www.massmed.org/gmo Massachusetts healthcare community GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS i
Genetically
Modified Foods
Benefits and Risks
Written by Deepa Arya, MD, MPH, MBA, an associate of the
Massachusetts healthcare community Committee on Nutrition and
Physical Activity and a main care doctor with 17 years’ experience.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer wants to express sincere gratitude to Dr. Denise Rollinson for her assistance in developing the CME questions and to Ms. Robyn Alie on her behalf indispensable assistance with proofreading, editing, and formatting.
Disclaimer: Opinions indicated in this article are the ones for the author and
do certainly not express the views of Massachusetts healthcare community, or any agency associated with the United States (unless stated inside Appendix).
© Massachusetts Medical Society 2015. All liberties reserved.
www.massmed.org/gmo Massachusetts Medical Society GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS 1
Genetically Modified Foods:
Benefits and Risks
SUMMARY: Genetically modified meals are around for approximately two decades as they are considered generally safe, yet they continue
to generate debate. While many research has revealed that these engineered meals are since safe as typically grown foods, other research has revealed deleterious impacts in pets. In a meta-analysis, the majority of the studies showing geneti
cally modified meals in a confident light were noted to own a conflict of interest. The clinical community is concerned about industry limitations on screening of genetically modified seeds. Additionally, there is concern that revenue could be fueling the use of genetically modified crops. Ongoing independent studies to judge safety are expected. Scientific, economic, environmental, social, ethical, and political perspectives will have to be considered.
CONTENTS:
Introduction ...
… 2
What is Genetically Modified Food?… 2
Benefits ...
… 3
Safety and Risk Assessment… 3
Controversy and Opposition to Genetically Modified Foods… 5
Conclusion ...
… 6
Appendix ...
… 7
References ...
… 8
Please head to www.massmed.org/cme/gmo to complete the web CME program because of this paper.
2 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS Massachusetts Medical Society www.massmed.org/gmo
Introduction
Genetically modified meals have seeped in to the day-to-day diet
in the United States. In accordance with specialists, around 60–70percent of processed foods in the us contain ge-netically modified components.
1 The most typical genetical-
ly engineered meals are soybean, maize/corn, rapeseed oil, 1,2
tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco, rice, cranberries, raspberries, walnuts, and papayas.
3 Thus, typical foods containing corn
or high-fructose corn syrup (morning meal cereals, treats, soda), soybean, and canola oil could have genetically modified components.
1
What is Genetically Modified
Food?
Several hundreds of years ago, when individuals began domesticating
crops and pets, they started selecting better flowers for cultivation and better animals for breeding, initially unknow-ingly and later intentionally. Over large number of years, farmers developed flowers with desirable characteristics, like increased resis-tance to infection, bigger fruit, and greater health content. Scientific discoveries and technical advances have contin -
uously improved farming.
4
Traditional agricultural practices (both main-stream and or -
ganic) involve modification of genes of flowers to develop de -
sirable traits. But the breeder selects for genes indirectly by choosing parent plants because of the desirable characteristics; there is no direct control at the DNA degree because the reorganization associated with the genetic product occurs in a random fashion. On the other hand, genetic engineering causes highly targeted transfer of genes.
4
Because the essential framework of DNA is identical in all living things, experts usually takes a number of certain genes from almost any organism, including flowers, pets, bacteria, and viruses, and insert them in to the genome of another organ-ism.
4 This process is called recombinant DNA technology. 4,5
In agricultural biotechnology, recombinant DNA technology can be used to improve the plant’s genome. As soon as a gene with some desirable hereditary trait is identified, its removed and inserted into another plant’s genome. Plants containing genes from another system are known as “transgenics,”
3,4 “genetically engi-
neered (GE) plants,” 6 or, more broadly, “genetically modified
organisms (GMOs).”4 Since plants enhanced through tradi-
tional practices may also be considered genetically modified, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers “genetic engineering” become a more exact term.
2 The Ameri-
can Medical Association (AMA) also makes use of the terms “bioengi -
neered” or “genetically engineered” to reference foods produced through transgenic technologies.
7 The European Commission refers to these foods as GMOs.
8 For the purpose of this paper,
GM and GE are utilized interchangeably because both Ameri-can and European articles are referenced.
