How many foods are genetically modified

Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli —infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in Critics often disparage U. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.

The European Commission has funded research projects, carried out by more than independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops. Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.

Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. The U. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view. Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems.

But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct. Similar stories abound. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings.

Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture.

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. And as U. True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques.

Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it.

These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed.

Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media.

These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field.

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. There is evidence to support that charge. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn.

Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct. There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops.

They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing.

Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. The few insects that emerge from Bt fields resistant to the insecticide would mate with their nonresistant neighbors living on conventional crops nearby; the result could be offspring susceptible to Bt.

The theory is that if growers follow requirements, it will take longer for insects to develop resistance. It was difficult initially to convince farmers who had struggled to keep European corn borers off their crops to let the insects live and eat part of their acreage to combat resistance.

But a survey by major agricultural biotech companies found that almost 90 percent of U. Many ecologists believe that the most damaging environmental impact of biotech crops may be gene flow.

Could transgenes that confer resistance to insects, disease, or harsh growing conditions give weeds a competitive advantage, allowing them to grow rampantly? Still, Snow says, "even a very low probability event could occur when you're talking about thousands of acres planted with food crops.

While no known superweeds have yet emerged, Snow thinks it may just be a matter of time. Given the risks, many ecologists believe that industry should step up the extent and rigor of its testing and governments should strengthen their regulatory regimes to more fully address environmental effects.

But right now only one percent of USDA biotech research money goes to risk assessment. Genetic engineering can help address the urgent problems of food shortage and hunger, say Prakash and many other scientists.

It can increase crop yields, offer crop varieties that resist pests and disease, and provide ways to grow crops on land that would otherwise not support farming because of drought conditions, depleted soils, or soils plagued by excess salt or high levels of aluminum and iron.

The farmers just plant the seeds, and the seeds bring new features in the plants. Some critics of genetic engineering argue that the solution to hunger and malnutrition lies in redistributing existing food supplies.

Others believe that the ownership by big multinational companies of key biotechnology methods and genetic information is crippling public-sector efforts to use this technology to address the needs of subsistence farmers. The large companies that dominate the industry, critics also note, are not devoting significant resources to developing seed technology for subsistence farmers because the investment offers minimal returns. And by patenting key methods and materials, these companies are stifling the free exchange of seeds and techniques vital to public agricultural research programs, which are already under severe financial constraints.

All of this bodes ill, say critics, for farmers in the developing world. Prakash agrees that there's enough food in the world. People say that this technology is just earning profit for big companies.

This is true to some extent, but the knowledge that companies have developed in the production of profitable crops can easily be transferred and applied to help developing nations. The debate over the use of biotechnology in developing countries recently went from simmer to boil about rice, which is eaten by three billion people and grown on hundreds of millions of small farms. It has very little iron, and virtually no vitamin A.

According to the World Health Organization, between million and million children in the world suffer from vitamin A deficiency, some , go blind every year because of that deficiency, and half of those children die within a year of losing their sight. Skeptics consider golden rice little more than a public relations ploy by the biotechnology industry, which they say exaggerated its benefits. Golden rice does not contain much beta-carotene, and whether it will improve vitamin A levels remains to be seen.

Potrykus and Beyer are now developing new versions of the rice that may be more effective in delivering beta-carotene for the body to convert to vitamin A. Their plan is to put the improved rices free of charge into the hands of poor farmers. According to Beyer, golden rice is still at least four years away from distribution. It could take much longer if opposing groups delay plans for field trials and safety studies. Whether biotech foods will deliver on their promise of eliminating world hunger and bettering the lives of all remains to be seen.

Their potential is enormous, yet they carry risks—and we may pay for accidents or errors in judgment in ways we cannot yet imagine. But the biggest mistake of all would be to blindly reject or endorse this new technology.

If we analyze carefully how, where, and why we introduce genetically altered products, and if we test them thoroughly and judge them wisely, we can weigh their risks against their benefits to those who need them most.

All rights reserved. Q: Who's eating biotech foods? A: In all likelihood, you are. Q: How long have we been genetically altering our food? A: Longer than you think. Q: Are biotech foods safe for humans? A: Yes, as far as we know. Q: Can biotech foods harm the environment? A: It depends on whom you ask. A: There are obstacles to overcome. Q: What next? A: Proceed with caution. Share Tweet Email.

Read This Next Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London. Animals Wild Cities Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London Love them or hate them, there's no denying their growing numbers have added an explosion of color to the city's streets. India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big. Environment Planet Possible India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big Grassroots efforts are bringing solar panels to rural villages without electricity, while massive solar arrays are being built across the country.

Epic floods leave South Sudanese to face disease and starvation. Travel 5 pandemic tech innovations that will change travel forever These digital innovations will make your next trip safer and more efficient. But will they invade your privacy?

Go Further. Animals Wild Cities This wild African cat has adapted to life in a big city. Animals This frog mysteriously re-evolved a full set of teeth. Animals Wild Cities Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into our environment and our food supply. A Question of Risk.

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to farmers, human health, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment.

Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly. The haphazard and negligent agency regulation of biotechnology has been a disaster for consumers and the environment. Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are purchasing and consuming unlabeled GE foods, despite a finding by U. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain GE ingredients must be clearly labeled, and advocates for the containment and reduction of existing genetically engineered crops.

Center for Food Safety is a tax-exempt c 3 organization. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without express written permission or proper citation.