what are the negatives of genetically modified food!?

Answer 1

In an attempt to simplify, the most consistent negative is the fear of the unknown. We aren't really sure what will happen when we put all of these genetically modified organisms out there. This is much more of an environmental concern than it is a human health concern.

As far as human consumption of GM food goes, the risks to human health are minimal to none. Any GM food crop goes through the same certification process that all other new consumable products do, it is tested for effects on mice and other model systems until it meets the same safety standards all of our foods have attained. There is always a risk of allergies to new products, but this concern is not strictly related to GM foods.

Finally, there is a significant social downside to GM foods, as many countries refuse to allow GM crops or products without labelling.

Answer 2

It is hypothesized that some people could have an allergic reaction the the proteins that were synthesized by the new genes that were given to the plant. For example if for some reason peanut genes were inserted into tomatoes, people with peanut allergies might have a problem.

The pollen from genetically modified plants could travel and fertilize wild versions of the plant. The new genes would then be "out in the wild" and some people believe this is considered "contamination" of pure, natural plant breeds. Once out in the wild, it is virtually impossible to weed just the modified plants.

Answer 3

there are many negatives of GMO's but the most common negative aspect is cross contamination of the intended genetically modified organism...
try looking at websites ending with .gov or .edu for accurate information.

Answer 4

that it's genetically modified, not natural. Don't eat it.

Answer 5

The factors involving GMF's are many. Read slowly and take notes. Some governments, such as those in the European Union and Japan, have emphasized risks over benefits from GM foods and require mandatory labeling and traceability, while others, such as the United States, have no such requirements. This has led to the United States claiming that bans on the sale of GM products violate free tradeagreements and has resulted in trade wars over the requirements for GM food products. Many scientific institutions, even in the European Union and Japan, however, do not judge the risk of unintended changes in composition of GM foods to exceed the risk currently exhibited by conventional crops.
The majority of commercially available crops have an agronomic advantage like herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. These traits offer major benefits to the farmer and the environment. Importantly, economic benefits of GM crops in developing countries are more significant compared to industrialised countries because agriculture in these countries is a larger part of the economy, and employs a larger fraction of the labor force, and often agriculture suffers from losses of crops to insects which are remedied in insect protected GM crops. However, in industrialised countries, the consumer benefits from GM traits are mainly indirect, and channeled through their benefits to the environment, including promotion of efficient use of available arable land and water.
GM crops have shown to contribute to significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion liters in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. GM cotton has greatly reduced synthetic pesticide use in the US, Australia and India.
Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.
In the USA regulation of a genetically modified food is determined by the objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food, irrespective of the way it was developed. FDA policy states that a formal pre-market review by the FDA is to be taken when the objective characteristics of any substance added to the food raises issues of safety
Prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to submit documentation to the FDA to demonstrate its safety and then await approval before selling it to consumers
The context for assessing safety of novel foods is the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components but are still able to be consumed safely. For instance, potatoes and tomatoes can contain toxic levels of solanine and alpha-tomatine alkaloids respectively, and this situation is recognised in the concept of "Substantial Equivalence" that was developed by the OECD in 1993 as a criterion for identifying whether a novel food is at least as safe as the equivalent existing food. The US FDA takes a safety assessment approach that is consistent with this OECD concept in their regulation of novel foods (including those made by recombinant DNA methods). This policy is outlined in an FDA statement.
Critics of GM food believe this regulatory model fails to sufficiently protect consumers and claim that the FDA is subject to pressure and influence by industry. One concern voiced is that a novel crop may have unintended changes created during the insertion of new genetic material. On the other hand, plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.
In 2006, nearly 150 scientific publications had reported on the nutritional value of animals feeds (and food) derived from genetically modified crops as compared to their conventional counterparts. These studies also followed the fates of DNA and novel proteins after ingestion by animals, and more recently, provided comprehensive fingerprinting of protein profiles (which is usually called a proteomics approach) or comprehensive fingerprinting of metabolites (known as a metabolomics approach where GM crops compared to their non-GM counterparts.
Scientific reviews of this research have concentrated so far on the first generation of genetically modified plants, with no intended gross changes in composition. These reviews find that with the first generation of genetically modified crops, there are no significant differences in feed or nutritional value as compared to nutritional performance of the corresponding conventional crop, and that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins are found in any organ or tissue sample obtained from animals fed modified materials.
Comprehensive chemical fingerprinting of GM potatoes in comparison with conventional potato varieties has shown that, apart from the intended changes in food composition, the GM potatoes appeared to be substantially equivalent to traditional cultivars. Other detailed comparisons of detailed protein profiles of both GM and conventional potatoes detected a great deal of variation in protein profiles of different conventonally potato varieties, but found considerably fewer differences in protein profile due to insertion of a new trait by genetic engineering.
Mycotoxins are chemicals made by molds that are detrimental to human health. Many different mycotoxins are produced by various fungi such as Aspergillus or Fusarium species that grow on plants. Some of these chemicals cause liver damage, or cause cancer. In the case of the chemical called fumonisin, which is mycotoxin produced by certain Fusarium fungal species that are natural colonizers of maize plants, the fungal toxin is known to cause severe human birth defects when pregnant women ingest food such as tortillas made from moldy maize, and cancer in adults when either men or women drink maize based alcoholic beverages fermented from mouldy maize. These food safety problems are serious health issues in regions where maize is a staple food in Central America, South Africa and China.
Fungal growth on maize is promoted by moisture, climatic factors, and most notably, insect predation. Several reports demonstrate that insect protected GM maize can have lower mycotoxin levels due to reduced insect damage to the crop. World-wide trade losses from mycotoxin presence in maize are hundreds of millions $US annually, with the United States, China, and Argentina suffering the greatest losses. The reduction of mycotoxins provided by Bt corn has been estimated to provide the United States alone a total benefit of $23 million annually. Hope that answers your question.