GM crops are categorized into three “generations,” based on the
objective of the trait that's being introduced:
6
1. First-generation GM plants are grown from seeds that have been derived with the aid of biotechnology to boost production of plants. These seeds have actually specific faculties to make them resistant to herbicides, insects, viruses, etc. The ensuing plants are not somewhat distinctive from the usually grown plants regarding appearance, taste, and nutrition. Examples of such crops are herbicide- resistant soybean, insect-resistant maize, and herbicide- and insect-resistant potato.
6
2. Second-generation GM plants have actually new faculties to increase the huge benefits for consumers, such as for example increased levels of protein, modified or healthier fats, modified carbohydrates, increased flavor, or increased micronutrients. Examples of such crops consist of rice with an increased level of beta- carotene, tomatoes with higher levels of carotenoids, maize with increased Vitamin C, soybean with improved amino acid composition, and potatoes with higher calcium content.
6
3. Third-generation GM crops have been in the research pipeline. These flowers could have faculties that will offer increased capacity to resist abiotic stress like drought, increased heat, or saline soils. Other traits may provide health benefits. Still another goal can be to generate “pharmaplants” to aid create active pharmaceutical services and products.
6 In February 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (Food And Drug Administration) authorized the permit for a recombi-nant antithrombin for prevention of bloodstream clots in clients with hereditary antithrombin deficiency. Recombinant antithrombin may be the first human biologic drug derived from the milk of goats which have been genetically engineered to create human being antithrombin inside their milk.
9 In April 2013,
the Flemish Bio protection Council authorized field experiments for genetically modified crops including poplar and corn because it thought your health risks had been “virtually non-existent” if strict settings were set up. The Flemish Institute for Biotechnology is overseeing an effort of poplar woods engineered to produce less lignin, a trait which makes it simpler to transform the timber into bio-fuels.
10
Like any brand new technology, the agricultural biotechnology poses benefits and risks. Different financial, environmental, social, ethical, and governmental problems should be considered.
www.massmed.org/gmo Massachusetts Medical Society GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS 3
Benefits
GM foods are developed because of some perceived benefits
to the manufacturers while the consumers. 11 the planet Health
Organization (whom) plus the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have outlined an extensive a number of the many benefits of GM meals.
12 This list is talked about below.
Insect Resistance
Agricultural biotechnology has been utilized to make the flowers insect-resistant. 3 Insect-resistance is attained by introducing
the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently utilized as an insecticide and it is considered safe for human being consumption. Flowers that create this toxin thus require reduced degrees of external insecticides.
12 Such hereditary modification could make the crop
production cheaper and much more manageable, including make pest control safer. Additionally, there clearly was decreased contamination associated with groundwater plus the environment from pesticides, which benefits farmers, producers, and customers.
11
Herbicide Resistance
Biotechnology normally used to develop herbicide-resistant plants particularly soybean, cotton, and corn, which reduce cost and environmental effect. Herbicide-resistant plants decrease or eliminate the significance of pre-emptive application of herbi-cides as well as for herbicides with greater toxicity. Herbicide- resistant crops require also less tilling of soil and so pre-serve topsoil from erosion.
11 Herbicide-resistance is achieved
by the development of a bacterial gene to share resistance for some herbicides.
12
Disease Resistance
Plants can also be engineered to resist condition much better than natural plants. For example, whenever a viral disease significantly threatened the Hawaiian papaya industry, the papayas were made disease-resistant through genetic engineering.
Similar scientific studies are being conducted to help make flowers such as
potatoes, squash, tomatoes, as well as other crops disease-resistant.
11
Nutritional along with other Enhancements
Genetic engineering are now able to produce nutritionally en-riched plants (e.g., “Golden Rice” has more Vitamin A due to incorporation of genes from a microbe and from daffodils),
3
longer lasting flowers, and plants with lower degrees of naturally occurring toxicants. 11
Other Benefits
GM plants may also be used for phytoremediation (use of plants to detoxify soil or groundwater), to conserve natural resources, to diminish nutrient runoff within the streams, also to assist meet the increasing world meals needs using a small amount of land.
11 Hardier plants is designed to better
endure harsher climates, lessening the quantity of gas, labor, fertilizer, and water required. Such innovations can help miti-gate the consequences of weather modification.
