Genetically modified organisms come in many forms and have infiltrated the vast majority of processed foods that humans consume daily. Humans have been naturally modifying their food, through hybridization, for millennia. Through environmental pressures, certain crops have been selected to thrive while others perish and leave the ecosystem permanently. The consumption of foods naturally changed and evolved have posed potentially no threat to humans. Currently, there are people who believe that the consumption of the various types of genetically modified organisms are harmful to our overall health. Most people believe that GMOs are a threat because they feel that it is unnatural for humans to consume man-altered plants but there is research
…show more content…
When newly developed genetically modified organisms go through evaluation, the FDA meets with the developers of the new genetically altered plant and they are allowed to explain their product’s purpose. The FDA then provides their response on what types of data would be necessary to assess the safety of the product. The plant developers must complete a safety assessment and submit the information the FDA. The FDA then evaluate everything about the newly developed plant and they consider things like whether the genetically modified plant contains a new toxin/ allergen or if the new plant is as nutritious as that from its traditionally cultivated counterpart. The FDA requires that genetically modified plants meet the same safety requirements as traditionally bred plants; therefore, the safety between the traditionally bred foods and genetically altered foods are the same. Of the 129 transgenic crops that have been submitted to the FDA from 1995 to 2012, all have failed to show any significant biologically relevant differences between the modified version and the traditional version (DeFrancesco 2013). Genetic modification of plants allows for crop improvement. We have the knowledge to create plants with better flavor, nutritional content, higher crop yield, resistance to disease and insects (FDA 2017). The FDA promotes a safe food supply for Americans and with strenuous …show more content…
No, there are many things wrong with that belief. For one the metabolism of a grasshopper is considerable different from that of humans. Also, the portion of a plant that is fatal to an insect could be completely safe for humans. Norman Boulaug, Ph. D. holding scientist responsible for saving thousands of lives from famine due to his advances in the genetic engineering of crops, said, “I find that in the foods that we have been eating from the beginning of agriculture, there are many toxic substances, but they are present in very small quantities.” Boulaug gives a great example about the common mushroom, “There are two [toxins] present in minute quantity. But if you isolate those, like Dr. Ames has, increase the dosage and incorporate it in the feed of rats, it's a beautiful carcinogen. Why don't we get [cancer from eating these mushrooms]? Simple reason is that we don't eat kilos each day of mushrooms. So, dosage really makes the toxin or carcinogen.” The argument that consuming plants that are fatal to tiny insects and rats is invalid because there are plants in the natural world that are toxic in dramatic quantities and the same goes for genetically modified
When newly developed genetically modified organisms go through evaluation, the FDA meets with the developers of the new genetically altered plant and they are allowed to explain their product’s purpose. The FDA then provides their response on what types of data would be necessary to assess the safety of the product. The plant developers must complete a safety assessment and submit the information the FDA. The FDA then evaluate everything about the newly developed plant and they consider things like whether the genetically modified plant contains a new toxin/ allergen or if the new plant is as nutritious as that from its traditionally cultivated counterpart. The FDA requires that genetically modified plants meet the same safety requirements as traditionally bred plants; therefore, the safety between the traditionally bred foods and genetically altered foods are the same. Of the 129 transgenic crops that have been submitted to the FDA from 1995 to 2012, all have failed to show any significant biologically relevant differences between the modified version and the traditional version (DeFrancesco 2013). Genetic modification of plants allows for crop improvement. We have the knowledge to create plants with better flavor, nutritional content, higher crop yield, resistance to disease and insects (FDA 2017). The FDA promotes a safe food supply for Americans and with strenuous …show more content…
No, there are many things wrong with that belief. For one the metabolism of a grasshopper is considerable different from that of humans. Also, the portion of a plant that is fatal to an insect could be completely safe for humans. Norman Boulaug, Ph. D. holding scientist responsible for saving thousands of lives from famine due to his advances in the genetic engineering of crops, said, “I find that in the foods that we have been eating from the beginning of agriculture, there are many toxic substances, but they are present in very small quantities.” Boulaug gives a great example about the common mushroom, “There are two [toxins] present in minute quantity. But if you isolate those, like Dr. Ames has, increase the dosage and incorporate it in the feed of rats, it's a beautiful carcinogen. Why don't we get [cancer from eating these mushrooms]? Simple reason is that we don't eat kilos each day of mushrooms. So, dosage really makes the toxin or carcinogen.” The argument that consuming plants that are fatal to tiny insects and rats is invalid because there are plants in the natural world that are toxic in dramatic quantities and the same goes for genetically modified