Here's the article!

Engineered chickens can't pass on flu

15 23 14 January 2011 by Debora MacKenzie

For similar stories, visit the Food and Drink , Bird Flu and GM Organisms Topic Guides

Flu is hard to handle in chickens. Simply vaccinating them doesn't work very well: the vaccine must be precisely matched to the type of flu that is circulating, and even then vaccinated birds still transmit some virus. That virus then evolves, which may be what produced the H5N1 bird flu that has killed at least 306 people – as well as countless birds. So it would be great if we could genetically engineer chickens to resist all flu.

Flu carries its genes in eight chunks of RNA, each of which must bind to an RNA-replicating enzyme produced by the virus to reproduce itself – and the virus – during an infection. In an attempt to thwart this process, Laurence Tiley at the University of Cambridge and colleagues equipped chickens with DNA that produces a short hairpin-shaped molecule of RNA. This matches the short sequence on each of the eight chunks of flu RNA where the replicating enzyme binds. In tests in cultured chicken cells, the hairpin RNA bound to the replicating enzyme and prevented it from reproducing flu RNA.

It wasn't so simple in whole chickens, however. When birds engineered to make the hairpin RNA were infected with H5N1, the virus replicated in them nevertheless – to lethal effect. The birds still shed the virus too. But somehow none of the birds housed with them, engineered or not, caught the flu – although they caught it readily from non-engineered birds infected with H5N1.

Obscure mechanism

"The mechanism underlying this effect is not known," the team admits. The reason why non-infected chickens stayed flu-free wasn't that the virus mutated to become less dangerous, so that the target birds caught it but just didn't get sick – they didn't even develop antibodies to H5N1, showing they didn't catch the virus in the first place. It could be that the hairpin RNA interferes with recently discovered small RNA molecules made by the flu virus that help regulate infection.

"We consider these birds to be a first step towards producing robustly resistant chickens, and clearly it is important to understand the mechanism in as much detail as possible," says Tiley. The team plans to pass flu through the modified chickens repeatedly to see how it works – and assess any effects on the virus's evolution.

Whatever the mechanism, the hairpin RNA should work against all kinds of flu, unlike current vaccines. And the researchers say flu is unlikely to evolve to evade the hairpin's effect on its replicating enzyme – that would require the enzyme and its binding sites on all eight of flu's genome segments to mutate at once, which seems unlikely.

Ways around the block

Other ways to evade the block on transmission may well evolve, however, as maximising transmission is the main selection pressure on disease organisms. The question, says Andrew Read of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, is whether this makes the virus more or less dangerous.

"You can picture this leading to a more aggressive strain that would overcome whatever is stopping transmission," he says. "But it could also select for less virulent flu, that wouldn't kill the bird so fast, giving it more time to transmit to another host."

The way to test this would be to compare how viruses with low virulence and high virulence evolve in resistant hosts, says Read. Any animal with engineered resistance should be tested for its effect on pathogen evolution, he says, as similar experiments are likely to be tried in pigs and other animals that get flu, and with other animal diseases.

Even if such tests demonstrate that the GM animals are an effective way to combat flu, people may not want to eat the flu-proof animals. "Further development will undoubtedly stimulate debate about the application of this technology in food production," the team drily concludes.

Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1198020

To find out more, you can read at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19974-engineered-chickens-cant-pass-on-flu.html

Felicia Goh
0901982I