11
In the future transgenic plants may be used to create large degrees of affordable pharmaceuticals, polymers, en -
zymes, modified oils with decreased fat content,
3 and modi-
fied foods with decreased allergens. 12
Safety and Risk Assessment
The who's got identified three primary problems of concern for human wellness regarding genetically modified foods: allergenicity, gene transfer, and outcrossing.
12
Allergenicity
GM meals have the possible to cause allergies generally; this danger is related to the potential risks connected with usually grown meals.
13 But the proteins produced
by any newly introduced genes have the potential to cause another allergic reaction.
11 To stop such allergenic-
ity, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it may be proven your protein generated by the introduced gene will never be allergenic.
12 Also, tests are
conducted to examine the warmth and digestion security of these proteins, and any similarity to known allergenic proteins.
2,11 It
is vital that you keep in mind that the faculties which can be introduced into a particular plant are new to that plant but in many cases are found obviously in other plants.
11
Another potential risk is the introduction of a completely new protein that would not previously occur in system. Numerous, yet not all, genes used in GM meals are unique and don't have a brief history of safe meals use. Assessment of prospective allergenicity to novel proteins is more challenging due to the insufficient definitive tests to ascertain such risk. To try risk, scientists may compare the series of transferred genes towards the sequence of known allergenic proteins, study the security of newly expressed proteins against food digestion, making al-lergenicity predictions. This might be a topic of ongoing clinical research. Numerous agencies during the national and worldwide level have actually instituted directions for premarket danger assess-ment.
13 Thus far, who may have maybe not found any evidence of allergic
response to the GM meals presently available on the market. 12
Even though biotechnology is very precise, there's the potential threat of random insertion into the host genome. Random insertion of genes can result in instabilities on genetic or phenotypic degree. However, as yet, there isn't any clear clinical proof such effects.
13 Of note, random
insertion of genes can occur in traditional breeding too. Gene phrase in traditional and GM crops is topic to
4 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS Massachusetts health Society www.massmed.org/gmo
environmental factors including temperature or drought, which can
turn gene expression up or down. Evaluation of these envi-ronmental impacts is necessary.
13
Some types of the prospective manufacturing of, and reaction to, allergens include GM soybeans expressing methionine from the Brazilian nut and farm employees confronted with trans-genic, insect-resistant Bt crops displaying epidermis reactions.
14
The mobile foundation of the immune reaction just isn't fully under -
stood and thus ongoing scientific studies are required so that you can better understand the connection of immunity system with GM meals, aside from allergenicity.
13
Gene Transfer
Another potential concern due to GE meals may be the trans-fer of genetic material from GE meals towards the cells of the hu-man human body or the bacteria in intestinal tract.
12 DNA from
ingested meals isn't completely degraded by digestion and small fragments of DNA from GM foods have been within various areas of the gastrointestinal tract. This could bring about horizontal gene transfer considering absorption of DNA frag -
ments by gut microflora or somatic cells lining the intestinal cells. Dona and Arvanitoyannis have cited various studies that detected fragments of transgenic genes into the gastrointestinal tract, muscles, and white bloodstream cells and milk of cows. Other scientists demonstrate restrictions into the detection of GM DNA by currently available tests. Scientists have postulated that uptake of GM DNA into the cells for the gastrointestinal tract will not have any biological consequences because this DNA is likely to be degraded within the cells. However, it just isn't clear if individuals with gastrointestinal diseases can completely degrade this GM DNA.
14 An extensive medical evalua-
tion of the problem is a colossal task because no more than 1per cent associated with naturally current germs is cultured and so analyzed.
13
Theoretically, antibiotic-resistant genes introduced into GM flowers could possibly be used in people in the same manner. Even though the possibility of such an occurrence is ex-tremely low, the foodstuff and Agricultural Organization of the un (FAO) and WHO encourage the employment of tech-nology without antibiotic-resistant genes and discourage the application of unneeded DNA sequences.
12, 13
Outcrossing
The movement of genes from GM plants to conventional flowers or associated types in the open is called “outcrossing.” 12 As
an instance, in 2000, traces of “Starlink” GM maize that was authorized limited to feed use starred in the maize for individual usage into the United States.
13 If GM flowers are grown in
proximity to related plants there was a potential for trade associated with brand new characteristics via pollen.
11 After the Starlink situation, a few countries adopted strategies to reduce mixing and also to demonstrably separate GM and old-fashioned crops.
