QIf. Britain won't grow the stuff why has the USA saturated shops with it? We over here don't want freaky food , so why lie to poor old peeps in the america? Do you believe them to be somehow more gullibble or less intelligent? Americans are human beings a

If. Britain won't grow the stuff why has the USA saturated shops with it? We over here don't want freaky food , so why lie to poor old peeps in the america? Do you believe them to be somehow more gullibble or less intelligent? Americans are human beings and deserve access to affordable naturally grown food the way it always was, instead why isn't money spent on re fertilising those baron desert areas, and putting cows on grass,not soya???/corn??? Just wondered...

AExpert Answer

Let me start by saying, there is absolutely no intention to deceive the American consumer by our regulatory bodies. We are fortunate in the United States that food safety determinations are made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at arm’s length from the political process.  Our regulatory and science authorities like those around the world have confirmed the safety of foods produced using biotechnology.  In fact there is no credible evidence of any harm from consuming biotech foods anywhere in the world. For more information on the safety of biotechnology, see this IFIC Fact Sheet. Several countries have allowed biotechnology to become politicized in their legislatures by invoking unproven allegations and ignoring the advice of their own scientific advisory panels.  In the United States, there has been consistent bipartisan support for the importance of using biotechnology to enhance our ability to produce more safe and wholesome foods, using less land, fuel and other agricultural inputs. Our surveys of U.S. consumers show consistent support for this use of biotechnology to produce food when benefits are understood.

Posted on January 31, 2018
Thank you for your question. There are various aspects of your question. I assume your question refers to the use of Agrobacterium rhizogenes by scientists to intentionally transfer genes from the bacterium to plants. Infection and DNA transfer from this bacterium occurs in nature all the time to cause disease. Such transformed plants are not classified as GMOs since transfer occurred naturally. If this is done by scientists then it would be classified as a GMO. Rules and... Read More
Answer:
Posted on March 1, 2018
I’m a Monsanto scientist who has more than 20 years of experience with genetic modification of plants. I will try to answer your question, even though I don’t ever do experiments on animals, certainly not on humans, of course! Can humans be genetically modified…but a much bigger question is should humans be genetically modified? There are two ways to think about genetic modification of humans (or any animal). One way is modification of somatic cells, and the other is the... Read More
Answer:
Posted on May 10, 2017
The simple answer is that 20+ years of composition assessments of GMO crops have demonstrated that crop composition is not appreciably affected by the GM process (1). In addition, data collected through that time have indicated that general factors such as the growth environment can contribute to notable variation in component levels (2). Plant agglutinins (or lectins) and amylase inhibitors are examples of anti-nutritional compounds that may be present in crops. The relevance of such a... Read More