What is the problem with eating genetically modified foods?

Question

I heard that the majority of folks in the U.S. are opposed to this. However, I don't see how this would make any difference to the taste of the food or the health of the consumer.

Answer 1

It depends on the definition of genetically modified. At first it will be probably harmless things, like making sure the cows have most favored fat content, but genetically modifications are starting to do wierder stuff like putting animal genes in plants, and plant genes in animals.

Since we haven't ever been exposed to this, there may be side effects we can't predict. For example, maybe people will be allergic to certain proteins, or maybe a higher rate of arterial hardening will happen, etc. The main point is that science really doesn't know everything about the human body, and so even with the amazing ability to control DNA scientist can (and will) make mistakes.

One of the best examples is that until recently, scientists did not know that some chemical compounds work differently in the body depending on the direction they spiral -- this is what happened with Thalidymide (in one form it worked properly and in another it hideously deformed people).

So it is better to be safe than sorry.

Answer 2

So far, no scientist has managed to link genetically modified (GM) foods with any health risk. It's only anti-technology activists who have been spreading rumors and misinformation about GM foods. They make all sorts of wild allegations about GM food without any scientific justification. The World Health Organization (WHO) a couple of years ago released a report that found no health risks associated with genetically modified foods.

Thousands of farmers in the U.S., China, Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, Spain are already growing genetically modified crops. A visit to this website, http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/, reveals that genetically modified foods enjoy support among farmers all over the world.

James
http://www.gmoafrica.org/

Answer 3

Well, no one knows for sure. There may be health consequences we haven't discovered yet. This is a very complex topic and you will get a wide range of answers.

Here's an analogy. You're trying someone on suspicion of a crime. There is NO conclusive evidence but he is the main suspect. Do you sentence him guilty (taking the risk that he may be innocent) or do you acquit him (taking the risk that he may be guilty). Most courts favor the second option. In the same way, GM foods are not encouraged, by erring on the side of caution.

Answer 4

even with her answer being voted down, I truly ought to consider Nicole C. the substantial reason maximum cancers charges are transforming into is because anybody is residing longer than they were one hundred or maybe 50 years in the past. in the twentieth century people were a ways more suitable in all probability to succumb to infectious diseases jointly with influenza and pneumonia than to stay lengthy sufficient to get maximum cancers. maximum cancers is led to by using mutations in the DNA and when you consider that DNA is being replicated someplace on your body at any given time, the longer you stay the more suitable in all probability you're to advance some maximum cancers. As for the question of genetically changed meals, i in my opinion haven't any further some thing hostile to it. even with media paranoia about 'frankenfoods,' there are truly no study proving they have a unfavorable effect on human health. countless study factor at damage to the close by environments the position genetically changed flowers are grown, yet even those study have unsuitable designs. those who're large afraid of ingesting genetically changed meals have a tendency to no longer fairly comprehend how those meals are created. first of all, people were genetically enhancing nutrition because the first farmers began breeding their flowers to be hardier, to undergo more suitable and tastier fruit or prettier plant existence. almost each and each of the flowers you observe were changed from their unique varieties by using people. the in trouble-free words distinction is that we've now the technologies to really insert genes to modify those features. there is also a lot hype about say, fish genes being placed into the DNA of potatoes. yet you should comprehend that when you've that small piece of DNA from the fish, there is not any longer some thing inherently fish-y in it. we've an same DNA as fish, as flowers, and virtually all existence on earth. The DNA only codes for various features. So in case you're technically placing DNA derived from a fish right into a plant, you do no longer make some form of mutant fish-potato. For more suitable evidence of the benefits and the flair disadvantages of genetically changed organisms, i advise the information superhighway web site lower than.

Answer 5

It's not about the taste of foods.

It is about health questions, about allergies of all sorts, about religious and moral concerns.

Do you really want fish IN your potatoes? Or pesticides in your corn?

Answer 6

I don't see any problem...ppl eat grains etc that has been chemically treated with poisons etc to keep bugs, fungus etc off it. As far as safety is concerned, I do not see anything dangerous with foods. It is not as if they are glowing with radiation.