12 Farmers may also use
buffer zones, pollen obstacles, crop rotation, and monitoring during harvest, storage, transport, and processing to manage outcrossing.
13 In the case of GM plants, the EPA and USDA
conduct danger assessments to attenuate harm. Danger of transfer of hereditary product exists in usually grown plants.
11
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food And Drug Administration have the effect of ensuring the safety of plants, in collabo-ration with breeders whom measure the plants.
11 In accordance to
WHO, all GM foods ought to be evaluated before being permitted on the market. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), an intergovernmental human anatomy with 185 present users, has generated the Codex Standards
15 for risk analysis to protect
the health associated with the customers also to facilitate the trade of food by establishing worldwide criteria.
16
In addition to the three primary types of risk with GM foods, there are some other potential dangers of GM meals:
Pleitropic and Insertional Effects
A single gene could be in charge of or affect several phenotypic characteristic. This really is called pleitropy. 17
Introduced genes in GM meals may potentially silence the present genes, change expression of genes, or switch on genes that were previously maybe not expressed. Transgenic genes could connect to existing genes and biochemical paths of plants in unpredictable methods and result in production of toxic compounds. Genes only account fully for a percentage for the control on the biochemical processes of an organism; there are various other degrees of settings. Thus, the results of GE can be unpredict-able and the GM products unstable. It's important that the entire transgenic meals, not only the single protein, be tested for toxicity.
14
Increase in Anti-nutrients
Anti-nutrients are substances that interfere with the utiliza-tion of nutrients.
The insertion of a brand new gene can result in an increase in the
existing levels of anti-nutrients. For instance, glyphosate-
resistant Roundup Ready soybean has been shown to increase anti-nutrients. In sheep and cattle, heat-stable anti-nutrients such as for instance phytoestrogens, glucinins, and phytic acid have now been discovered to cause sterility, allergies, and decreased accessibility to phosphorus and zinc, respectively.
14
Use of Viral DNA in Plants
Most GM plants make use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S pro-moter (CaMV35S) to change on introduced gene. There was controversy concerning whether CaMV35S could possibly be horizontally
www.massmed.org/gmo Massachusetts healthcare community GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS 5
transferred and cause illness via carcinogenesis, mutagenesis,
reactivation of inactive viruses, or generation of the latest viruses. Some scientists genuinely believe that CaMV found in meals isn't in -
fectious and can't be absorbed by mammals. Some boffins additionally mention that humans are ingesting CaMV and its particular 35S promoter in high amounts and it has never caused any illness or recombined along with other viruses. Ongoing studies are needed to analyze this issue.
14
Environmental Effects
Beyond the prospective direct results on individual health, GM flowers also provide environmental results on non-target organ-isms (organisms which are not insects), such as wild birds, bugs, worms, bees, and seafood.
11,12 Other potential ecological risks
are the persistence for the gene after the GMO happens to be har -
vested, and possibility gene uncertainty, biodiversity loss, or increased use of usage of chemical compounds in farming.
12 APHIS
and the EPA do review any ecological effects of GE crops ahead of field evaluating and commercial launch.
11 While
environmental impacts are going to affect humans, an in-depth discussion of the ecological ramifications of GM crops is beyond the range of the paper.
Controversy and Opposition to
Genetically Modified Foods
Companies that produce GM seeds (such as for instance Monsanto,
Sygenta, and DuPont) exert broad control over the utilization of
seeds by mandating that the farmers come right into a “Technology/Stewardship Agreement.” This contract outlines the con-ditions under which the seed works extremely well, in which it may possibly be grown, where it may be sold, while the model of herbicide that could be utilized. This might be called “bag-tag,” and in addition it restricts the study on seeds. Boffins working through public funds are no more liberated to conduct independent analyses on the seeds. They need to obtain approval from each seed business or gene patent holder.
