4
Comments:

Filter Questions

Reset Filter

No questions match....

  • There have been no discussions since the expert answer was published.

  • Joseph Najjar's picture
    Joseph Najjar
    02.04.2014
    If you want to be realistic about it, they have been tested extensively....we have all been eating them for nearly two decades within the commercial market. The studies that have been run give no reason to consider them a " serious health risk" Here is a comprehensive look at GMO safety, along with many other issues with them: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
    • CactusWest's picture
      CactusWest
      03.09.2014
      Safety (health) studies 10-15 year duration (in advance of 1994 FDA/USDA approval)?
      • Community Manager's picture
        Community Manager
        03.10.2014
        Hi, you might be interested in this response to another long-term health/safety question provided by Dr. Bruce Chassy, professor emeritus of food safety and nutritional sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: http://gmoanswers.com/ask/are-there-any-long-term-30-years-studies-done-full-spectrum-ecological-impact-transgenic-gmo.
      • anonymity's picture
        anonymity
        04.16.2014
        AAEM obviously failed to manage to read the wikipedia page of gm food controversies about the complication of human testing, gm foods are foods, so we would test them like food, human clinical trials are not done on foods they are done on drugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies Human studies and obstacles[edit] While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of genetically modified food,[155] there are several obstacles to such studies. The General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agrigultural and World Health organizations have said that long-term studies of the effect of genetically modified food on humans are not feasible. The reasons given have included the problem that there is no plausible hypothesis to test, that very little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods, that identification of such effects is further confounded by the great variability in the way people react to foods and that epidemiological studies are not likely to differentiate the health effects of modified foods from the many undesirable effects of conventional foods.[156][157] Additionally, there are strong ethics that guide the conduct of research on human subjects, which mandate that the intervention being tested must have a potential benefit for the human subjects, such as treatment for a disease or nutritional benefit (ruling out toxicity testing on humans).[158] In this context, scientists and regulators discussing clinical studies of genetically modified food have written that the "ethical and technical constraints of conducting human trials, and the necessity of doing so, is a subject that requires considerable attention."[159] Golden rice has been tested in humans to see if the rice provides a nutritional benefit, namely, increased levels of Vitamin A.[160][161][162]