Filter Questions

Reset Filter

No questions match....

  • Rickinreallife's picture
    Could you turn the question around. Is there any credible evidence that genetic manipulation of food and feed crops made possible through modern biotechnology presents any heightened or novel food safety risk that is not present in other methods of genetic manipulation? Some have raised theories on how the ge process might produce unintended adverse consequences in agronomic values or in final food products -- nutritional composition might be changed, the insertion or subtraction of a gene at one point in the genome might cause collateral recoding that causes the plant to produce novel toxins or allergens or increase the concentrations of toxins and allergens that naturally occur, or perhaps alter the plants resiliency to environmental stresses in adverse ways by interfering with coding that enables or activates protective responses to such stresses. That's the thing, there is a lot of activity to look precisely for that and the weight of the evidence suggests not only that risks of such outcomes are negligible to non-existent, but that the risk of such outcomes may be less with rDNA methods of crop improvement than other methods. Here are a couple examples: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/early/2011/02/24/pp.111.173609.full.pdf+html?ijkey=tKNFAq6FIYWx0Ft&keytype=ref; http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.3389/fpls.2013.00041. Additionally, it is the only methodology that requires regulatory verification that no material change in the final food product has occurred.
  • Jmaynardcsp's picture
    Just go to or call the library of a local university, such as a land-grant university in the USA (since they tend to be aggie schools) and see if they carry the journal with the article in question or if they have an online subscription to it that you can access via the library's computers. Or just buy one or two of the articles if you are so all-fired concerned about this issue.
  • Brenna Aune's picture
    Brenna Aune
    http://www.biofortified.org was the url posted in a nother answer. However if you notice, we cannot look at these studies without paying out, we cannot see their sample size. Is the study written in a way that we ourselves can mimic in a scientific setting to verify it's results? We don't know without paying up. Also the website fails to understand "Publishing Bias" which is--- Usually kids who are finishing up graduate school have to get published by a reputable journal. Now if your hypothesis was wrong, or wasn't statistically significant-- you run into some issues: They don't want to publish you because no one wants to read it. Or the publisher wanted to publish your hypothesis. Or it's against the publishing's ideology. SO- often people will push their numbers in order to get published so they can get on with it already. This is an issue with for-profit science journals, one that Monsanto has clearly failed to recognize. I'd like GMO answers here to link me to some free, open journals that go onto GMOs. But they don't dare put egg on their face in this PR stunt. Oh you poor moderators.