18
The scientific community was frustrated by these indus -
try restrictions on separate research. Entomologists are involved about whether pest insects will end up resistant to Bt-derived toxins. Crop researchers are unsure the length of time glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup — an herbicide that flowers had been genetically engineered to be resistant) will continue to be effective; at the same time, weeds may developing opposition. In 2009, two dozen scientists representing pub-lic research organizations in seventeen corn-producing states informed the EPA about industry practices and warned that industry influence had made independent research on trans-genic crops infeasible. In response, the seed businesses came across because of the researchers and consented to research agreements called Academic analysis Licenses (ARLs) with public organizations. ARLs eliminated the need for the researchers to utilize for re-search on a case-by-case basis. But the bag-tag restric-tions are not eliminated, as seed companies cited reasons of competition. Considering ongoing grievances through the scien-tific community, in 2012, a, through its Ameri-can Seed Trade Association (ASTA), agreed to allow greater latitude to review the results of GM crops on soil, bugs and pesticide usage, also to evaluate environmental impacts. But the industry continues to limit research on engineered plant genes. The research on patent-protected areas of cultivation, particularly breeding processes, reverse gene engineering, and gene adjustments are still limited by industry.
18
Facing shrinking public funds, boffins are increasingly de-pendent on seed companies for research capital. Universities must nevertheless negotiate the regards to the ARLs with each company. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in Food and Environment Program during the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) seems your contract with the industry is vague, voluntary and hard to enforce. Gurian-Sherman asserts that the improvements in crop yield have occurred by con-ventional reproduction and not as a consequence of planting GM plants, as reported by a.
18 Gurian-Sherman contends that the
vast most genetic improvements of plants have actually occurred through breeding and not through GE, which GE has supplied almost nothing since Bt and Glyphosphate herbi -
cide resistance. Just about 10–15per cent of this world’s cropland keeps growing GMOs, consisting primarily of five plants — feed corn, soybean, cotton, canola, and sugar beets. Most GMOs are not feeding individuals straight but getting used for animal feed, biofuel, or fibre. In addition, the GM faculties getting used today are mostly to create flowers insect-resistant (Bt trait) and also to cause them to become herbicide-resistant (Roundup prepared trait). Farmers have actually really switched from one type of insecti-cide or herbicide to another. Gurian-Sherman feels it is possible that GE is likely to make some efforts in the future however they are probably be modest and high priced.
19
Bill Freese, science policy analyst for Center for Food Safety, states that regardless if the contract utilizing the industry is imple-mented, it would only influence the crops which have already been commercialized. He thinks that it is imperative to learn the seed before they get federal approval, because when approved, its extremely difficult to withdraw a crop through the market.
18
He contends that agricultural biotechnology organizations such as for example Monsanto exploit the meals crisis by increasing the prices of GM seeds and pesticides, and so are driven by earnings not to feed the world’s bad. Farmers in developing nations cannot pay the seeds and pesticides at these excessive costs. U.S. farm -
ers are facing dramatic increases in prices.
20
A report created by Friends associated with the Earth states that the vast majority of GM crops is not grown the world’s poor,
6 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS Massachusetts Medical Society www.massmed.org/gmo
but is utilized as animal feed, biofuels, or even for producing
highly processed foods consumed in rich countries. It asserts your agricultural biotechnology industry hasn't produced an individual GM crop with additional yield, drought-tolerance, or salt-tolerance. In 2008, 85% of all GM plants global were planted for the advantage of herbicide-resistance (mainly Monsanto’s Roundup prepared crop used with Roundup herbi-cide). In 2008, the usa, Argentina, and Brazil were accountable for 80percent of GM crops. The United States alone produced 50percent associated with the world’s GM crops in 2008. Expertise in these three countries has verified that GM crops have actually actually generated increased pesticide usage, like the use of toxic chemicals prohibited in a few European countries. In some cases, the crop yield was at fact discovered to have decreased. Herbicide- resistant crops (primarily soybean) keep on being popular with big growers simply because they simplify and reduce the necessity for labor for weed control. The simplification and paid off work expenses make up for the reduced yield and high cost of seeds.
21
Domingo and Bordonaba conducted a literature review on the security evaluation of GM flowers. They found that in recent years the amount of references to GMOs has increased however the amount of studies centered on security of GMOs was nevertheless limited. The writers suggested that the reason for not enough security studies are due to the fact that the “substantial equivalence” concept ended up being used for assessment. The “substan -
tial equivalence” concept is dependant on the principle that “if a new food is available to be significantly comparable in composi -
tion and health traits to a preexisting meals, it could be seen as being because safe due to the fact old-fashioned meals.” Additionally, for the first time, there is apparently balance between your studies that suggest that GM flowers (primarily maize and soy -
beans) are as safe and nutritionally beneficial as main-stream non-GMO flowers plus the studies that raise severe concerns. Notably, most of the studies that revealed GM plants become as safe as traditional plants had been conducted by the biotechnology organizations, that are additionally accountable for commercializing GM plants.
