Food Safety

Health Concerns for human



The transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic.



Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred.

What is "Antibiotic resistance"?
The serious concern over GM crops is the possible spread of antibiotic resistant genes from living modified organisms (LMO) to humans and animals. This current method for checking that tranfer of a desired trait in an LMO has succeeded is through the marker gene, which is usually a gene that confers resistance to antibiotics. This is done by inserting the antibiotic resistance trait as well as the desired trait into the LMO.

The health risk linked to the use of antibiotic marker genes is that through eating GM crops the marker gene might be transferred from the crop to bacteria in the stomach, thereby making potentially harmful bacteria resistant to antibiotics, resulting infections that cannot be cured with traditional antibiotics, for example new strains of salmonella, e-coli etc. Scientists agree that this risk factor is very low because enzymes of the digestive tract would largely break up the antibiotic resistance strains become intergrated into the human and animal genetic code are also very low.




Based on this website, a study was conducted by Dr. Marc Lappe in 1999, published in the Journal of Medicinal Food, found that concertrations of beneficial phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect against heart disease and cancer were lower in genetically modified soybeans than in traditional strains. These and other studies, including Dr. Pusztai's, indicated that genetically engineering food will likely result in foods lower in quality and nutrition. For example, the milk from cows injected with rBGH contains higher levels of pus, bacteria and fat.



The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as 'outcrossing'), as well as the mixing of crops derived form conventional seeds with those growth using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in the maize products for human consumption in the USA. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Other Concerns



Consumers support mandatory labeling for products of GM technology. The justification for GM food labelling varies. Some people want labels in order to avoid certain GM products. For example, vegetarians might want to know if the GM food contains an animal gene or protein. SOme people want labels to enable them to avoid GM foods entirely. Consumers are given choice to avoid GM food if they don't want.

The USDA's Economic Research Service notes that costs for labeling would be significant because it would require identity preservation. The higher costs would affect all consumers and thereby be similar to a regressive tax, because the poor spend a proportionately larger share of their income on food than do high-income households. Although the exact costs of labeling are not known, some studies have estimated that it could be as high as 15 percent. One study (Huffmann et al.,2002) indicated that a voluntary, rather than mandatory, labeling policy would be more effective in the United States.

Why some companies are refusing to label GM products?
"Why are they making such a fuss, unless the companies just want to restrict our choice?"
"Do they think the products just won't sell if people know what they are?"

It's part of the companies' concern that consumers will avoid products with a GM label.
COmpanies aruged that if GM products are 'substantially equivalent' to conventional counterparts, GM label would be misleading. Labels intended to warn or to provide nutritional information. If the GM nature of the product has no bearing on either of these, regulators see it as misleading by consumers who interpret labels, often unconsciously, as warnings.




Issues of concern include
- Capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations.
A concern associated with herbicide tolerant weeds is that the inserted genes may 'escape' from the crop by being transferred to another crop or wild relative which in turn may become 'super-weeds' that are difficult to control and could impact on the functions and biodiversity of the ecosystem that they invade.
- Persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested.
- Susceptibility of non-target organisms (eg insects that are not pests) to the gene product.
Example of concern associated with plants engineered to produce a toxin relates to the unintended harm to non-target species--making the plant 'toxic' to wildlife that feeds on the crop-- or indirect effects on ecosystem dynamics resulting for instance, from changes in the abailability or quality of the target pest as prey for other species.
- Stability of the gene.
- Reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity.
- Increased use of chemicals in agriculture.

shanlyn is SAFE @ 4:04 PM