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. That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages. This article was originally published with the title "Are Engineered Foods Evil? Food, Inc. Peter Pringle.
Tough Lessons from Golden Rice. Martin Enserink in Science , Vol. Natasha Gilbert in Nature , Vol. Watch a video on how genetically modified crops are made at ScientificAmerican. David H. Freedman is a journalist who has been covering science, business and technology for more than 30 years. Credit: Nick Higgins.
Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. See Subscription Options. Go Paperless with Digital. The vast majority of the research on genetically modified GM crops suggests that they are safe to eat and that they have the potential to feed millions of people worldwide who currently go hungry. Yet not all criticisms of GM are so easily rejected, and pro-GM scientists are often dismissive and even unscientific in their rejection of the counterevidence.
A careful analysis of the risks and benefits argues for expanded deployment and safety testing of GM crops. Benefits and worries The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Credit: Jen Christiansen Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods.
Scientists can use these newer genome editing tools to make crops more nutritious, drought tolerant, and resistant to insect pests and diseases. Did you know? Identify To produce a GMO plant, scientists first identify what trait they want that plant to have, such as resistance to drought, herbicides, or insects. Copy After scientists find the gene with the desired trait, they copy that gene. For Bt corn, they copied the gene in Bt that would provide the insect-resistance trait.
Insert Next, scientists use tools to insert the gene into the DNA of the plant. This new trait does not change the other existing traits.
Grow In the laboratory, scientists grow the new corn plant to ensure it has adopted the desired trait insect resistance. Cossins, Daniel. BBC, 9 Mar. Boyle, Rebecca. Popular Science, 24 Jan. Paine, Jacqueline A. Shipton, Sunandha Chaggar, Rhian M. Howells, Mike J. Kennedy, Gareth Vernon, Susan Y. Wright, Edward Hinchliffe, Jessica L. Adams, Aron L. Silverstone, and Rachel Drake. BBC, Hsu, Patrick D. Lander, and Feng Zhang.
FDA, 30 June Jules why do you have to be so rude? Your rudeness is gross, take a chill pill and work on your soul. I would love to be a genetic engineer and create something new.
They say that gmo is bad for you tho. Farmers now only grow that corn. Gene gun? Gene guns are not fake—Wikipedia has a pretty good description of what a gene gun is. Study only conducted on a certain topic but I have seen similar research on other fields of study concluding similar things…. This is really amazing! My Biology teacher made us read this article, and it was much more interesting than I thought it would be.
The process to create GE foods is different than selective breeding. This involves selecting plants or animals with desired traits and breeding them. Over time, this results in offspring with those desired traits.
One of the problems with selective breeding is that it can also result in traits that are not desired. Genetic engineering allows scientists to select one specific gene to implant. This avoids introducing other genes with undesirable traits.
Genetic engineering also helps speed up the process of creating new foods with desired traits. These concerns have thus far been unfounded. None of the GE foods used today have caused any of these problems. They assess the safety of GE foods to humans, animals, plants, and the environment.
0コメント