22
Diels, et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 94 articles regarding GM meals. They unearthed that the presence of either monetary or expert conflict of interest ended up being somewhat associated with the studies’ showing favorable outcomes for the GM foods. While this may perhaps not indicate an actual intent among these institution -
al authors, it surely poses a risk. Diels, et al., postulated that commercial interests can hinder the results of dangers and nutritional analyses as well as other capital sources like the federal government or NGOs have actually the potential to taint the studies also. Also, values held by the experts performing research might also influence their results.
23
Conclusion
GM plants have already been in existence for about two decades. GM plants have numerous potential benefits and dangers. Different security studies have shown both positive and negative results. However, safety and risk are a couple of separate dilemmas. Ongoing long-term studies to evaluate the security and dangers are needed.
Obesity is called an epidemic in america. Ap -
proximately 35% of grownups and 17per cent of children into the United
States are overweight. The rise in obesity along with an aging society has generated increased incidence of diabetes and hyper -
tension.
24 Our meals is a significant determinant of our health and wellness.
With making use of pesticides, herbicides, and GE, our food has changed. Corn is extensively found in processed foods and ani-mal feeds, and GM corn now makes up nearly the entire U.S. crop. GM soybeans aren't far behind.
18 Thus it is important
to measure the nutritive value associated with meals we produce.
There are studies on both edges for the safety issue; but,
the studies showing excellent results may have a conflict of in-terest. Experts have actually cited many studies showing deleterious aftereffects of GM foods in animals. Such deleterious impacts have already been noticed on growth, gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, hematological system, biochemical parameters, fertility, and mortality. Harmful impacts on humans have also been noticed; milk of cows treated with rbGH results in a rise in IGF-1, which according to some scientists, may stimulate growth of cancer tumors cells.
14 Other people have disregarded
these studies, stating that “every major international technology human anatomy within the world” has reviewed hundreds of separate studies and reached a consensus that “GMO plants are as safe or safer than main-stream or organic meals.”
25 A team of Ital-
ian scientists has summarized 1,783 studies in regards to the safety and environmental effects of GM foods, and couldn't find “a solitary credible example showing that GM meals pose any problems for people or animals.”
25 The writers acknowledge
that the European governments, Italy in particular, haven't used GM foods because enthusiastically as North and Southern United states nations, but they state that the view regarding the Euro-pean researchers is generally good. They argue that the reason behind general public distrust of GMOs lies in “psychology, politics, and false debates.”
25
Ongoing independent studies without the disputes of interest are essential Scientists shouldn't be restricted from evaluation seeds ahead of any approval. GM food anywhere in the meals string gets the possible to reach humans
14 and any environ-
mental results will finally affect people. Just as a new drug calls for rigorous assessment, GM meals should also need such testing. Deficiencies in evidence that GM foods are unsafe shouldn't be considered evidence that they're safe.
14 GM
foods should also have ongoing surveillance and monitoring.
www.massmed.org/gmo Massachusetts Medical Society GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS 7
Appendix
Positions of Various Organizations
American Medical Association (AMA): Bioengineered foods
have been consumed for nearly 20 years and so far no overt effects on human being health were reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literary works. Federal regulatory oversight of bioengineered plants should carry on. There is no medical jurisdiction for unique labeling of bioengineered food and voluntary labeling is without value unless accom-panied by customer education. AMA supports mandatory pre-market security assessment of bioengineered foods. AMA has urged the FDA to “remain tuned in to new information on health effects of bioengineered foods and upgrade its regu-latory policies accordingly.” AMA also supports continued research into the potential environmental ramifications of bioengi-neered crops and assessment of agricultural effect together with effect on farmers. AMA acknowledges the numerous great things about bioengineered plants and does not help a moratorium on growing bioengineered crops. Finally, AMA urges the govern-ment, industry, consumer advocacy groups, together with clinical and medical communities to coach the general public and supply impartial information on genetically engineered foods.
7
European Commission: The European Commission has com-bined europe science-based authorization system with freedom for specific user states to select the cultivation of GMOs. GMOs are authorized inside European Union on a case-by-case foundation with respect to the uses defined by the business while the positive health and environmental safety evaluation. Member states pay a significant role and execute the original evaluation for the GMO for cultivation. Member states have the right to limit or prohibit cultivation of GMOs in parts or all their territory. However, user states cannot prohibit the import and/or advertising within the European Union of authorized GM seeds.
26 The European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for risk evaluation and the Commission is in charge of risk management.
27 Several
GMOs are cultivated within the European Union. Six user states (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, and Luxembourg) have invoked the “safeguard clause” to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their regions.
28 Poland has prohibited
marketing of all of the GM seeds. 26
Regarding labeling, the European Commission requires that meals and feed items containing GMOs be labeled as such, and that the label become plainly noticeable. But food and feed items that have lower than 0.9% of GMOs in each ingredi-ent will not need to be defined as GMO, supplied the current presence of the GMO is adventitious or theoretically unavoidable. Adventitious existence is described as the existence of trace amounts either accidentally or because of theoretically unavoidable contamination during growth, harvesting, transportation, or processing. It's the obligation of the farmer to show your existence of GMO had been adventitious or theoretically unavoidable.
27
FDA: Food from genetically engineered plants must meet with the same security requirements as typically bred plants. FDA has an appointment process to encourage the developers of genetically engineered plants to check with FDA prior to marketing and advertising their products or services. This procedure ensures that the merchandise are safe and lawful. Foods from genetically engi-neered flowers are released into the U.S. market just after FDA’s questions regarding the safety are solved. Evaluations carried out by FDA show that genetically engineered flowers are generally because nutritionally beneficial as traditionally grown plants. FDA supports voluntary labeling, offered such labeling is honest and never deceptive.
2
International Provider for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Ap-plications (ISAAA): Despite the current doubt over GM plants, biotechnology has the potential to produce economically essential crop varieties. There are numerous legitimate concerns. In order to resolve these problems, choices must be predicated on cred-ible systematic information. Policies regarding GM crops needs to be according to available and truthful discussions involving a wide cross-section associated with the culture.
29
USDA: “USDA supports the safe and appropriate use of tech-nology, including biotechnology, to greatly help meet agricultural challenges and consumer needs of this 21st century. USDA plays key roles in assuring that biotechnology flowers and products based on these flowers are safe to be grown and found in america.”
11
WHO: GM meals available on the worldwide market have actually passed away the tests for danger assessments and are not likely to pose dangers for individual wellness anymore than their main-stream counterparts. Constant risk evaluation and safety evaluation is advised.
12,13
8 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS Massachusetts Healthcare Community www.massmed.org/gmo
References
1. Dahl, R., “To Label or Not to Label, ecological wellness Perspectives,”
Environmental wellness Perspectives (2012), 120 (9): 359-361, http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.120-a358.pdf, accessed Mar. 6, 2014.
2. United States Food and Drug management (Food And Drug Administration), “Questions & An -
swers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants,” http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm, final up-to-date Apr. 7, 2013.
3. United states of america Department of Agriculture, “exactly what are GMO’s,” http://ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=7205, accessed Nov. 17, 2013.
4. Wieczorek, A., “History of Agricultural Biotechnology: exactly how Crop Devel-opment has developed,” http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/history-of-agricultural-biotechnology-how-crop-development-25885295, accessed Nov. 17, 2013.
5. Watson, J.D. et al., Recombinant DNA, 2nd ed. Ny, NY: W. H. Freeman, 1992.
6. Magaña-Gómez, J. A., and Calderón de los angeles Barca, A.M., “Risk Assess-ment of Genetically Modified Crops for Nutrition and Health.” Nutrition Reviews 67.1 (2009): 1-16.
7. United states Medical Association, “Report 2 associated with the Council on Science and Public wellness: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods” (2012), http://factsaboutgmos.org/sites/default/files/AMA%20Report.pdf, accessed on Dec 1, 2013.
8. Statement of James Maryanski, “Biotechnology Coordinator, Food And Drug Administration, before Subcommittee on preliminary research, home Committee on Science, Geneti-cally Engineered Foods” (1999), http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/ testimony/ucm115032.htm, accessed Dec. 1, 2013.
9. FDA, “FDA Approves Orphan Drug ATryn to deal with Rare Clotting Disorder” (2009), http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/
PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm109074.htm, accessed Nov. 21, 2013.
10. Hope, Alan, Information in brief, “Flanders Today” (March 4, 2013), http://www.flanderstoday.eu/current-affairs/news-brief-03042013, accessed Nov. 21, 2013.
11. USDA, “Biotechnology Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGRICULTURE&contentid= BiotechnologyFAQs.xml, accessed Nov. 17, 2013.
12. whom, “20 concerns on genetically modified foods,” http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html, accessed on Nov 21, 2013.
13. Food protection Department, “World Health Organization, contemporary Food Bio-technology, Human health insurance and Development: an Evidence Based research,” http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf
14. Dona, A., and Arvanitoyannis, I.S., “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49.2 (2009): 164-175.
15. Codex Alimentarius, “Global Food Standards,” http://www. codexalimentarius.org/, accessed Nov. 21, 2013. 16.
World wellness Organization, “Codex Alimentarius,” http://www.who.int/foodsafety/codex/en/, accessed Nov. 21, 2013.
17. U.S. Nationwide Library of Medicine Glossary, http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ glossary=pleiotropy, accessed Mar. 6, 2014.
18. Stutz, B., “Wanted: GM Seeds for Research,” Seedmagazine.com (Dec 16, 2013), http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wanted_gm_seeds_for_study, accessed Dec. 13, 2013.
19. Union of Concerned Scientists, “Do We Need GMOs?” http://blog.ucsusa.org/do-we-need-gmos-322, accessed Dec. 14, 2013.
20. Center for Food protection, “Genetically Modified Crops Feed Biotech Giants, maybe not poor people,” http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food- labelingsupport-us/press-releases/824/genetically-modified-crops-feed- biotech-giants-not-the-poor#, accessed Dec. 14, 2013.
21. Lopez Villar, J., et al. “Who advantages from gm plants? Feeding the biotech giants, perhaps not the world’s bad.” (2009), http://www.foei.org/resources/ publications/publications-by-subject/food-sovereignty-publications/who- benefits-from-gm-crops-2009-executive-summary/ accessed on Aug 3, 2014.
22. Domingo, José L., and Jordi Giné Bordonaba. “A literature review on safety evaluation of genetically modified flowers.” Environment international
37.4 (2011): 734-742.
23. Diels, Johan, et al. “Association of economic or expert conflict of interest to analyze results on health risks or health evaluation studies of genetically modified services and products.” Food Policy 36.2 (2011): 197-203.
24. Centers for infection Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov, accessed Dec. 15, 2013.
25. Entine, J. and Wendel, J., “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe to consume and Environmentally Sustainable,” Forbes, (Oct. 14, 2013), http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat- and-environmentally-sustainable, accessed Dec. 14, 2013.
26. European Commission, “Questions and Answers on the EU’s brand new Ap-proach toward Cultivation of GMOs,” MEMO/10/325 13/07/2010, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10-325_en.htm?locale=en, accessed Dec. 10, 2013.
27. Europa, “Summaries of EU legislation,” http://europa.eu/legislation_ summaries/agriculture/food/l21154_en.htm, accessed Dec. 10, 2013.
28. European Commission, “Food > Plant> GMOs > Safeguards,” http://ec. europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/safeguards/index_en.htm, accessed Dec. 10, 2013.
29. Global Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), “Pocket K #1: Q and A about Genetically Modified Crops,” http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/1/, accessed Dec. 10, 2013.
www.massmed.org/gmo Massachusetts Medical Society GENETICALLY MODIFIED MEALS 9
Please head to www.massmed.org/cme/gmo
to complete the online CME course for this paper.
CME Credit: 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™
The Massachusetts health Society designates this enduring product for
a optimum of just one AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™.
Physicians should claim only credit commensurate utilizing the extent of these participation in the activity.
The Massachusetts healthcare community is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing healthcare Education to offer continuing medical training for physicians.
A score of 70% or higher is required to get AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™.
Please see www.massmed.org/healthtopics for home elevators public health conditions, developed for clients and doctors by the Massachusetts healthcare Socie
ty.
860 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451-1411
Tel: (781) 893-4610 Toll Free: (800) 322- 2303 www.massmed.org

How to cite this essay: